(minor criticism of the myth of the rational voter) [P]eople do vote rationally. Its rational to vote morally even at high personal cost. I dont have time to refute the part Kaplan got wrong. But it should be obvious that he got it wrong. [callout]The failure of economic thought is currently one of insufficient tribalism and insufficient nationalism.[/callout] The failure of economic thought is currently one of insufficient tribalism and insufficient nationalism. Any group that votes immorally will be exterminated by groups that vote morally. That is why the anglo world is dying: its immoral (reproductively destructive).
Theme: Governance
-
Voting Morally, Even If Against Your Economic Interest, Is Voting Rationally
(minor criticism of the myth of the rational voter) [P]eople do vote rationally. Its rational to vote morally even at high personal cost. I dont have time to refute the part Kaplan got wrong. But it should be obvious that he got it wrong. [callout]The failure of economic thought is currently one of insufficient tribalism and insufficient nationalism.[/callout] The failure of economic thought is currently one of insufficient tribalism and insufficient nationalism. Any group that votes immorally will be exterminated by groups that vote morally. That is why the anglo world is dying: its immoral (reproductively destructive).
-
"Libertarian" Shouldn't Mean "Stupid"
LIBERTARIAN SHOULDN’T MEAN “STUPID” What libertarian means to me is: (a) a preference for liberty above all other political preferences, and (b) that all rights can be reduced to property rights, and (c) that I actively pursue obtaining liberty for myself and other a daily basis by sacrificing my time and effort to pursue it. LIBERTARIAN SHOULDN’T MEAN “WRONG” It does NOT mean that I agree with rothbardian ethics. Or that I think rothbard’s strategy of relying on the work of the french anarchist and jewish resistance movements, instead of the process by which property evolved in the high trust societies. In fact, I am pretty confident rothbard was a little bit right, but damagingly wrong. LIBERTARIAN SHOULDN’T MEAN “FAILED” So if libertarian means failing, and being wrong, then I’m not libertarian. LIBERTARIAN SHOULDN’T MEAN “ROTHBARDIAN” If you mean ‘rothbardian’ then no I am not a rothbardian since that would be irrational. LIBERTY IS THE PRODUCT OF ARISTOCRACY: The organize application of violence for the purpose of suppressing all involuntary extractions – including criminal, unethical, immoral, corrupt and conspiratorial actions. All of them. PROPERTY RIGHTS ARE WHAT’S LEFT ONCE YOU SUPPRESS ALL CHEATING. Property rights are what remain once we do that. You can suppress less, and have weaker property rights, and suppress more and have stronger property rights, but the velocity of your economy and therefore your wealth is predicated on the degree of suppression of involuntary extraction you suppress through the organized application of violence.
-
"Libertarian" Shouldn't Mean "Stupid"
LIBERTARIAN SHOULDN’T MEAN “STUPID” What libertarian means to me is: (a) a preference for liberty above all other political preferences, and (b) that all rights can be reduced to property rights, and (c) that I actively pursue obtaining liberty for myself and other a daily basis by sacrificing my time and effort to pursue it. LIBERTARIAN SHOULDN’T MEAN “WRONG” It does NOT mean that I agree with rothbardian ethics. Or that I think rothbard’s strategy of relying on the work of the french anarchist and jewish resistance movements, instead of the process by which property evolved in the high trust societies. In fact, I am pretty confident rothbard was a little bit right, but damagingly wrong. LIBERTARIAN SHOULDN’T MEAN “FAILED” So if libertarian means failing, and being wrong, then I’m not libertarian. LIBERTARIAN SHOULDN’T MEAN “ROTHBARDIAN” If you mean ‘rothbardian’ then no I am not a rothbardian since that would be irrational. LIBERTY IS THE PRODUCT OF ARISTOCRACY: The organize application of violence for the purpose of suppressing all involuntary extractions – including criminal, unethical, immoral, corrupt and conspiratorial actions. All of them. PROPERTY RIGHTS ARE WHAT’S LEFT ONCE YOU SUPPRESS ALL CHEATING. Property rights are what remain once we do that. You can suppress less, and have weaker property rights, and suppress more and have stronger property rights, but the velocity of your economy and therefore your wealth is predicated on the degree of suppression of involuntary extraction you suppress through the organized application of violence.
-
“Libertarian” Shouldn’t Mean “Stupid”
LIBERTARIAN SHOULDN’T MEAN “STUPID” What libertarian means to me is: (a) a preference for liberty above all other political preferences, and (b) that all rights can be reduced to property rights, and (c) that I actively pursue obtaining liberty for myself and other a daily basis by sacrificing my time and effort to pursue it. LIBERTARIAN SHOULDN’T MEAN “WRONG” It does NOT mean that I agree with rothbardian ethics. Or that I think rothbard’s strategy of relying on the work of the french anarchist and jewish resistance movements, instead of the process by which property evolved in the high trust societies. In fact, I am pretty confident rothbard was a little bit right, but damagingly wrong. LIBERTARIAN SHOULDN’T MEAN “FAILED” So if libertarian means failing, and being wrong, then I’m not libertarian. LIBERTARIAN SHOULDN’T MEAN “ROTHBARDIAN” If you mean ‘rothbardian’ then no I am not a rothbardian since that would be irrational. LIBERTY IS THE PRODUCT OF ARISTOCRACY: The organize application of violence for the purpose of suppressing all involuntary extractions – including criminal, unethical, immoral, corrupt and conspiratorial actions. All of them. PROPERTY RIGHTS ARE WHAT’S LEFT ONCE YOU SUPPRESS ALL CHEATING. Property rights are what remain once we do that. You can suppress less, and have weaker property rights, and suppress more and have stronger property rights, but the velocity of your economy and therefore your wealth is predicated on the degree of suppression of involuntary extraction you suppress through the organized application of violence.
-
Liberty Without Rothbard's Ghetto: A Return To Aristocracy
[W]hile aristocratic egalitarian liberty is among the greatest inventions in human history, I see rothbardianism as a failed amateurish pseudo philosophical ideology, rejected by all but a meaningless minority, disproven by even the least talented of philosophers, contrary to all evidence in evolutionary biology, experimental psychology, anthropology and history, and economically irrational on praxeological grounds alone. And any chance we have of obtaining liberty whatsoever requires that we start with what we have that is supportable: that all rights are reducible to property rights, that the struggle for prosperity is the universal responsibility to suppress parasitism in every possible form, thereby forcing all human cooperation into the market for productive voluntary exchange. – and in doing so reconstruct liberty on its historical aristocratic grounds, such that it is not amateurish, contrary to the evidence, and irrational. [callout]Rothbard got it backwards. We don’t start with property rights as an assumption – a given. We start in a state of nature, with the need to cooperate, while preventing pervasive free riding.[/callout] IF PEOPLE ARE IN FACT, PRAXEOLOGICALLY RATIONAL ACTORS, ROTHBARDIAN ETHICS ARE SELF CONTRADICTORY, AND NON-RATIONAL — EXCEPT AS A MEANS TO JUSTIFY PARASITISM. [O]nly in the justification of parasitism are they rational. There is nothing of ‘market virtue’ about parasitism. Ether the NAP is an inadequate test of ethical action, or rothbardian private property is insufficient in scope. But it is not praxeologically arguable that it is rational to trade high transaction costs for statism. It’s not rational. Under no terms. That is. Unless your objective is to justify parasitism. Rothbard got it backwards. We don’t start with property rights as an assumption – a given. We start in a state of nature, with the need to cooperate, while preventing pervasive free riding. Crusoe’s island is an obscurant argument. We do not start the development of ethics on an island where the ‘government’ is provided by the sea. Instead, we start in a tribe of consanguineous relations all of whom engage in free riding – and we must use violence, shame or remuneration to stop them from free riding so that we can accumulate capital. Property is what’s left as you increasingly suppress various forms of involuntary extraction. Property is not the cause. It is the consequence. Liberty is on life support. Rothbard gave it cancer. And I’m out to cure it.
-
Liberty Without Rothbard's Ghetto: A Return To Aristocracy
[W]hile aristocratic egalitarian liberty is among the greatest inventions in human history, I see rothbardianism as a failed amateurish pseudo philosophical ideology, rejected by all but a meaningless minority, disproven by even the least talented of philosophers, contrary to all evidence in evolutionary biology, experimental psychology, anthropology and history, and economically irrational on praxeological grounds alone. And any chance we have of obtaining liberty whatsoever requires that we start with what we have that is supportable: that all rights are reducible to property rights, that the struggle for prosperity is the universal responsibility to suppress parasitism in every possible form, thereby forcing all human cooperation into the market for productive voluntary exchange. – and in doing so reconstruct liberty on its historical aristocratic grounds, such that it is not amateurish, contrary to the evidence, and irrational. [callout]Rothbard got it backwards. We don’t start with property rights as an assumption – a given. We start in a state of nature, with the need to cooperate, while preventing pervasive free riding.[/callout] IF PEOPLE ARE IN FACT, PRAXEOLOGICALLY RATIONAL ACTORS, ROTHBARDIAN ETHICS ARE SELF CONTRADICTORY, AND NON-RATIONAL — EXCEPT AS A MEANS TO JUSTIFY PARASITISM. [O]nly in the justification of parasitism are they rational. There is nothing of ‘market virtue’ about parasitism. Ether the NAP is an inadequate test of ethical action, or rothbardian private property is insufficient in scope. But it is not praxeologically arguable that it is rational to trade high transaction costs for statism. It’s not rational. Under no terms. That is. Unless your objective is to justify parasitism. Rothbard got it backwards. We don’t start with property rights as an assumption – a given. We start in a state of nature, with the need to cooperate, while preventing pervasive free riding. Crusoe’s island is an obscurant argument. We do not start the development of ethics on an island where the ‘government’ is provided by the sea. Instead, we start in a tribe of consanguineous relations all of whom engage in free riding – and we must use violence, shame or remuneration to stop them from free riding so that we can accumulate capital. Property is what’s left as you increasingly suppress various forms of involuntary extraction. Property is not the cause. It is the consequence. Liberty is on life support. Rothbard gave it cancer. And I’m out to cure it.
-
Liberty Without Rothbard’s Ghetto: A Return To Aristocracy
[W]hile aristocratic egalitarian liberty is among the greatest inventions in human history, I see rothbardianism as a failed amateurish pseudo philosophical ideology, rejected by all but a meaningless minority, disproven by even the least talented of philosophers, contrary to all evidence in evolutionary biology, experimental psychology, anthropology and history, and economically irrational on praxeological grounds alone. And any chance we have of obtaining liberty whatsoever requires that we start with what we have that is supportable: that all rights are reducible to property rights, that the struggle for prosperity is the universal responsibility to suppress parasitism in every possible form, thereby forcing all human cooperation into the market for productive voluntary exchange. – and in doing so reconstruct liberty on its historical aristocratic grounds, such that it is not amateurish, contrary to the evidence, and irrational. [callout]Rothbard got it backwards. We don’t start with property rights as an assumption – a given. We start in a state of nature, with the need to cooperate, while preventing pervasive free riding.[/callout] IF PEOPLE ARE IN FACT, PRAXEOLOGICALLY RATIONAL ACTORS, ROTHBARDIAN ETHICS ARE SELF CONTRADICTORY, AND NON-RATIONAL — EXCEPT AS A MEANS TO JUSTIFY PARASITISM. [O]nly in the justification of parasitism are they rational. There is nothing of ‘market virtue’ about parasitism. Ether the NAP is an inadequate test of ethical action, or rothbardian private property is insufficient in scope. But it is not praxeologically arguable that it is rational to trade high transaction costs for statism. It’s not rational. Under no terms. That is. Unless your objective is to justify parasitism. Rothbard got it backwards. We don’t start with property rights as an assumption – a given. We start in a state of nature, with the need to cooperate, while preventing pervasive free riding. Crusoe’s island is an obscurant argument. We do not start the development of ethics on an island where the ‘government’ is provided by the sea. Instead, we start in a tribe of consanguineous relations all of whom engage in free riding – and we must use violence, shame or remuneration to stop them from free riding so that we can accumulate capital. Property is what’s left as you increasingly suppress various forms of involuntary extraction. Property is not the cause. It is the consequence. Liberty is on life support. Rothbard gave it cancer. And I’m out to cure it.
-
Liberty Without Rothbard’s Ghetto: A Return To Aristocracy
[W]hile aristocratic egalitarian liberty is among the greatest inventions in human history, I see rothbardianism as a failed amateurish pseudo philosophical ideology, rejected by all but a meaningless minority, disproven by even the least talented of philosophers, contrary to all evidence in evolutionary biology, experimental psychology, anthropology and history, and economically irrational on praxeological grounds alone. And any chance we have of obtaining liberty whatsoever requires that we start with what we have that is supportable: that all rights are reducible to property rights, that the struggle for prosperity is the universal responsibility to suppress parasitism in every possible form, thereby forcing all human cooperation into the market for productive voluntary exchange. – and in doing so reconstruct liberty on its historical aristocratic grounds, such that it is not amateurish, contrary to the evidence, and irrational. [callout]Rothbard got it backwards. We don’t start with property rights as an assumption – a given. We start in a state of nature, with the need to cooperate, while preventing pervasive free riding.[/callout] IF PEOPLE ARE IN FACT, PRAXEOLOGICALLY RATIONAL ACTORS, ROTHBARDIAN ETHICS ARE SELF CONTRADICTORY, AND NON-RATIONAL — EXCEPT AS A MEANS TO JUSTIFY PARASITISM. [O]nly in the justification of parasitism are they rational. There is nothing of ‘market virtue’ about parasitism. Ether the NAP is an inadequate test of ethical action, or rothbardian private property is insufficient in scope. But it is not praxeologically arguable that it is rational to trade high transaction costs for statism. It’s not rational. Under no terms. That is. Unless your objective is to justify parasitism. Rothbard got it backwards. We don’t start with property rights as an assumption – a given. We start in a state of nature, with the need to cooperate, while preventing pervasive free riding. Crusoe’s island is an obscurant argument. We do not start the development of ethics on an island where the ‘government’ is provided by the sea. Instead, we start in a tribe of consanguineous relations all of whom engage in free riding – and we must use violence, shame or remuneration to stop them from free riding so that we can accumulate capital. Property is what’s left as you increasingly suppress various forms of involuntary extraction. Property is not the cause. It is the consequence. Liberty is on life support. Rothbard gave it cancer. And I’m out to cure it.
-
American Policy In A Nutshell : Talking About The Carrot of Choice, But Not The Stick of Accountability
AMERICAN POLICY IN A NUTSHELL [A]merican policy (frustratingly) demonstrates rather than explicitly states, that you may have any government you willingly elect. But if you willingly elect a government that does not adhere to the charter of human rights both internally and externally; or if that government acts as a bad citizen in the network of finance and trade, then you and your government will be punished for the choice of the government you have elected, and you will be punished repeatedly and severely until you choose to elect a government that respects the charter of human rights and acts as a good citizen in the network of finance and trade. They only talk about the carrot, but not the stick. They don’t do much distribution of carrots, but they distribute sticks all-the-live-long day. That paragraph should be required as a warning label on all US diplomats, messages, goods, commercials, movies, passports, tickets, whatever we export. Just like we require warnings on cigarettes. [T]he USA is not a country. It’s a corporation. That corporation runs an empire. That empire controls the finance and trade system worldwide. We are all consumers of that system. In the main, it’s a better system than most that have existed. But the quality of that system is declining rapidly.