Theme: Governance

  • Eric brings up an important topic and that is that revolutionaries and soldiers,

    Eric brings up an important topic and that is that revolutionaries and soldiers, and revolution and combined arms warfare have little to do with each other.

    You already hold the territory

    Your objective is not to concentrate forces but to act randomly.

    Your cost of territorial possession is zero.

    Your timetable is long.

    Your strategy is attrition.

    Your preferred weapon is fire.

    Your targets are all soft.

    You need little command and control.

    You need no supply lines.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-04-23 11:37:00 UTC

  • We always get it backwards. It doesn’t matter who rules. Only that we deny peopl

    We always get it backwards.

    It doesn’t matter who rules.

    Only that we deny people the ability to rule.

    We deny them through rule of law.

    A king is but a judge of last resort.

    A government but an insurer of last resort.

    A parliament but a market for the production of commons: a market of last resort.

    All else from family to production is market activity alone.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-04-23 06:20:00 UTC

  • By referring to “personalities” they are politely saying “Incompetent”,”Untrustw

    By referring to “personalities” they are politely saying “Incompetent”,”Untrustworthy”,”Corrupt”. They need reliable partners.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-04-22 12:35:05 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/723490307850022913

    Reply addressees: @Hromadske

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/723487824327118848


    IN REPLY TO:

    @Hromadske

    “The West should concentrate less on personalities, more on concrete reforms in Ukraine”
    https://t.co/f2LlTxGj63 https://t.co/NjrUqG4upn

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/723487824327118848

  • Have we made a catastrophic mistake with our democratic monopoly?

    [H]ave we made a catastrophic mistake? Why have we forced all into individualism instead of separated the individualistic from the collectivist? Why must we have either a communist or capitalist order? Must we have a monopoly social democratic order? If we arose under a mix of martial, burgher, and church orders, then why was that model a failure? It wasn’t. It wasn’t a failure. The middle class allied with the lower class against the church and nobility after the thirty years war and while deserving enfranchisement, demonstrated hubris in the displacement of church and state. Forcing man into the absolute nuclear family, forcing man to move to capital. Forcing man into monopoly social orders. All of this force is not that of the past that made us successful. I understand the need for a market for commons. But what shall we do with the equivalent of the manor, market, military, and monastery when the great leap of the industrial revolution has passed?

  • Have we made a catastrophic mistake with our democratic monopoly?

    [H]ave we made a catastrophic mistake? Why have we forced all into individualism instead of separated the individualistic from the collectivist? Why must we have either a communist or capitalist order? Must we have a monopoly social democratic order? If we arose under a mix of martial, burgher, and church orders, then why was that model a failure? It wasn’t. It wasn’t a failure. The middle class allied with the lower class against the church and nobility after the thirty years war and while deserving enfranchisement, demonstrated hubris in the displacement of church and state. Forcing man into the absolute nuclear family, forcing man to move to capital. Forcing man into monopoly social orders. All of this force is not that of the past that made us successful. I understand the need for a market for commons. But what shall we do with the equivalent of the manor, market, military, and monastery when the great leap of the industrial revolution has passed?

  • We Must Rule

    [W]e must rule. We must restore our tradition of rule. We must rule not because we are right, or best, but because everyone else is demonstrably worse. We must rule because without our rule, humanity has no example to draw from that is not the cancer of the Muslims or the Chinese or the chaos of the Africans. The world today is dependent almost entirely on western example in science, law, contract, trade, engineering, medicine, and even arts. And none of the emerging cultures show even a modicum of interest in following the aristocratic tradition of truthfulness that is the reason that we developed these consequential technologies.

    The western enlightenment was a lie. A decline. A failure. Because escaping mysticism was an act of truthfulness, but imposing unearned enfranchisement was an act of deception in order to obtain power. And when we were beset with the global consequences of our military success, we failed to expand the discipline of truth – taking it, like our heroism, as a given: a natural inclination of man. But man has only one natural inclination: to acquire all he can using his limited reason and knowledge by either good or ill. That is all. We domesticated man and raised mankind out of ignorance and poverty in the ancient and modern worlds. We must end all our fantasies of man’s nature. And we must rule mankind. Or the next dark age will be worse than the last.
  • We Must Rule

    [W]e must rule. We must restore our tradition of rule. We must rule not because we are right, or best, but because everyone else is demonstrably worse. We must rule because without our rule, humanity has no example to draw from that is not the cancer of the Muslims or the Chinese or the chaos of the Africans. The world today is dependent almost entirely on western example in science, law, contract, trade, engineering, medicine, and even arts. And none of the emerging cultures show even a modicum of interest in following the aristocratic tradition of truthfulness that is the reason that we developed these consequential technologies.

    The western enlightenment was a lie. A decline. A failure. Because escaping mysticism was an act of truthfulness, but imposing unearned enfranchisement was an act of deception in order to obtain power. And when we were beset with the global consequences of our military success, we failed to expand the discipline of truth – taking it, like our heroism, as a given: a natural inclination of man. But man has only one natural inclination: to acquire all he can using his limited reason and knowledge by either good or ill. That is all. We domesticated man and raised mankind out of ignorance and poverty in the ancient and modern worlds. We must end all our fantasies of man’s nature. And we must rule mankind. Or the next dark age will be worse than the last.
  • WHAT IS THE NEXT ORDER? 1 – Farming led to Religious Order (ostracism / inclusio

    WHAT IS THE NEXT ORDER?

    1 – Farming led to Religious Order (ostracism / inclusion)

    2 – Trade led to Legal Order ( restitution / punishment )

    3 – Industry led to Credit Order ( consumption / deprivation )

    4 – Technology will lead to Information Order? (opportunity / missed?)


    Source date (UTC): 2016-04-22 07:00:00 UTC

  • UKRAINE: AN UNPLEASANT SHIFT IN THINKING THIS WEEK I have been speaking or prese

    UKRAINE: AN UNPLEASANT SHIFT IN THINKING THIS WEEK

    I have been speaking or presenting to Ukrainians a lot of late, and I’ve come to understand that the damage done by Russia to her people and these people, to the Chinese by law, policy, and influence, to the Indians by education and influence, to the west by imitation, and maybe to all mankind by consequence, is as great as the damage done by christianity to our people in the ancient era.

    Ukrainians had common law, credible judges, a moral population, a middle class, and high culture. It was a very poor country. And the Russians brought schools, roads, and hospitals to the peasantry.

    But they also brought genocide, secret police, “disappearances”, torture, gulags, slave labor, distrust, rule by fear, a culture of deceit, a culture of corruption, a culture of immorality… and a thousand other ills that are nearly impossible to reverse without generations and strong leadership from western aristocratic peoples.

    The Russians do not accept their crimes any more than the jews accept theirs, the Chinese theirs, or the ancient christians theirs. The americans and British do recognize their failures. But still they try to drag man into prosperity and out of his natural state of endemic corruption. And they do not know or accept that the reason for their success was their ancestor’s aristocratic paternal parenting of degenerate, corrupt, violent man. And without their rule man cannot be dragged out of ignorance and poverty.

    But dragging Ukraine out of her poverty is a task the Ukrainian people are no longer fit for. They lack the will, the agency, the courage, the discipline, to systematically crush corruption in all walks of life through persistent universal threats of violence.

    So I have changed my mind. Ukraine has a Russian-created and maintained, failed state, and the people suffer in poverty for it. Ukrainans are genetically exceptional. They are our Urheimat. Our purest kin. Ukrainians are not genetically broken, but they are culturally (normatively) broken.

    Having given birth to great thinkers such as Menger and Mises, they are as corrupt now as the Jews and Russians that corrupted them. They merely lack the aggression of Jews and Russians. They lack courage. They lack empirical rather than moral reasoning. They lack the understanding of incentives that comes with a middle class and a middle class bureaucracy. They are no longer superstitious christians but remain moral christians lacking all conviction.

    Last night, a reporter told me I was a romantic to think that the judiciary could be fixed. I thought that was strange because my solution was to hang a lot of them, increase the salaries of the younger generation, give the judiciary its own sheriff force of ex-military men, create an inspectors branch, and then reorganized bureaucracies one at a time using technology to create transparency.

    But just as a revolution requires outside financial support, reformation of Ukrainian law and bureaucracy requires outside financial support. And during the 20th century, states could use fiat currency to borrow against future production, and pay for their transformations. In the Russian and Chinese era they turned to slave labor to accomplish what capitalists accomplished with fiat credit.

    So Ukraine would need to effectively go into a receivership model relationship with a third party – the EU, or America, or Canada – in order to make use of third party funds to pay for her restoration.

    Loosely speaking, this restoration of the government would cost is in the neighborhood of $5B over 6 years, with a >50% likelihood that an additional $2.5B would be required. Most of this cost would go to increased salaries in the judicial, sheriff, and investigatory branch, and for the software to create transparency in the government, but partly made up by increased fees now captured by corruption (theft), which the citizens will be willing to pay – even if it means they only pay the increased fees for the ‘faster processing’ lines.

    The primary cost of software in such cases is adapting it to the miscreant processes followed by a bureaucracies. Instead, Ukrainian reform would restructure the bureaucracy to accommodate the software processes.

    We would need to train and bond people in the bureaucracy and every person would be criminally liable, without exception, for his actions and the actions of all others in his or her chain of processing.

    There is an argument to be made that bribery here amounts to pay-for-service, with the government employees obtaining only a minimum salary. Very much like commissioned salespeople. And in many bureaucracies this understandable as long as it is still POSSIBLE to spend time (delay) instead of money.

    However, collecting fees for preferential service given the different value of each of our time, is different from collecting fees for circumventing law, or collecting fees for violating the law, or collecting fees to avoid punishment by the law, or collecting fees to avoid false prosecution under constructed (intentionally exploited) laws.

    In the past few days I have seen corruption that we westerners cannot imagine: Judges requiring bribes to give a fair sentence instead of an exaggerated sentence: this is extortion plain and simple. I have seen a state media outlet whose director is appointed, so that he can pay kickbacks from ghost jobs to the city council members that appoint him. I have seen parents educate their children in how to find jobs that allow corruption, and how to get away with corruption. I have seen policemen bribed by ‘bums’ to let them sleep on benches. I’ve seen policemen bribed by street vendors so that they can harass passer’s by, and encroach on public streets.

    The source of liberty is not government. It is that priesthood we westerners take for granted because they do not teach us myths, direct us to specific ends, or interact with us in rituals other than court and jury. This priesthood has served us for thousands of years. Improving during most, regressing during some. it is the priesthood and the militia that govern. The rest is consequence.

    Liberty is created at the bottom by men who tolerate nothing else.

    Ukrainians are a bit lazy, a bit cowardly, a bit suspicious, a bit dishonest, a bit ignorant, and a bit dirty, and all too comfortable with taking joy in petty thievery. They are all these things. They think ‘small’. They are just like the southern Italians prior to the european integration. They are examples of Banfield’s “Moral Basis of a Backward Society”. They are (like the Russians who made them) a Backward Society.

    They need aristocracy or a judicial priesthood, and a militia of common men desirous of prosperity for themselves and their kin.

    Political processes do not supply moral men. Moral men supply moral political processes, and immoral men supply immoral political processes.

    We all rule with the men we have. To rule morally requires moral men. To rule immorally requires immoral men. And Ukrainians have no moral men of courage with which to rule.

    And that is the sum of my four years struggling to understand them. And I am heartbroken by it.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-04-22 05:06:00 UTC

  • WE MUST RULE We must rule. We must restore our tradition of rule. We must rule n

    WE MUST RULE

    We must rule. We must restore our tradition of rule. We must rule not because we are right, or best, but because everyone else is demonstrably worse. We must rule because without our rule, humanity has no example to draw from that is not the cancer of the muslims or the chinese or the chaos of the africans/

    The world today is dependent almost entirely on western example in science, law, contract, trade, engineering, medicine, and even arts. And none of the emerging cultures show even a modicum of interest in following the aristocratic tradition of truthfulness that is the reason that we developed these consequential technologies.

    The western enlightenment was a lie. A decline. A failure. Because escaping mysticism was an act of truth, but imposing unearned enfranchisement was an act of deception in order to obtain power. And when we were beset with the global consequences of our success, we failed to expand the discipline of truth – taking it, like our heroism, as a given: a natural inclination of man.

    But man has only one natural inclination: to acquire all he can using his limited reason and knowledge by either good or ill. That is all.

    We domesticated man and raised mankind out of ignorance and poverty in the ancient and modern worlds.

    We must end all our fantasies of man’s nature.

    And we must rule mankind.

    Or the next dark age will be worse than the last.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-04-22 03:01:00 UTC