Western Aristocracy Testifies https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/30/western-aristocracy-testifies/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-30 14:48:24 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1266743265715462144
Theme: Institution
-
Western Aristocracy Testifies
Feb 4, 2020, 10:46 AM Greg’s comment that GSRRM is witness intimidation and his suggestion that we maintain a consistent western paradigm accessible to the people sparked an insight that I had to stew on overnight. But it consists of three parts: first that we have always used both positive religious and negative judicial priesthoods – even though we invented philosophy as a bridge. That westerners are always testifying as if before thang or court, or reporting as if before officers. That our piety is both judicial and aspirational. And that our commons of truth is the result of this compartmentalisation of ethics and our justification of action across the spectrum from intolerant law to forgiving religion thereby providing both maximal opportunity and graceful failure on one end and maximum decidability and intolerance exposing failure on the other.
-
Western Aristocracy Testifies
Feb 4, 2020, 10:46 AM Greg’s comment that GSRRM is witness intimidation and his suggestion that we maintain a consistent western paradigm accessible to the people sparked an insight that I had to stew on overnight. But it consists of three parts: first that we have always used both positive religious and negative judicial priesthoods – even though we invented philosophy as a bridge. That westerners are always testifying as if before thang or court, or reporting as if before officers. That our piety is both judicial and aspirational. And that our commons of truth is the result of this compartmentalisation of ethics and our justification of action across the spectrum from intolerant law to forgiving religion thereby providing both maximal opportunity and graceful failure on one end and maximum decidability and intolerance exposing failure on the other.
-
Limits
Feb 9, 2020, 1:36 PM
The via-positiva free market in goods, services, and information, will regulate itself if very small. The via-negativa market for prosecution of regulates the free market if it is other than very small. 😉
And notice that free market advocates always and everywhere are trying to commit irreciprocity, by using income statement rather than balance sheet measures – just like neo-liberals. This is a law of economics.Sorry.You can’t get around it logically or empirically. Libertarians use reductio sophisms just like philosophers.
-
Limits
Feb 9, 2020, 1:36 PM
The via-positiva free market in goods, services, and information, will regulate itself if very small. The via-negativa market for prosecution of regulates the free market if it is other than very small. 😉
And notice that free market advocates always and everywhere are trying to commit irreciprocity, by using income statement rather than balance sheet measures – just like neo-liberals. This is a law of economics.Sorry.You can’t get around it logically or empirically. Libertarians use reductio sophisms just like philosophers.
-
The Final Iteration
—“In the final iteration is it not the pawnbroker/ money lender > government bond issuer > central banker that puts the globalist corporatist cosmopolitan Davos man (haute bourgeoisie) above our ultimate line of national defense (national monarchs, national/local nobility, local militia)?”—Scott De Warren
-
On Farmers in The Division of Labor
(The flip side of “I, Pencil”.) (probably an important lesson) Military(organization of territory) <> Judiciary (organization of cooperation-contract) <> Finance (organization of money(stored time)) <> Entrepreneurship (Organization of opportunity, capital, people) <> Professionals (organization of production(calculation)) <> Managers (Organization of people) <> Producers (Organization of resources) <> Distributors (organization of distribution) <> Trade (organization of transactions) <> Consumers (organization of consumption) <> Parents (organization of reproduction) <> teachers, priests, public intellectuals politicians ( sedation, facilitation, and amelioration of stress arising from scarcity, individual and familial irrelevance, and alienation in the division of labor upon which they depend.) Given the problem of “I,Pencil” (distribution of knowledge), an individual farmer has to input a lot of diverse knowledge and effort for low return on investment, in no small part because petroleum products, industrialization, fertilizer, feed were fully commoditized. A farmer organizes primary resources (animals, food stuffs) and as such must be a skilled craftsman (organizers of specialized resources) at the very limit of craftsman’s capital (tools – no other craftsman requires so many tools). But the returns on the organization of resources are small – there are few multipliers. As you move up the production hierarchy you are responsible for organizing more and more and more people – where there are multipliers. This is why Marx is wrong. In order to organize people by rational incentives, one must produce marginal competitive differences by which to influence their choices. As such the entire difficulty in organizing production is organizing the human beings in a vast network to engage in it with nothing other than the bribe of doing the work (payment).
-
On Farmers in The Division of Labor
(The flip side of “I, Pencil”.) (probably an important lesson) Military(organization of territory) <> Judiciary (organization of cooperation-contract) <> Finance (organization of money(stored time)) <> Entrepreneurship (Organization of opportunity, capital, people) <> Professionals (organization of production(calculation)) <> Managers (Organization of people) <> Producers (Organization of resources) <> Distributors (organization of distribution) <> Trade (organization of transactions) <> Consumers (organization of consumption) <> Parents (organization of reproduction) <> teachers, priests, public intellectuals politicians ( sedation, facilitation, and amelioration of stress arising from scarcity, individual and familial irrelevance, and alienation in the division of labor upon which they depend.) Given the problem of “I,Pencil” (distribution of knowledge), an individual farmer has to input a lot of diverse knowledge and effort for low return on investment, in no small part because petroleum products, industrialization, fertilizer, feed were fully commoditized. A farmer organizes primary resources (animals, food stuffs) and as such must be a skilled craftsman (organizers of specialized resources) at the very limit of craftsman’s capital (tools – no other craftsman requires so many tools). But the returns on the organization of resources are small – there are few multipliers. As you move up the production hierarchy you are responsible for organizing more and more and more people – where there are multipliers. This is why Marx is wrong. In order to organize people by rational incentives, one must produce marginal competitive differences by which to influence their choices. As such the entire difficulty in organizing production is organizing the human beings in a vast network to engage in it with nothing other than the bribe of doing the work (payment).
-
Germanic religion, in so far it can be called that, wasn’t in any way centralize
Germanic religion, in so far it can be called that, wasn’t in any way centralized. https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/29/germanic-religion-in-so-far-it-can-be-called-that-wasnt-in-any-way-centralized/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-29 23:15:52 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1266508588777955330
-
Germanic religion, in so far it can be called that, wasn’t in any way centralized.
Feb 26, 2020, 12:42 PM Martin Štěpán Germanic religion, in so far it can be called that, wasn’t in any way centralized. There was no organization and no book every tribe would have. Every tribe’s version could slowly evolve and diverge, especially if they didn’t come into contact. What we have comes from Iceland written after Christianity was already in place. Even though the gods were shared and Odin does appear to be the head of the pantheon everywhere (Tacitus – central European Germanics, Geoffrey of Monmouth – Saxons) but who knows how the personalities and the stories might have differed. Bill Joslin fight fire with fire, and psychopomp with psychopomp. P, in clarifying the reality of the socio-economic world, turns the wheel of gods, one more rotation back to tyr. law, born of martial culture which domesticates .. a natural response to Fenrir breaking his chains to race across the sky undoing the domestication of our animal nature. Bill Smith This. This is good. Curt. Yeah, Bill has a thing there. That’s a good thing.