THE STATE: DESTROYER OF WORLDS
We’ve been focusing on race because it’s visible, when the causal problem is reproductive structure.
How black families look today is how most of us will look in the future under heterogeneous polities with redistribution.
It turns out that the state, is in fact, the destroyer of worlds.
Source date (UTC): 2013-12-07 05:11:00 UTC
NEGOTIATING TACTICS AND MORALITY
In politics, in serious negotiations, when you ask your opposition party to return to its constituency with demands that they are unwilling to suffer, your function is to provide your opposition with the material means of extracting the demand from their constituency.
Those material means, or the threat, must be believable, and sufficient, and the timing must be such that there is no alternative in the time frame. This tactic has been effective throughout history. It is best if your opposition party is unsure whether or not the threat is serious, because this frustrates their ability to project the future, but they must believe the threat is, at least, possible. You must empower your opponents to operate on your behalf.
Depending upon your perspective in the matter, it is doing your opposition a favor. Although, they rarely appreciate it at the time. In retrospect getting such an ask generally improves the ability of all participants from that point forward to work together because it rebalances the playing field so that the participants in the negotiation are weighted as highly as the constituency – if only because the circumstances are no longer predictable. It is far better for your opposition to worry about that which they do not expect, than that which they expect, and which makes them overconfident.
If, regardless of party, we do the right thing for everyone, then the moral constraint remains in place. If we do not do the right thing for everyone, then the moral constraint is off in negotiations. So it is always important to hold the moral high ground, rather than retreat into proceduralism specifically designed to abrogate moral constraints. Because it is moral constraint that binds all negotiations regardless of procedure and law. In the end, all moral codes consist of property rights, albeit different allocations of them.
THE PURPOSE OF RULES AND PROCEDURES IS GENERALLY TO LIE OR STEAL. There is but one rule, and that is property. Property is the moral high ground. Always.
I’m autistic. I write political and ethical theory. This kind of thing is just tedium.
Source date (UTC): 2013-12-06 14:31:00 UTC
EUROMAIDAN THIS WEEKEND 1,000,000 PEOPLE?
When it was crazy here last weekend, about 300K people were up there on Maidan. but if they can get 1M people here, that will be…. something to see.
So I know what I’m doing Sunday! Whooot!
Source date (UTC): 2013-12-06 11:05:00 UTC
THE POLITICS OF EUGENICS, DYSGENICS, AND DUNNING-KREUGER
(reposted on advice)
“I think people who desire liberty, and the nuclear family, will be like Christians in Lebanon. Wealthy until the proletarians kill them out of envy. The social result of the Dunning Krueger effect: “We are oppressed” rather than “They do it better than we do.”
Fear the simple people. En Masse they are the zombie horde. And you don’t think zombie movies are subconsciously appealing at the moment for no reason, do you?
Aristocracy is self defense.
Source date (UTC): 2013-12-06 10:13:00 UTC
If the ‘Un-Insured’ nuclear family is the majority of society, or at least, greater than the Pareto minimum of 20%, and the polity is homogenous, it’s likely that signaling will take care of containing the dysgenic families. But in a diverse polity I dont see how the signal economy can function, either as an advocate of the nuclear family, or a constraint on free riding.
The ‘insurance company” traditional family encourages redistribution and at least limited free riding.
The “corporate insurance company” (The STATE) forcibly redistributes between moral and reproductive structures, but what this means in practice is the conquest of aristocratic uninsured non-free riders, by communal insured, or state corporate insured, free riders and rent seekers.
America’s miracle, I think, was a combination of two factors: (a) giving away a conquered continent to immigrants, and (b) indoctrination into the combination of nuclear family and property rights. And the extraction of those people from the high-insurance, high free-riding, traditional family of Europe.
But it couldn’t survive.
As the germans and anglos, who were the majority until the 20th century, were outbred by less eugenic (catholic) families, the black family was destroyed through progressive good-intentions, and finally dysgenic traditional family (hispanics) and inbred family (muslims), and our legal traditions did not survive jewish intellectual attacks on our institutions.
If they had be UNDERSTOOD as economic institutions, and social institutions, and WRITTEN DOWN, it’s possible, but but they weren’t. So there has been a scramble for the past century and a half or more, to contain the non-ANF families from expressing their reproductive strategy in politics.
Aristocracy wants eugenic development and the rest want dysgenic reproduction. The concentration of calories (eugenic aristocracy) the distribution of calories (dysgenic communalism). This is what we should expect from people – who are not equal.
1) Physical abilities
2) Structure Of Production
3) Reproductive Strategy
4) Family Structure
5) Moral Code (Property Rights Allocations)
6) Property Rights (abandonment of free riding)
7) Homogeneity (pervasive abandonment of free riding)
8) Trust (lack of necessity to protect against free riding)
9) Political preferences
Source date (UTC): 2013-12-06 08:10:00 UTC
WHAT IF LIBERTY IS TRANSITIONAL?
(uncomfortable idea) (interesting analysis)
What if, bias toward the market, is a transitional phase, where the opportunities from participation in the market are greater than the opportunities from rent seeking and free riding?
What if, say, Todd is right, and that the stagnancy, ignorance, poverty, and low trust of the middle east, is the natural line of maturity in human civilizations? What if the greeks were in fact, the originators of inbred paternalism as a means of protecting against diversity created by democracy?
Again, then (and I keep running into this problem), liberty is an unnatural state that must be forcibly held against the common will by force of arms, by a minority unwilling to let society return to its natural state of maximizing free riding and rent seeking?
Liberty is unnatural. It is unique to the west. It is a contractual benefit exchanged between those willing and able to fight to create it against the general tide of free riding pervasive in all societies.
Just as spears and other weapons, allowed a group of men to organize to control or kill dangerous alpha males within the band or tribe, the combination of advanced weapons and domesticated animals allowed the concentration of wealth and violence, so that free riding could be suppressed.
In this sense, the struggle for civilization, is the effort of liberty seeking males to suppress free riders and rent seekers by forcibly creating the institution of private property, so that the majority of males will seek to imitate that wealth, and as such, the minority is constantly refreshed with new members who are likewise incentivized to use violence to maintain private property.
This was the second falsehood of the enlightenment: men do not desire liberty. They desire consumption.
Since the number that can, and desire to compete, is limited in any population, then so will be the number of liberty seekers. It is not rational that without belief in success, that individuals should desire to compete only to fail, in a population where they are anonymous.
Then, liberty and private property, must be forcibly held, by those who desire it. And it is non rational, and immoral, to force those who do not desire liberty, and who cannot or are unwilling to compete to do so. This means that the multi-house form of government was the only known solution to political cooperation. The aristocracy can choose liberty and private property, and the rent seekers and free riders can choose to communalize their efforts, and effectively charge the aristocracy for access to the market of consumers that consists of communal rent seekers and free riders.
I can’t see an argument around that, which doesn’t violate the both the lower standard of NAP, and the higher moral standard of Propertarianism.
And moral claims about the virtue of liberty are nonsensical. They are an attempt to obtain a discount without paying the high cost of suppressing free riding and rent seeking – an probably fraud as well.
Source date (UTC): 2013-12-03 05:53:00 UTC
http://blogs.elpais.com/atomium-culture/2013/11/the-power-from-below-understanding-europes-historical-institutional-diversity.htmlTHE IMPORTANCE OF SIMPLE RULES: COMMENSURABILITY=LEGITIMACY
“Our present-day Western society is highly regulated and institutionalized: formal agreements are made at various levels within society to make things run smoothly, from driving a car, to disposing waste, to taking part in local and national elections. Breaching a rule usually carries a sanction.”
**”However, if rules are simply added without attention to the internal coherence of the regulations, contradictory situations may emerge within the regulations and the rules may become ineffective: they may no longer be understood by the stakeholders or they may simply be ignored (leading to freeriding), with sanctions no longer being applied.”**
Source date (UTC): 2013-12-01 15:29:00 UTC
I THINK MY EXPLANATION FOR THE ORIGIN OF THE STATE IS MORE ACCURATE:
THe state centralizes free riding, and transforms it into rent seeking. This forces the multitudes to resort to the market alone.
If this is true, and I am fairly sure it is, then the state is less relevant than is the expurgation of free riding. (And that makes a lot more sense than any argument to efficiency.)
This may be one of the better ideas I’ve had.
Source date (UTC): 2013-12-01 13:30:00 UTC
OSTRUM VS PROPERTARIANISM : THE GRAMMAR OF POLITICS
(I HAVE’T READ OSTROM UNTIL TODAY – SADLY)
(this part paraphrased)
“Ostrom presents a grammar that has five elements:
1) the attributes that qualify someone as a participant in the system;
2) whether actions are permitted, required, or forbidden (may, must, must not);
3) the covered actions;
4) the conditions under which the rules apply; and
5) the consequences of not following the rule.
These components can be used to describe rules, norms and shared strategies. “
(end)
RULES: Rules have all 5 components,
NORMS: Norms specify all but the consequences, and
SHARED STRATEGIES: Shared strategies are statements that only contain the first three components.
(Paraphrased)
“When using this framework, you have to be aware that most rules can be rephrased between prohibitions and compulsions without changing their sense. When comparing two institutions, a little care is usually enough to penetrate this surface distinction. For example “Actor X is forbidden to take action Y” could be written as “X must perform a non-Y action” or “X does not have the option of doing Y”.
(end)
PROPERTY RIGHTS
I suppose it’s only clear to a libertarian, that these five are the criteria for a shareholder’s agreement, and the property rights of shareholders.
At least, that’s the GRAMMAR I am using. And PROPERTARIAN GRAMMAR grammar is more useful since propertarianism is a prohibition against involuntary transfer vie other than virtuous competition.
Ostrom is correct but didn’t take it far enough. Nor did she make the connection between rules, and rights, nor between rights and morality, nor between morality and reproductive strategy.
What we should learn from Rothbard, from Ostrom, from Hayek, from Mises, is that GRAMMARS (languages) are necessary for the development and articulation of commensurability between moral codes.
The problem is, that none of these people was able to produce the entire grammar. None of them took it far enough. I suspect that’s only because it’s taken so long for us to produce enough data to make those connections.
Standing on the shoulders of others makes doing the previously impossible a lot easier. 🙂
PROPERTARIANISM IS A GRAMMAR FOR POLITICS
Source date (UTC): 2013-12-01 13:12:00 UTC
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2358701MUST READ ON ORIGIN OF STATES
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2358701
(via Peter Boettke)
Source date (UTC): 2013-12-01 12:43:00 UTC