Sorry, that’s not quite right. English had maintained Anglo Saxon (germanic < Corded Ware < Yamna(Kurgan)) law that evolved significantly during manorialism, such that the relation between the ruler (sovereign), and the freeman (sovereign) was purely contractual – and that his “rights as an Englishman” (his sovereignty) as they were later expressed, were consistent regardless of territory. This is how all militial cultures must operate, whether agrarian (militia), pastoral (raiders), or seafaring (pirates). It’s not a choice. Unlike the agrarian river valleys, where production is concentrated, returns are high, armies are affordable, the europeans could not produce other than mlitial armies until trade had evolved sufficient for state formation – approximately the time of Napoleon – meaning it took from the late roman period to the Napoleonic period to restore the economy of europe. The english extended their practice of common (traditional germanic) law to their broader understanding of the world, and in doing so produced empiricism, and the anglo empirical revolution. The REST OF THE ENLIGHTENMENT was a counter-revolution AGAINST this empirical, legal, contractual, individualism, while at the same time, the middle class (thanks to the Viking trade first, the Hansa trade second, then the atlantic trade third) attempted to sought to take power from the landed aristocracy now that trade was as important or more so than agrarian production – and given that international relations were now nearly as important as internal relations. Once this was possible, both the upper (aristocratic, landed, military) class and the emergent middle class (burghers so to speak), attempted successfully to liberate the 50% of dead capital in europe that was in the hands of the church. So no. The english had it right, and the rest of the world has been fighting against the empirical model, being dragged into science, markets, and technology one war at a time. One must choose between rule of law, and rule by discretion. We make this false claim that the argument is between capitalism and socialism both of which are alien ideas to european civilization, which has always been one of markets – precisely because individualism in the west is 3500 years old. We invented the combination of militia, contract, truth, duty, sovereignty. And it is the very and only reason for our more rapid rates of evolution in the ancient world and in the modern world.
Theme: Institution
-
Sorry, that’s not quite right. English had maintained Anglo Saxon (germanic < Co
Sorry, that’s not quite right. English had maintained Anglo Saxon (germanic < Corded Ware < Yamna(Kurgan)) law that evolved significantly during manorialism, such that the relation between the ruler (sovereign), and the freeman (sovereign) was purely contractual – and that his “rights as an Englishman” (his sovereignty) as they were later expressed, were consistent regardless of territory.
This is how all militial cultures must operate, whether agrarian (militia), pastoral (raiders), or seafaring (pirates). It’s not a choice. Unlike the agrarian river valleys, where production is concentrated, returns are high, armies are affordable, the europeans could not produce other than mlitial armies until trade had evolved sufficient for state formation – approximately the time of Napoleon – meaning it took from the late roman period to the Napoleonic period to restore the economy of europe.
The english extended their practice of common (traditional germanic) law to their broader understanding of the world, and in doing so produced empiricism, and the anglo empirical revolution.
The REST OF THE ENLIGHTENMENT was a counter-revolution AGAINST this empirical, legal, contractual, individualism, while at the same time, the middle class (thanks to the Viking trade first, the Hansa trade second, then the atlantic trade third) attempted to sought to take power from the landed aristocracy now that trade was as important or more so than agrarian production – and given that international relations were now nearly as important as internal relations. Once this was possible, both the upper (aristocratic, landed, military) class and the emergent middle class (burghers so to speak), attempted successfully to liberate the 50% of dead capital in europe that was in the hands of the church.
So no. The english had it right, and the rest of the world has been fighting against the empirical model, being dragged into science, markets, and technology one war at a time.
One must choose between rule of law, and rule by discretion.
We make this false claim that the argument is between capitalism and socialism both of which are alien ideas to european civilization, which has always been one of markets – precisely because individualism in the west is 3500 years old.
We invented the combination of militia, contract, truth, duty, sovereignty. And it is the very and only reason for our more rapid rates of evolution in the ancient world and in the modern world.
Source date (UTC): 2018-08-09 14:14:00 UTC
-
Is it bad? I mean, we need to organize. People just want to choose who they orga
Is it bad? I mean, we need to organize. People just want to choose who they organize under. Iron rule of oligarchy. Decision on collective action requires these people.
Source date (UTC): 2018-08-08 21:48:12 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1027310536076283905
Reply addressees: @DegenRolf
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1027182165732347911
IN REPLY TO:
@DegenRolf
“Individuals whose preferences are extremely egoistic and also unchanging tend to influence others the most.” https://t.co/lGfk1Cd4wU https://t.co/F7zjgg26sw
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1027182165732347911
-
Best, most promising economist in America IMO was outcast from his department fo
Best, most promising economist in America IMO was outcast from his department for public communication rather than publication. We know the vast majority (all but a minority) of publications are worthless. While educating the public in economics NECESSARY.
Source date (UTC): 2018-08-08 21:42:47 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1027309172289953793
Reply addressees: @daniel_toker
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1026952657745797121
IN REPLY TO:
Original post on X
Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1026952657745797121
-
The scandinavians and germans succeeded where the Franks failed, by creating man
The scandinavians and germans succeeded where the Franks failed, by creating manorialism, the Hansa, trade routes, and restoring germanic law, restoring literacy, ending church corruption, and liberating the dead capital in the church. Sorry. Economic history tells us w/o lies.
Source date (UTC): 2018-08-08 16:33:36 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1027231360891666433
Reply addressees: @Simonow_ @Hispanogoyim
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1027229910841151488
IN REPLY TO:
Original post on X
Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1027229910841151488
-
By which judgement? That of creating a high trust society by the institutionaliz
By which judgement? That of creating a high trust society by the institutionalization of truth, duty, sovereignty, and piety (humility)? That their civilization is unique in successful achievement of those goals? That they created a culture that is a high trust mixed economy?
Source date (UTC): 2018-08-07 21:48:20 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1026948179995099139
Reply addressees: @Hispanogoyim
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1026945599348920321
IN REPLY TO:
Original post on X
Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1026945599348920321
-
Will someone tell me how this is hate speech? It’s about the debate between the
Will someone tell me how this is hate speech? It’s about the debate between the better angels of our nature, and the many institutions from militaries, to police forces to laws to suppress violence. I mean, if this isn’t targeting I don’t know what it is.
#facebook #censorship https://t.co/LlUtUoFpvy
Source date (UTC): 2018-08-07 18:15:45 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1026894679667863553
-
IF THEY WIN IT IS YOUR FAULT AND MINE. Our predecessors were optimistically tole
IF THEY WIN IT IS YOUR FAULT AND MINE.
Our predecessors were optimistically tolerant of the leftist agenda to destroy western civilization, its history, its institutions of natural law, its meritocracy, its aristocracy, its norms, traditions, unique family structure, and unique values of truth, science, and law.
The only reason this is possible is because our grandparents, parents, and we, ourselves, have not, until 2001, ended our tolerance of the war against our people and our civilization.
There is only one solution – we pay the high price of correction now, versus the low price of continuous correction in the past.
Revolt, Separate, Prosper, Speciate.
Source date (UTC): 2018-08-07 17:54:00 UTC
-
LET ME HELP YOU WITH THE OBVIOUS: TEMPLES=BANKS You know, I have this economic u
LET ME HELP YOU WITH THE OBVIOUS: TEMPLES=BANKS
You know, I have this economic understanding of history (as well as artistic). And so I just … (stupidly) assume that everyone else has this same sort of understanding.
TEMPLES WERE BANKS, AND PRIESTS BANKERS.
And the templars attempted to restore this relationship for the west, when the French monarchy and the Pope decided to destroy them – in the process creating Switzerland.
MY VIEW
When you read my constitution this is one of the processes I put back into place. The relationship between the temples as banks and the churches as institutions of education in mindfulness as well as reading, writing, the other forms of calculation, and general knowledge of history.
Why? All money is nothing more than shares in the economy. Credit capacity of any economy, merely the amount of capital that can be inter temporally borrowed (produced).
Source date (UTC): 2018-08-07 15:00:00 UTC
-
Why does tech have so many political problems? by Tyler Cowen These are original
Why does tech have so many political problems?
by Tyler Cowen
These are originally derived from written notes, a basis for comments by somebody else, from a closed session on tech. I have added my own edits:
Most tech leaders aren’t especially personable. Instead, they’re quirky introverts. Or worse.
Most tech leaders don’t care much about the usual policy issues. They care about AI, self-driving cars, and space travel, none of which translate into positive political influence.
Tech leaders are idealistic and don’t intuitively understand the grubby workings of WDC.
People who could be “managers” in tech policy areas (for instance, they understand tech, are good at coalition building, etc.) will probably be pulled into a more lucrative area of tech. Therefore ther is an acute talent shortage in tech policy areas.
The Robespierrean social justice terror blowing through Silicon Valley occupies most of tech leaders’ “political” mental energy. It is hard to find time to focus on more concrete policy issues.
Of the policy issues that people in tech do care about—climate, gay/trans rights, abortion, Trump—they’re misaligned with Republican Party, to say the least. This same Republican party currently rules.
While accusations of deliberate bias against Republicans are overstated, the tech rank-and-file is quite anti-Republican, and increasingly so. This limits the political degrees of freedom of tech leaders. (See the responses to Elon Musk’s Republican donation.)
Several of the big tech companies are de facto monopolies or semi-monopolies. They must spend a lot of their political capital denying this or otherwise minimizing its import.
The media increasingly hates tech. (In part because tech is such a threat, in part because of a deeper C.P. Snow-style cultural mismatch.)
Not only does tech hate Trump… but Trump hates tech.
By nature, tech leaders are disagreeable iconoclasts (with individualistic and believe it or not sometimes megalomaniacal tendencies). That makes them bad at uniting as a coalition.
Major tech companies have meaningful presences in just a few states, which undermines their political influence. Of states where they have a presence — CA, WA, MA, NY — Democrats usually take them for granted, Republicans write them off. Might Austin, TX someday help here?
US tech companies are increasingly unpopular among governments around the world. For instance, Facebook/WhatsApp struggles in India. Or Google and the EU. Or Visa and Russia. This distracts the companies from focusing on US and that makes them more isolated.
The issues that are challenging for tech companies aren’t arcane questions directly in and of the tech industry (such as copyright mechanics for the music industry or procurement rules for defense). They’re broader and they also encounter very large coalitions coming from other directions: immigration laws, free speech issues on platforms, data privacy questions, and worker classification on marketplaces.
Blockchain may well make the world “crazier” in the next five years. So tech will be seen as driving even more disruption.
The industry is so successful that it’s not very popular among the rest of U.S. companies and it lacks allies. (90%+ of S&P 500 market cap appreciation this year has been driven by tech.) Many other parts of corporate America see tech as a major threat.
Maybe it is hard to find prominent examples of the great good that big tech is doing. Instagram TV. iPhone X. Amazon Echo Dot. Microsoft Surface Pro. Are you impressed? Are these companies golden geese or have they simply appropriated all the gold?
Source date (UTC): 2018-08-05 16:09:00 UTC