Under monarchy, without access to political power, those who sought power by market means, sought to limit the monarchy’s every encroachment. Under democracy, with access to power, everyone seeks it and to expand it.
Source date (UTC): 2016-09-15 23:52:00 UTC
THE CYCLES: CYCLE OF ORDERS
The cycle of history in genes, polities, economies, and knowledge is the same:
A new opportunity to exploit is discovered by those capable of exploiting it.
The innovators profit from the cooperation of followers.
The followers and those who profit expand in a hierarchy or school until one of the following occurs:
1 – the ‘market’ opportunity is exhausted,
…1.1 – followers who can be incentivised are exhausted,
…1.2 – or increases in profits are exhausted,
…1.3 – or the resources needed to exploit the opportunity are exhausted.
2 – or the institutions of cooperation (the pricing system) is overwhelmed, resulting in hyper-consumption.
3 – or a shock is encountered sufficient that the order cannot restructure while preserving the incentives to maintain the order;
4 – or Disaster, Plague, Famine, and War create a shock that no order can survive.
This is the universal rule of the evolution of orders.
Source date (UTC): 2016-09-15 02:42:00 UTC
[I]mmorality = impediment to cooperation and incentive to retaliation and its consequence to the voluntary organization reproduction, of production of goods, services, commons, dispute resolution, and defense – vs it’s opposite. That which we defend (property) = that which we have expended our resources in order to obtain by homesteading, transformation(production), or productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer limited to externalities of the same criteria. Property Rights = That scope of property which we reciprocally insure against the imposition of costs by others. Criminal = imposition of costs by direct physical means. Unethical = imposition of costs by interpersonal asymmetry of information. Immoral = imposition of costs indirectly extra-personal asymmetry of information. Macro interference does not consist of productive, fully informed, warrantied voluntary transfer limited to externality of the same criteria. When we study Saltwater interference (discretionary Pareto maximums) we study the greatest immorality possible. (rule by discretion) When we study Freshwater macro we study rule of law (insured, systemic non-discretionary maximums). (rule of law) When we study Austrian economics (non-discretionary Nash maximums), we study the greatest morality possible. (social science) As in many things, the middle road appears to be the optimum possible. It permits planning but provides insurance against asymmetries in the system. Ergo: the question is a moral one: who has discretion to cause indirect involuntary transfers that we cannot plan for? Mises discovered operationalism in economics. Operationalism is a means of constructing proofs of possibility (falsification attempts / tests of existential possibility ). But economics, like any discipline, and all of epistemology, remains scientific in the sense that science refers to warranties of due diligence that our observations(facts) and hypotheses(guesses) are laundered of all humanly possible error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, pseudoscience, overloading, propaganda, and deceit. It does not matter if we discover a pattern in reality by free association(accident), by empirical observation(top down), or by operational construction (bottom up). To make a truth proposition we must ensure that our speech is free of error -> deceit by tests of: 1 – categorical consistency 2 – logical consistency 3 – empirical consistency 4 – operational consistency 5 – moral consistency (reciprocity) 6 – scope consistency (parsimony, limits and full accounting) Mises did discover that in economics or in explanation of any human action whatsoever, we can construct a proof (test of possibility) using operational language (existential consistency), of moral consistency (reciprocal voluntary transfer), just as Spencer had previously illustrated in all of human experience. But mises attempted (falsely) to conflate science (falsification/warranty) with logic (test of internal consistency) as instead of as tests of natural law: the necessity of voluntary exchange free of incentive for retaliation. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine (ps: You would be far better served following me than rothbard or hoppe)
[I]mmorality = impediment to cooperation and incentive to retaliation and its consequence to the voluntary organization reproduction, of production of goods, services, commons, dispute resolution, and defense – vs it’s opposite. That which we defend (property) = that which we have expended our resources in order to obtain by homesteading, transformation(production), or productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer limited to externalities of the same criteria. Property Rights = That scope of property which we reciprocally insure against the imposition of costs by others. Criminal = imposition of costs by direct physical means. Unethical = imposition of costs by interpersonal asymmetry of information. Immoral = imposition of costs indirectly extra-personal asymmetry of information. Macro interference does not consist of productive, fully informed, warrantied voluntary transfer limited to externality of the same criteria. When we study Saltwater interference (discretionary Pareto maximums) we study the greatest immorality possible. (rule by discretion) When we study Freshwater macro we study rule of law (insured, systemic non-discretionary maximums). (rule of law) When we study Austrian economics (non-discretionary Nash maximums), we study the greatest morality possible. (social science) As in many things, the middle road appears to be the optimum possible. It permits planning but provides insurance against asymmetries in the system. Ergo: the question is a moral one: who has discretion to cause indirect involuntary transfers that we cannot plan for? Mises discovered operationalism in economics. Operationalism is a means of constructing proofs of possibility (falsification attempts / tests of existential possibility ). But economics, like any discipline, and all of epistemology, remains scientific in the sense that science refers to warranties of due diligence that our observations(facts) and hypotheses(guesses) are laundered of all humanly possible error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, pseudoscience, overloading, propaganda, and deceit. It does not matter if we discover a pattern in reality by free association(accident), by empirical observation(top down), or by operational construction (bottom up). To make a truth proposition we must ensure that our speech is free of error -> deceit by tests of: 1 – categorical consistency 2 – logical consistency 3 – empirical consistency 4 – operational consistency 5 – moral consistency (reciprocity) 6 – scope consistency (parsimony, limits and full accounting) Mises did discover that in economics or in explanation of any human action whatsoever, we can construct a proof (test of possibility) using operational language (existential consistency), of moral consistency (reciprocal voluntary transfer), just as Spencer had previously illustrated in all of human experience. But mises attempted (falsely) to conflate science (falsification/warranty) with logic (test of internal consistency) as instead of as tests of natural law: the necessity of voluntary exchange free of incentive for retaliation. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine (ps: You would be far better served following me than rothbard or hoppe)
Q&A: WHAT DOES MORALITY HAVE TO DO WITH ECONOMICS?
Immorality = impediment to cooperation and incentive to retaliation and its consequence to the voluntary organization reproduction, of production of goods, services, commons, dispute resolution, and defense – vs it’s opposite.
That which we defend (property) = that which we have expended our resources in order to obtain by homesteading, transformation(production), or productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer limited to externalities of the same criteria.
Property Rights = That scope of property which we reciprocally insure against the imposition of costs by others.
Criminal = imposition of costs by direct physical means.
Unethical = imposition of costs by interpersonal asymmetry of information.
Immoral = imposition of costs indirectly extra-personal asymmetry of information.
Macro interference does not consist of productive, fully informed, warrantied voluntary transfer limited to externality of the same criteria.
When we study Saltwater interference (discretionary Pareto maximums) we study the greatest immorality possible. (rule by discretion)
When we study Freshwater macro we study rule of law (insured, systemic non-discretionary maximums). (rule of law)
When we study Austrian economics (non-discretionary Nash maximums), we study the greatest morality possible. (social science)
As in many things, the middle road appears to be the optimum possible. It permits planning but provides insurance against asymmetries in the system.
Ergo: the question is a moral one: who has discretion to cause indirect involuntary transfers that we cannot plan for?
Mises discovered operationalism in economics. Operationalism is a means of constructing proofs of possibility (falsification attempts / tests of existential possibility ).
But economics, like any discipline, and all of epistemology, remains scientific in the sense that science refers to warranties of due diligence that our observations(facts) and hypotheses(guesses) are laundered of all humanly possible error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, pseudoscience, overloading, propaganda, and deceit.
It does not matter if we discover a pattern in reality by free association(accident), by empirical observation(top down), or by operational construction (bottom up). To make a truth proposition we must ensure that our speech is free of error -> deceit by tests of:
1 – categorical consistency
2 – logical consistency
3 – empirical consistency
4 – operational consistency
5 – moral consistency (reciprocity)
6 – scope consistency (parsimony, limits and full accounting)
Mises did discover that in economics or in explanation of any human action whatsoever, we can construct a proof (test of possibility) using operational language (existential consistency), of moral consistency (reciprocal voluntary transfer), just as Spencer had previously illustrated in all of human experience.
But mises attempted (falsely) to conflate science (falsification/warranty) with logic (test of internal consistency) as instead of as tests of natural law: the necessity of voluntary exchange free of incentive for retaliation.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev Ukraine
(ps: You would be far better served following me than rothbard or hoppe)
Source date (UTC): 2016-09-09 01:42:00 UTC
Libertarianism: Economics, Incentives.
Propertarianism: Economics, Philosophy (esp. of Science), Evolutionary Biology, Law, Incentives.
Source date (UTC): 2016-09-07 12:07:00 UTC
https://mises.org/blog/myth-macroeconomicsSAVE MISES AND ROTHBARD – END THE PSEUDOSCIENCE
We need to stop this kind of thing.
1) Macro economic manipulation measures the extent to which we can deceive through disinformation, and socialize private gains from capital accumulation. Macro economic manipulation DOES produce gains that SOMETIMES offset those private losses. But this is very hard to measure with any degree of reliability.
2) Mises is correct that the subjective operational testing (praxeological) of any economic proposition must be possible to construct as a rational and preferable sequence of events, for us to claim that economic phenomenon are descriptive of MORAL processes consisting of TRUTHFUL information provided by money and prices.
3) But it’s not myth, it’s not pseudoscience, it’s just IMMORAL. Mises conflates not only logic and science, justification and criticism, but also truth and morality. He did hold an insight but as a philosopher he was only marginally better than Rothbard, who was a catastrophe. We are better off reading Simmel than either Rothbard or Mises on the morality of money.
I struggle to reform this nonsense on a daily basis and thankfully I’ve mad substantial progress. Because we cannot pursue liberty by pseudoscience any more than the marxists could pursue communism through pseudoscience.
Mises is repairable. Rothbard less so. Hoppe more so. Hayek and Popper even more so.
But as the right ascends, libertarianism is quickly devolving even further into a lunatic fringe.
It is no use taking down mises and rothbard and possibly hoppe because of dedication to the false praise of men who were partly right but because of cultural traditions conflated true with moral, justification with criticism, logic with science, and straw men with argument.
We do their legacies no honor by promoting their errors rather than their achievements.
IN THREE GENERATIONS WE SOLVED THE PROBLEM OF SOCIAL SCIENCE.
That’s enough. We can take credit for it. Not because each man was perfect. Or because each man was an authority. But because despite being victims of their times and cultures, they each managed to find a piece of the puzzle that solved the riddle of social science. Cooperation by non imposition of costs that cause retaliation. Or stated positively: Reciprocal insurance of Property in Toto; continually policed by the market for dispute resolution: Natural, common, judge-discovered, law.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine.
PS: I would like to stop beating on Rothbard and Mises but as long as this nonsense continues I have to do the right thing.
Source date (UTC): 2016-09-07 11:16:00 UTC
We are all attracted to what we understand. We SHOULD learn to be attracted to what is GOOD for us. But this depends upon whether what is good for us is (a) available, and (b) obtainable. If not then what is emotionally and sexually good for us may be the best that is both available, and possible to obtain.
I mean, I am ABSOLUTELY POSITIVE a Victoria’s Secret Angel would be good for me. But they are neither available or obtainable with the assets I have to trade.
lol
Source date (UTC): 2016-09-06 11:28:00 UTC
http://digg.com/video/vid-me-youtube-guidelines-adTHE MARKET PROVIDES ALTERNATIVES
The Problem offering the optimistic with the pessimistic is required in order to hold customers.
Source date (UTC): 2016-09-05 07:20:00 UTC
WHY IS IT THAT WE DON”T MIX ECONOMIES?
Military (Slavery) – labor dependent
Communist (Serfdom) – skill dependent
Democratic Socialist (freedom) – mentally dependent
Capitalist (liberty) – capital dependent
If nations are smaller there are more ‘top slots’ but each having less free capital for use in corruption available.
All era’s face information problems when they scale.
This is ours.
The answer is always the same: information and institutions.
Source date (UTC): 2016-09-05 05:48:00 UTC