Aug 22, 2016 2:48pm SOROS V HAYEK, AND WHY When where Soros disagrees with Hayek he relies on the criticism of the rational actor hypothesis, saying that people do not in fact act this way. But here again we have Hayek as a social scientist seeking rule of law, versus Soros as a financier seeking discretionary rule. The difference in the western heroic tradition and the Jewish tradition is illustrated once again: we peers may not interfere with the sovereignty of other peers with actions that interfere with their plans. Ergo: rule of law. Soros, as a cosmopolitan, seeks only to increase transactions regardless of the impact on the peerage, and the consequences to intertemporal capital. So yet again we see the metaphysics of the Aryans’ no harm to the commons, vs the Cosmopolitans’ maximum consumption. Hayek’s advocates do not know how to criticize Soros.
Theme: Incentives
-
Forcing People To Come To The Table To Trade
Aug 24, 2016 1:01pm If you don’t understand what I’m doing, then, of course you’ll make the mistake of classifying me as right wing fascist – but it’s not true at all. Like my predecessors in sovereignty under judge-discovered, common, natural law, I am trying to limit people to fully informed, productive, voluntary exchanges, free of externalities of the same. So I advocate for the use of natural law, to incrementally suppress, parasitism by all means, through the use of common, judge discovered, empirical law. Strictly constructed from the first principle of natural law (NPP), consisting of whereas (problem), whereas (objective), therefore (prohibition), by (these means), claim (proof), warranty (judge).This creates (a) a market for reproduction: family, (b) a market for production of goods and services(consumption), and (c) a market for commons (investments). The only anywhere near-fascist part of my proposition is paying people who lack demonstrated ability to create the moral hazard of producing offspring, to not force their costs upon us, and to be punished if they do, like any other criminal. I do not understand why a person has some natural right to reproduction any more than the natural right to murder, violence, theft, and fraud in its many incarnations. They do not and cannot. And it was just as strange to our ancestors who passionately objected to our forcible prohibition on intertribal warfare, and inter-kinship feuds, and punishment of petty thefts, and standard of weights and measures, and prohibitions against frauds, and requirements against warranty. None of us wants constraints on our parasitism of others, because it increases the costs and effort we must bear if we are to persist. But that is what has been and will forever remain, good for mankind: the incremental suppression of parasitism by each means until there remains no possible method of parasitism available, and we have no other choice for survival than cooperation by engaging in fully informed, productive, voluntary exchange, limited to externality of the same criteria. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine [1] NPP refers to Non Parasitism Principle: the requirement for fully informed, productive, warrantied, voluntary transfer, limited to externality of the same criteria.
-
Forcing People To Come To The Table To Trade
Aug 24, 2016 1:01pm If you don’t understand what I’m doing, then, of course you’ll make the mistake of classifying me as right wing fascist – but it’s not true at all. Like my predecessors in sovereignty under judge-discovered, common, natural law, I am trying to limit people to fully informed, productive, voluntary exchanges, free of externalities of the same. So I advocate for the use of natural law, to incrementally suppress, parasitism by all means, through the use of common, judge discovered, empirical law. Strictly constructed from the first principle of natural law (NPP), consisting of whereas (problem), whereas (objective), therefore (prohibition), by (these means), claim (proof), warranty (judge).This creates (a) a market for reproduction: family, (b) a market for production of goods and services(consumption), and (c) a market for commons (investments). The only anywhere near-fascist part of my proposition is paying people who lack demonstrated ability to create the moral hazard of producing offspring, to not force their costs upon us, and to be punished if they do, like any other criminal. I do not understand why a person has some natural right to reproduction any more than the natural right to murder, violence, theft, and fraud in its many incarnations. They do not and cannot. And it was just as strange to our ancestors who passionately objected to our forcible prohibition on intertribal warfare, and inter-kinship feuds, and punishment of petty thefts, and standard of weights and measures, and prohibitions against frauds, and requirements against warranty. None of us wants constraints on our parasitism of others, because it increases the costs and effort we must bear if we are to persist. But that is what has been and will forever remain, good for mankind: the incremental suppression of parasitism by each means until there remains no possible method of parasitism available, and we have no other choice for survival than cooperation by engaging in fully informed, productive, voluntary exchange, limited to externality of the same criteria. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine [1] NPP refers to Non Parasitism Principle: the requirement for fully informed, productive, warrantied, voluntary transfer, limited to externality of the same criteria.
-
Q&A: Economic Orders
Aug 24, 2016 2:14pmQ&A: MR DOOLITTLE: QUESTION ABOUT ECONOMIC ORDERS —“Can you please elaborate on this “Once cheap labor stops, and marginal differences in knowledge are exhausted, what remains is a nation’s ability to dynamically reorganize production in real time, and to competitively innovate in real time.”Are you saying that productivity and innovation are not dependent on a nation’s wealth, size or population, but instead on how it organizes its existing resources to achieve maximum output? Basically, higher social capital = better long term growth and innovation?”— Yes. Thank you, I don’t think of putting it that way. But for example, Switzerland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, are small countries with small populations. But they are homogenous germanic peoples with high trust polities. This trust is just like having oil, gold, great farmland, or any other local asset. It’s an economic advantage. So all resources being equal, the competitive difference between societies would be determined by the absence of corruption and the presence of rule of law. The conflict generally comes with the tradeoff between military, trade, and credit capacity at scale, and ability to suppress corruption and tailor law, policy, and norms to the needs of local groups. -
Q&A: Economic Orders
Aug 24, 2016 2:14pmQ&A: MR DOOLITTLE: QUESTION ABOUT ECONOMIC ORDERS —“Can you please elaborate on this “Once cheap labor stops, and marginal differences in knowledge are exhausted, what remains is a nation’s ability to dynamically reorganize production in real time, and to competitively innovate in real time.”Are you saying that productivity and innovation are not dependent on a nation’s wealth, size or population, but instead on how it organizes its existing resources to achieve maximum output? Basically, higher social capital = better long term growth and innovation?”— Yes. Thank you, I don’t think of putting it that way. But for example, Switzerland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, are small countries with small populations. But they are homogenous germanic peoples with high trust polities. This trust is just like having oil, gold, great farmland, or any other local asset. It’s an economic advantage. So all resources being equal, the competitive difference between societies would be determined by the absence of corruption and the presence of rule of law. The conflict generally comes with the tradeoff between military, trade, and credit capacity at scale, and ability to suppress corruption and tailor law, policy, and norms to the needs of local groups. -
THE ATTACK ON ARISTOCRATIC FAMILIES Reducing inheritances reduces the incentive
THE ATTACK ON ARISTOCRATIC FAMILIES
Reducing inheritances reduces the incentive to choose mates that will preserve the inheritance.
All inheritance taxes must go, and the family and the individual must be a transaction free corporation out to three generations.
Source date (UTC): 2016-09-17 06:05:00 UTC
-
Tilting right limits your market but preserves your capital.Tilting left/liberta
Tilting right limits your market but preserves your capital.Tilting left/libertarian increases your market but costs you capital.@tlot @tcot
Source date (UTC): 2016-09-16 08:19:11 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/776696923378122752
-
Tilting right limits your market but preserves your capital.Tilting left/liberta
Tilting right limits your market but preserves your capital.Tilting left/libertarian increases your market but costs you capital.@tlot @tcot
Source date (UTC): 2016-09-16 04:19:00 UTC
-
WHY RIGHT V LIBERTARIAN? Tilting right limits your market but preserves your cap
WHY RIGHT V LIBERTARIAN?
Tilting right limits your market but preserves your capital.
Tilting left / libertarian increases your market but loses your capital
CAPITAL:
Genetic
Normative
Institutional
Informational
Territorial
Monumental
Infrastructural
Built
Private-Personal
Source date (UTC): 2016-09-16 02:58:00 UTC
-
ON MARGINAL REVOLUTION: MATTERS OF RACE Forgive me for doing my job as philosoph
ON MARGINAL REVOLUTION: MATTERS OF RACE
Forgive me for doing my job as philosophical policeman of political economy:
All humans demonstrate kin selection when forced to decide between kin and non kin, just as all people demonstrate racism when forced to decide between kin and race.
Race is a necessary and rational concern under democracy since people demonstrably vote in racial blocks. The do so because under democracy those with political power can obtain privileges and rents. But more importantly, the distribution of talents between racial groups is demonstrably vast, and each group seeks to impose an order most suitable to them. It is only white Europeans for whom meritocracy, rule of law, and Liberty are a preferable comparative advantage over other groups. And contrary to western myth and intuition we choose market meritocracy because it’s to our advantage to do so. It may in fact be a wise choice for many reasons but that is true if and only if one has the genetic, familial, normative capacity to compete by market meritocracy.
There exist only three methods of political coercion: theocracy/religion, aristocracy/law, democracy/commerce-and-credit. And each forms and oligarchy for reasons Pareto/Mises and Michels have explained economically, informationally, and organisationally.
As high trust westerners, almost all of whom are descendants of the genetic middle class, who live under rule of law, compete meritocratically, can compete by merit, and profit from a heterogeneous population for whom we desire to produce a single mass market intellectual product despite the fact that it is unsuitable for much of the world’s population.
So we should perhaps take heed that we do not confuse that which is good for us with that which is good for all.
It isn’t. And that is why the world has abandoned democracy, and is in the process of abandoning free markets.
Because we are unequal in our abilities and needs and for many groups what we propose is unachievable.
I have followers all over the world in every race for the simple reason that I don’t lie about this subject: the differences in the abilities of the races are the result of the suppression of the reproduction ( and outright culling by famine, war, and punishment) of the underclasses under agrarianism above 50 degrees north latitude in east and west. This was not possible in the warmer climes.
Every group can transcend the limits of their distributions if and only if they do the same. We can never fix favelas. Ever. Because the cost of the unproductive and organizing the unproductive using market incentives cannot be paid or constructed for the simple reason that the upper and upper middle classes cannot organize sufficient incentives to create a commercial, middle class order, with a heavily underclass population.
Source date (UTC): 2016-09-16 02:49:00 UTC