[I]t turns out that honesty (truth) is the most important political institution, because it permits people to trust, which in turn permits risk taking, which in turn permits capital accumulation, which in turn produces economic velocity, which in turn produces prosperity. You might not think it matters so much, but of all the institutions humans have invented, creating an incentive to tell the truth is perhaps the hardest one. And while we in the west, particularly the anglo-germanic west, take it for granted that telling the truth is ‘good’ in some sort of civic or spiritual way, the fact of the matter is that the rest of the world, outside of christendom, not only does not think that way but does not feel that way either. Truth is a ‘universalist’ good. Only westerners are more universalist than familial or tribalist. We are the only people to have done it. We stomp around the world with our suicidal universalism promoted as a spiritual good, rather than contract and rule of law that hold us accountable for trades. It is quite possible to construct enforceable contracts as long as the language facilitates it,and by using an alternative language if not, and from the habit of rule of law, property rights, and enforceable contracts, an upper commercial class will form from the wealth generated by using them. Others, seeking entry into the commercial class and its resulting wealth, will adopt the behavior, and this becomes an upper class norm that people must demonstrate in order to participate in economic prosperity, and failure to participate in that norm will leave one in poverty. Our civilization evolved truth telling first, because of our tactics in war. But most civilizations must have a reason to evolve property, truth telling, and therefore trust. But just because a civilization evolves a normative technology, does not mean that the institutions that perpetuate that technology cannot be spread. They can. Anything that enforces a norm, can be used to instill a norm. The technology to export around the world was (a) title registry – ie property rights. (b) contract law (c) trial by randomly selected jury (d) juridical (law) universities, with extraordinary performance requirements rather than recitation. One can use recitation of facts with those who already understand the norms, but one cannot instill facts dependent upon norms that do not exist. For these reasons, democracy was damaging to societies. One can administer a territory in whatever way necessary for the production and service of the commons. And a leader can certainly seek rents this way, and not be threatened by commercial activity. But the means by which one conducts commerce via property law has nothing to do with that, and as such, there is no need for property rights and law to be part of the government – instead property law constructs the institutional means of cooperating within society itself, independent of government. Government need do nothing about it, except not to interfere. Judges resolve disputes based upon property rights. Advocacy is for the church. Administration of the commons for the government. Mixing the three functions Commerce, Culture and Commons is a recent mistake even in our western cultures – the church, law and state must be independent creatures to keep each other from excessive rents. We really screwed up the world. We gave them science, accounting, medicine and law, and the moral charter to service the population. But we also gave them democracy, which is dangerous luxury good. And we did not give them the means of producing the common law, which is the first NECESSARY good.
Theme: Governance
-
Is Statism More Utilitarian Than Aristocracy?
FROM : Roman Skaskiw QUESTION: Been reading Fukuyama — Seems state structures replaced kinship-Aristocratic ones b/c states were better at coordinating violence and meritocracy (first in war, then in bureaucracy). He uses the end of the Chou Dynasty in China to illustrate this. 1. Do you agree with this assessment? 2. Do you think modern technology and understanding could overcome these disadvantages if we reverted to some form of aristocratic kinship? ANSWER: Yes. Because they had insufficient property rights. Yes, Because they had a low trust society. The monarchies did not have this problem. Nor could they build such great edifices of war. I think, whether Fukukuyama admits it, where all other historians do, the purpose of the Chinese system was the conduct of war and suppression. By contrast, the purpose of the western model is ADJUDICATION. One cannot had adjudication without property rights. One must have tyranny. One cannot have adjudication without property rights, one must have tyranny. Command and control under the western model is superior. Rates of innovation under the western modal are superior. The fact that the Chinese got started first, is not much testimony. The fact that no matter what Europe did, when it used science, it exceeded rates of development of all other civilizations. Property rights and science. They are both ‘CALCULABLE’ institutions. The west, under duress kept the “east” (desert and steppe people) at bay. The east, under duress, kept the “west ” (desert and steppe people) at bay. We just chose different models, and the desert and steppe people are still a (fkng) problem to this day. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine
-
Is Statism More Utilitarian Than Aristocracy?
FROM : Roman Skaskiw QUESTION: Been reading Fukuyama — Seems state structures replaced kinship-Aristocratic ones b/c states were better at coordinating violence and meritocracy (first in war, then in bureaucracy). He uses the end of the Chou Dynasty in China to illustrate this. 1. Do you agree with this assessment? 2. Do you think modern technology and understanding could overcome these disadvantages if we reverted to some form of aristocratic kinship? ANSWER: Yes. Because they had insufficient property rights. Yes, Because they had a low trust society. The monarchies did not have this problem. Nor could they build such great edifices of war. I think, whether Fukukuyama admits it, where all other historians do, the purpose of the Chinese system was the conduct of war and suppression. By contrast, the purpose of the western model is ADJUDICATION. One cannot had adjudication without property rights. One must have tyranny. One cannot have adjudication without property rights, one must have tyranny. Command and control under the western model is superior. Rates of innovation under the western modal are superior. The fact that the Chinese got started first, is not much testimony. The fact that no matter what Europe did, when it used science, it exceeded rates of development of all other civilizations. Property rights and science. They are both ‘CALCULABLE’ institutions. The west, under duress kept the “east” (desert and steppe people) at bay. The east, under duress, kept the “west ” (desert and steppe people) at bay. We just chose different models, and the desert and steppe people are still a (fkng) problem to this day. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine
-
IS STATISM MORE UTILITARIAN THAN ARISTOCRACY? FROM : Roman Skaskiw QUESTION: Bee
IS STATISM MORE UTILITARIAN THAN ARISTOCRACY?
FROM : Roman Skaskiw
QUESTION: Been reading Fukuyama — Seems state structures replaced kinship-Aristocratic ones b/c states were better at coordinating violence and meritocracy (first in war, then in bureaucracy).
He uses the end of the Chou Dynasty in China to illustrate this.
1. Do you agree with this assessment? 2. Do you think modern technology and understanding could overcome these disadvantages if we reverted to some form of aristocratic kinship?
ANSWER:
Yes. Because they had insufficient property rights.
Yes, Because they had a low trust society.
The monarchies did not have this problem. Nor could they build such great edifices of war. I think, whether Fukukuyama admits it, where all other historians do, the purpose of the Chinese system was the conduct of war and suppression.
By contrast, the purpose of the western model is ADJUDICATION. One cannot had adjudication without property rights. One must have tyranny. One cannot have adjudication without property rights, one must have tyranny.
Command and control under the western model is superior. Rates of innovation under the western modal are superior. The fact that the Chinese got started first, is not much testimony. The fact that no matter what Europe did, when it used science, it exceeded rates of development of all other civilizations. Property rights and science. They are both ‘CALCULABLE’ institutions.
The west, under duress kept the “east” (desert and steppe people) at bay.
The east, under duress, kept the “west ” (desert and steppe people) at bay.
We just chose different models, and the desert and steppe people are still a (fkng) problem to this day.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2014-07-08 06:19:00 UTC
-
Obtaining Liberty In Our Lifetime
LIBERTY IN OUR LIFETIME [A]phoristic arguments, programmatic as they may be, are ideologically utilitarian, and place limited burden on the speaker. They teach the intuition through use and repetition, better than verbose and detailed arguments. Conservatives (aristocratic egalitarians) understand this. Or at least intuit it. That is why they win the moral battle for votes, despite inferior intellectuals, and arational arguments. One may not see it, but look at how fast the work I have done, just since December, is spreading across the internet. My terminology alone is working its way into dialog. Thanks to the internet, we live in a new order, with new distribution channels. In the current order, the market for information is not controlled by the paradigm of the prior generation. One need not seek approval or permission from the establishment – only provide the market with product it demands. One can sell an idea, or, one can create demand for an idea. One can attempt to create demand for inadequate libertarianism, or one can satisfy demand for an adequate libertarianism. Liberty that satisfies demand. Liberty in our lifetimes. Aristocratic Egalitarianism. Aristocracy (liberty) of the willing.
Ayelam Valentine Agaliba Anything that can be shown apriori can be demonstrated or translated empirically with higher confidence but not everything that is empirical can be demonstrated apriori. Curt Doolittle —“Anything that can be shown apriori can be demonstrated or translated empirically with higher confidence but not everything that is empirical can be demonstrated apriori.”— Wow. I… I really want to kiss you for that quote. But I think you would object. So I’ll just thank you profusely. lol
-
Obtaining Liberty In Our Lifetime
LIBERTY IN OUR LIFETIME [A]phoristic arguments, programmatic as they may be, are ideologically utilitarian, and place limited burden on the speaker. They teach the intuition through use and repetition, better than verbose and detailed arguments. Conservatives (aristocratic egalitarians) understand this. Or at least intuit it. That is why they win the moral battle for votes, despite inferior intellectuals, and arational arguments. One may not see it, but look at how fast the work I have done, just since December, is spreading across the internet. My terminology alone is working its way into dialog. Thanks to the internet, we live in a new order, with new distribution channels. In the current order, the market for information is not controlled by the paradigm of the prior generation. One need not seek approval or permission from the establishment – only provide the market with product it demands. One can sell an idea, or, one can create demand for an idea. One can attempt to create demand for inadequate libertarianism, or one can satisfy demand for an adequate libertarianism. Liberty that satisfies demand. Liberty in our lifetimes. Aristocratic Egalitarianism. Aristocracy (liberty) of the willing.
Ayelam Valentine Agaliba Anything that can be shown apriori can be demonstrated or translated empirically with higher confidence but not everything that is empirical can be demonstrated apriori. Curt Doolittle —“Anything that can be shown apriori can be demonstrated or translated empirically with higher confidence but not everything that is empirical can be demonstrated apriori.”— Wow. I… I really want to kiss you for that quote. But I think you would object. So I’ll just thank you profusely. lol
-
(TRIBE) NOT IDEOLOGY (GOVERNMENT) IS MOVING THE WORLD. Or let me put it this way
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/fareed-zakaria-identity-not-ideology-is-moving-the-world/2014/07/03/631ff338-02d7-11e4-8572-4b1b969b6322_story.htmlIDENTITY (TRIBE) NOT IDEOLOGY (GOVERNMENT) IS MOVING THE WORLD.
Or let me put it this way first:
Tribalism is more important than ideology, since we’ve all adopted some form of consumer capitalism.
Or let me put it this way second:
The nonsense that america is an ‘idea’ (an ideology) is dead, and likewise, america’s tribes are asserting themselves in reaction to the death of ideology.
A friend reminded me tonight that The Big Sort continues, and that americans are moving into culturally and tribally oriented areas. Meanwhile, we are also reproducing into castes on a scale that has never been possible before.
The old political order of the nation state cum-heterogeneous empire, cannot survive this change. so we will either see more empire (tyranny) or more tribalism (city states). I prefer the latter, obviously.
Source date (UTC): 2014-07-05 15:27:00 UTC
-
If we had as few as 100 guys making propertarian arguments in media, the way rus
If we had as few as 100 guys making propertarian arguments in media, the way russians make propagandism, and rothbardians manufacture nonsense, we could effect the political debate.
People are not really all that stupid. Propertarianism allows us to make very clear arguments. It may take a few repetitions for those arguments to ring true. But they will.
I don’t know how long it will take to get 100 people capable of at least reciting propertarian arguments as talking points, because while the basic ideas are very simple, the number of nonsense arguments put out by progressives, rothbardians, classical liberals, and well meaning fools is hard to defeat.
But staying on message works. It’s just time and effort once you have the message.
Source date (UTC): 2014-07-05 15:11:00 UTC
-
PUBLIC INTELLECTUALS NOT PUBLIC PARASITES “The character of the presidency is su
PUBLIC INTELLECTUALS NOT PUBLIC PARASITES
“The character of the presidency is such,” the British journalist Henry Fairlie wrote in 1967, “that the majority of the people can be persuaded to look to it for a kind of leadership which no politician, in my opinion, should be allowed, let alone invited, to give. ‘If people want a sense of purpose,’ [former British Prime Minister] Harold Macmillan once said to me, ‘they should get it from their archbishops.’”
Source date (UTC): 2014-07-05 14:09:00 UTC
-
WANT TO SECEDE AND JOIN SWITZERLAND (which would be brilliant for them) THE LIST
http://www.blick.ch/news/ausland/umfrage-zu-staatenwechsel-80-prozent-der-schwaben-wollen-schweizer-werden-id2962950.htmlBAVARIANS WANT TO SECEDE AND JOIN SWITZERLAND
(which would be brilliant for them)
THE LIST (Where I can at least believe that there is a chance of majority support)
Bavaria
Venice
Basques
Catalonia
Scotland
Northern Ireland
Texas (The team I root for)
Six Californias
Canada (everyone, just to get away from Quebec which drags down the country.)
Kurdistan (turkey/kurds)
Azerbaijan (Iran/Azerbaijanis)
(The entire middle east really, whe be selective…)
(Most of Africa from what I gather, but cannot comprehend)
(Too many to list in India and Pakistan)
Mongolia (china/mongolians)
Tibet (china/tibetans)
Xinjiang (china/Ughurs)
Source date (UTC): 2014-07-05 08:40:00 UTC