Theme: Cooperation

  • RANDOM ACTS OF CHARITY I do stupid little stuff all the time. I bought the secur

    RANDOM ACTS OF CHARITY

    I do stupid little stuff all the time.

    I bought the security guards coffee yesterday.

    I stuck 500H (about 60 bucks) in an old lady’s pocket today, while idling on a corner.

    I offered to buy two people I’ve only met once dinner at a restaurant they can’t afford.

    Just little stuff.

    And I can personally attest that the data is correct: doing stupid little stuff for other people makes you incredibly happy.

    Now, I don’t have the fortitude like our friend Scott (in Seattle) does. I mean,he’s the real thing. A real christian hero.

    So It’s not the kind of thing that you get into eternity for.

    But it certainly makes you happier.

    And I’m pretty sure it makes the world a better place.

    Just a little bit.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-09-08 12:55:00 UTC

  • LIBERTARIAN MISSION 1) CORRECTION To correct libertarian morality by completing

    LIBERTARIAN MISSION

    1) CORRECTION

    To correct libertarian morality by completing it with propertarian morality necessary and sufficient to preserve a high trust society.

    2) RECONSTRUCTION

    To reconstruct libertarianism relying entirely on ratio – scientific arguments.

    3) REDIRECTION

    To focus libertarian argument on postmodernism rather than socialism, now that we have sufficient evidence to do so.

    4) ENFRANCHISEMENT

    To provide a rational, scientific language of sufficient scope and depth to unite conservatives and libertarians using propertarian reasoning to explain libertarian formal institutions and conservative (aristocratic) informal institutions (norms), as mutually dependent sets of institutions.

    5) JUSTIFICATION

    To restore violence as the first, necessary, and sufficient requirement for creation and persistence of the institution and of property, and the freedom and liberty that result from it.

    6) RESULT

    To provide a means for a minority of those of us who prefer property rights, freedom to act and liberty from constraint to obtain and persist all, and to justify that means as morally necessary, obligatory, and just.

    The bourgeoise are free riders: thieves. Aristocracy is earned. It is not a right. It is demanded. It is taken. And it is taken by force if needed.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-09-08 11:39:00 UTC

  • What Are The Key Takeaways From The Wealth Of Nations?

    1) The division of labor is many thousands of times more productive than what an individual can do alone.
    2) The division of knowledge and labor produces a moral society without the enforcement of religion or law.
    3) International trade allows countries to specialize.
    4) International trade produces peace.

    https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-key-takeaways-from-The-Wealth-of-Nations

  • What Are The Key Takeaways From The Wealth Of Nations?

    1) The division of labor is many thousands of times more productive than what an individual can do alone.
    2) The division of knowledge and labor produces a moral society without the enforcement of religion or law.
    3) International trade allows countries to specialize.
    4) International trade produces peace.

    https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-key-takeaways-from-The-Wealth-of-Nations

  • THE CHOICE OF ALIENATION Alienated: ostracized, outcast, irrelevant, indifferent

    THE CHOICE OF ALIENATION

    Alienated: ostracized, outcast, irrelevant, indifferent, without value to the group, independent, alone.

    Why have we evolved this feeling?

    Because it is an instinctual warning that our status is low. Not only are we not desirable mating material. But we do not provide the other members of the group with value. They see no promise that we will provide value. And we see no promise of providing value. So our wishes can be comfortably discounted in any group decision. We need not consume group effort and resources. And we can be left behind in duress (die or be fired). We evolved that feeling so that we would be desperately incentivized to find a way to provide value. In history it was a death sentence. Today it is a subject of cognitive therapy.

    What causes this feeling in history?

    The organization of humans engaged production has been declining from the tribe (Hunter gatherer), to extended family (agrarian settlement), to nuclear family (prohibition on inbreeding), to the Isolated family(industrialism) to the individual (information age and feminism), as the division of labor and knowledge increases due the increase of people in the work-force.

    We evolved to use visible signals, emotional expressions, and personal knowledge of one another, living in bands and tribes, and we now communicate by pricing signals and a hierarchy of manners, ethics and morals, whose only visible feedback is negative, and our only success metric consumption and survival. We are not administered by the knowledge of others, but by antique religious norms, contemporary-religious norms (Postmodernism), an inconceivable network of laws, and a system of credit information which cares nothing about the vicissitudes of our lives. We live in physically isolated spaces, free from the compromise with others, free to imaging our own status within our family, tribe and nation, as whatever we dream it to be. We choose to live alone. We choose our spatial freedom. We choose our freedom to consume. To spend our efforts on the self, without compromise to the family, extended family, clan, tribe and nation. We choose it on purpose. Willingly. And almost universally, all people, who have the opportunity to choose spatial freedom, person consumption, and freedom from compromise do so whenever possible. We are confronted not with inequality, but with the pervasive evidence that we are all equal in our near-irrelevance to one another outside of the mother-child bond. The further west we move the less tangible is the tradition of kinship, so even genes do not guarantee us membership.

    But given the choice we almost always choose consumption. Because we are too selfish to forgo the opportunity for stimulation, experience, consumption and status to compromise with others and reduce both the opportunity to gain stimulation, as well as the chance that the illusion of our status, be erased by constant interaction with others who would dispel it.

    Alienation is the price we pay for selfishness. And we pay it willingly.

    We complain about the prevalence of a McDonalds hamburger, which has more calories than most people could consume in a week, and more chemicals that they could absorb in a lifetime. We complain about the cost of everything, even though our purchasing power is unrivaled.

    We criticize the cost of living near good schools. We envy those with clothes, goods, cars and homes as conspicuous consumers when the only difference between their goods and ours is the status signal that accompanies it, and the conflict this causes between the illusion of our mating status and our observable reality.

    Status in american life requires little more than a college education, a two income family, that provides someone else what they want, so that we can get what we want. But most other people want something the provision of which is mundane, uninteresting, boring, repetitious – because that is what makes something inexpensive.

    We complain about military spending, while it is paid for almost entirely by exporting debt, so the dollars can be used in the market for petroleum, and then we inflate the debt away, conveniently taxing the developed world for our military, while providing us extraordinary trading rights, and the stabilization of prices of commodities, without which americans would lose between a quarter and a third of their standard of living.

    Will women choose to restore the nuclear family and abandon the workplace? Will people forgo selling their labor at ‘jobs’ and return to direct participation in production and commerce, and the risk that comes with doing so? Will they abandon commerce altogether and resort to sustenance farming? It does not appear so.

    Will the american society become as redistributionist as the smaller nations try to? No. We are no longer kin, or near kin. and People sacrifice only for kin. Kinship can be determined by values and culture alone, not genetic relation. But we are not homogenous enough. WHy? Because human moral codes are determined by family structures, family structures by the allocation of property, and the level of technology involved in production. People will not fund alternative moral codes. Redistribution is for the small and homogenous, where homogenous means homogenous family structure, and homogenous morality, homogenous values, and marginally homogenous kinship. Trust is necessary to avoid the economic friction of corruption and a diversity of manners, ethics, morals, values and family structure leads to a competition for status signals, a competition for power, divisiveness, and a decline in trust necessary for the prevention of corruption and the low friction of trade.

    We still worship Marx’s moral vision, which all of us would embrace if it was possible, even though we know that without prices and incentives to inform us what to do, we would be at the merciless subjection of those who would command us into equality. But where our only possible equality is in poverty.

    Everyone wants the same thing: the illusion that is Denmark. The problem is, all the adults can’t figure out any other way to get there. The only way we know of is ‘small’.

    Equality of care for one another amidst the inequality of value to one another is only achievable with kin.

    And that’s where we got the feeling from.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-08-16 09:43:00 UTC

  • ANSWER NEEDED Although our strategy of blocking worked. PEOPLE WILL SUFFER FOR K

    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/08/04/is-there-any-point-to-economic-analysis/ANOTHER ANSWER NEEDED

    Although our strategy of blocking worked.

    PEOPLE WILL SUFFER FOR KIN.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-08-04 15:04:00 UTC

  • NEW MORAL PRINCIPLE FOR THE POST INDUSTRIAL ERA? What was the last moral princip

    NEW MORAL PRINCIPLE FOR THE POST INDUSTRIAL ERA?

    What was the last moral principle that humans discovered? Think about that for a bit. Because I have been. And, I think I understand the evolution of NECESSARY moral principles as well or better than anyone.

    And, while I’m not positive (because I haven’t read every word ever written in this world) I think I might have discovered the first new NECESSARY moral principle of the post-agrarian era.

    When I first wrote about it a few years ago, I didn’t think about it as novel. It was just a necessary constraint for suppressing fraud at scale. And I think it transitions an existing MORAL principle to an ETHICAL principle. (In the sense that Moral principles are those where your actions are entirely anonymous, and ethical actions are where your actions are not anonymous but you possess asymmetric knowledge.) So the ethical constraint enforces the moral objective.

    We tend to view norms as sacrosanct. But while instinctual morality remains constant (at least within kin) descriptive morality (morality in practice) varies with the structure of the reproductive unit and the structure of the means of production. Our ‘savage’ ancestors would not practice our moral codes nor we theirs. Mostly because the ‘momentum’ of production that we call ‘scarcity-productivity’ is so much higher now that we can afford to take risks that they couldn’t.

    We are’t so much morally superior by choice as we are superior by advent of technologies of cooperation and production. And those material advantages allow us to treat increasing numbers of people as kin – by raising our standard of violence in pursuit of calories. to the point now where we rarely need violence for material matters, and most violence occurs over mates or status – which in practice may be the same thing.

    At this point in our development, we have forbidden all violence, theft and fraud, and we suppress it well, by forcing all competition into the market for goods and services. HOwever, our ORGANIZATIONS are terribly immoral both in private and public senses. The private are subject to competition so their immorality is just suppressed quickly, and they cannot calcify the way government does, into predatory bureaucracies and survive for long. Whereas the government can devolve in to predatory bureaucracy almost from the formation of a bureaucratic organization.

    To make matters worse, we can privatize almost everything that a government does and cure most of the problem. But we cannot privatize everything, because when we say ‘privatize’ we mean tat we o pen it to competition. But in any competition there are losers, and you cannot build the commons willingly if there is a chance that any given participant will ‘lose’. And that is why, whether my libertarian friends like it or not, some form of ‘government’ will always exist: to produce commons in lieu of competition (loss).

    As such, what can we do to prevent corruption in the commons? What is the one institutional, ethical principle that we could adhere to in order to prevent all the forms of theft of commons that occur in every bureaucracy?

    Humans engage in violence – largely for status and mate seeking reasons. Humans engage in Theft, largely for petty entertainment, or drug use. Humans engage in fraud for many reasons, but usually as a means of income. Humans engage in fraud by omission as a matter of course. And Humans free-ride whenever and wherever possible outside of ascetic protestantism. IN fact, that is what differentiates ascetic protestantism – the prohibition on free riding.

    Where there is an organization that they can seek rents, humans engage in rent seeking (‘limited monopoly’, ‘loyalty fees’, ‘charity’, privatization of gains,socialization of losses) whenever possible.

    Where they are In organizations, humans engage in interpersonal corruption, rent seeking, privatization of gains, and systemic corruption.

    Where they are in control of organizations they engage in systemic theft, systemic fraud, war and conquest.

    Humans have an ethical portfolio with just one, one-note song we call competition in the free market. But they have a symphony of immoral options available to them. So it’s no surprise that when we give people incentives to act to steal, that they do so.

    We are fascinatingly creative creatures really.

    Curt Doolittle

    (c a l c u l a t i o n: maintaining causal relations by prohibiting pooling and laundering.)


    Source date (UTC): 2013-08-02 03:12:00 UTC

  • What Does It Feel Like To Be Intelligent Enough To Understand How Dumb One Often Is?

    Well, it makes you feel like you’re profoundly stupid actually. And to feel horrified about how much more stupid everyone else is.  But to live in AWE of how we manage to work together using habits, norms, traditions, myths, narratives, writing, property rights, money, prices, accounting, contracts, law, measurements, and the scientific method.  That’s actually as close to magic as I think we’ve come.

    As for the problem of competency, the Dunning-Kreuger graph says it all. 

    • While people vary little in their perception of competence or incompetence, about all competence is actually held by only 20-25% of people.

    This statistic correlates with two other interesting rules of thumb:

    • The Pareto observation that 20% of the population owns 80% of the property. The reason being that they’re the only ones competent to make use of it. 
    • The IQ distribution that suggests that the minimum intelligence necessary to do anything meaningful is what we currently consider 106 or so.  That no more than 10% of the population can actually understand a liberal arts education.




    https://www.quora.com/What-does-it-feel-like-to-be-intelligent-enough-to-understand-how-dumb-one-often-is

  • What Does It Feel Like To Be Intelligent Enough To Understand How Dumb One Often Is?

    Well, it makes you feel like you’re profoundly stupid actually. And to feel horrified about how much more stupid everyone else is.  But to live in AWE of how we manage to work together using habits, norms, traditions, myths, narratives, writing, property rights, money, prices, accounting, contracts, law, measurements, and the scientific method.  That’s actually as close to magic as I think we’ve come.

    As for the problem of competency, the Dunning-Kreuger graph says it all. 

    • While people vary little in their perception of competence or incompetence, about all competence is actually held by only 20-25% of people.

    This statistic correlates with two other interesting rules of thumb:

    • The Pareto observation that 20% of the population owns 80% of the property. The reason being that they’re the only ones competent to make use of it. 
    • The IQ distribution that suggests that the minimum intelligence necessary to do anything meaningful is what we currently consider 106 or so.  That no more than 10% of the population can actually understand a liberal arts education.




    https://www.quora.com/What-does-it-feel-like-to-be-intelligent-enough-to-understand-how-dumb-one-often-is

  • What Is Capitalism’s Fundamental Flaw?

    CAPITALISM DOESN’T HAVE A FLAW – IT’S INSUFFICIENT

    It’s a necessary tool for cooperating in a vast division of labor. Humans are not all that meritocratic by nature, and don’t like lotteries.  And capitalism is a necessary, meritocratic, lottery.

    It isn’t just. It isn’t fair. It’s just necessary.  So how do you take what’s necessary and then on top of it, make it somewhat just and somewhat fair?   That’s what we’re always trying to do. It’s just that government as we currently know it, isn’t a very good way of doing that.

    There is a very big difference between fair and desirable.

    https://www.quora.com/What-is-capitalisms-fundamental-flaw