The Mises Institute would survive if and only if it transforms from advocacy of the pseudoscientific Ashkenazi enlightenment of Boaz, Marx, Cantor, Frankfurt, and Keynes, Mises and Rothbard, to the Scientific enlightenment of Hayek, Popper, Einstein, Darwin, Spencer, Pareto, Durkheim, and myself.
It is one thing to say “all these men failed, and each brought a piece of the puzzle to the intellectual table, but none was able to assemble it.”
it is another to say Mises and Rothbard were ‘Austrians” of the empirical enlightenment seeking to restate german ethics from rationalism to social science, rather Ukrainians/Russians/Poles of the Ashkenazi pseudoscientific enlightenment seeking to restate eastern European ethics in an evolution of Jewish law. ie: not science. It’s fairly clear that Mises didn’t even understand what the term meant.
Otherwise we must seek to constantly publish that their advocacy of libertinism and low trust ethics is merely an attempt to perpetuate the landless libertine ethics of eastern European borderlands, and European ghettos, as a competitor to the landed high trust aristocratic ethics of the martial peoples of Europe and their ancestors.
There is no libertine liberty of permission, nor can one possess a condition of liberty when one cannot retaliate for unproductive exchanges. The only existentially possible condition of liberty one can possess is that of the high trust produced by the universal, incremental, suppression of parasitism, and the limitation of man to productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, limited to externalities of the same.
There is room in the intellectual space for restoration of the Austrian program of empirical social science of non-interference (voluntaryism). We already have honest schools of discretionary economic rule (mainstream Keynesian), non-discretionary economic rule of law (Chicago), but we have lost school of the non-discretionary, non-interference, where were seek only to improve the information provided by institutions not alter it deceptively for any reason. There may, in fact, be room in economic science and political policy for each of these schools because they range from the short term (fiscal-discretionary) to the medium term (monetary0-rule of law), to the long-term (institutional non-interference). But without the existence of all three there exists insufficient intellectual competition for each to be limited to its boundaries.
Currently, our think tanks appear to follow the academic rule that thought only reforms with the death of its proponents. So we are stuck with romantic historicism of Heritage, the Moral Contractualism of Cato, the various smaller groups still hanging on economics rather than all of social science, and the Mises institute still dragging the limp body of failed eastern European libertinism into which they’ve overinvested their life’s works like the Ashkenazi enlightenment has dragged its peers on >>>>> ‘s chain: marxism/socialism and neoconservatism. All are nonsense that deny mankind’s demonstrated behaviors in an attempt – like its religious forbearer – to produce a psychic alternate reality that brings nothing but dark ages.
I am not an advocate of any institution, but of liberty itself. And the only existentially possible liberty is that where we use the promise of organized violence to prevent the alternatives. Because liberty is unnatural to man. It requires productivity that is hard, unforgiving, genetically bound, prone to risk, and entirely meritocratic.
That liberty is produced by a militia, a book of Natural Law, an independent judiciary treating the common natural law as sacred, and the total suppression of parasitism by every possible means, interpersonal, economic, and political.
Hayek was correct in that the common law of natural law and property is the source of liberty. Mises discovered operationalism in economics, at the inspiration of weber and spencer. Popper discovered that darwin;s survival applied to knowledge, and that Hum’s criticism of induction was correct. Rothbard discovered that all ethics, morality and law could be represented as property rights. Hoppe discovered that representatives (agents) cannot possess beneficial incentives, and further explained that all political institutions could be converted into constructions of property rights – providing universal decidability. Haidt discovered that we all vote our reproductive interests, and I discovered that these interests can also be expressed as property rights. My meager contribution has been to unite these thinkers, providing the Wilsonian synthesis, and to extend the division of labor into the division of perception and advocacy on behalf of our reproductive strategies.
This is the future of liberty. Truth and the incremental suppression of parasitism from all walks of life by the judical application and common law discovery of natural law: the law of property
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Theme: Institution
-
A Future for the Mises Institute?
The Mises Institute would survive if and only if it transforms from advocacy of the pseudoscientific Ashkenazi enlightenment of Boaz, Marx, Cantor, Frankfurt, and Keynes, Mises and Rothbard, to the Scientific enlightenment of Hayek, Popper, Einstein, Darwin, Spencer, Pareto, Durkheim, and myself. It is one thing to say “all these men failed, and each brought a piece of the puzzle to the intellectual table, but none was able to assemble it.” it is another to say Mises and Rothbard were ‘Austrians” of the empirical enlightenment seeking to restate german ethics from rationalism to social science, rather Ukrainians/Russians/Poles of the Ashkenazi pseudoscientific enlightenment seeking to restate eastern European ethics in an evolution of Jewish law. ie: not science. It’s fairly clear that Mises didn’t even understand what the term meant. Otherwise we must seek to constantly publish that their advocacy of libertinism and low trust ethics is merely an attempt to perpetuate the landless libertine ethics of eastern European borderlands, and European ghettos, as a competitor to the landed high trust aristocratic ethics of the martial peoples of Europe and their ancestors. There is no libertine liberty of permission, nor can one possess a condition of liberty when one cannot retaliate for unproductive exchanges. The only existentially possible condition of liberty one can possess is that of the high trust produced by the universal, incremental, suppression of parasitism, and the limitation of man to productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, limited to externalities of the same. There is room in the intellectual space for restoration of the Austrian program of empirical social science of non-interference (voluntaryism). We already have honest schools of discretionary economic rule (mainstream Keynesian), non-discretionary economic rule of law (Chicago), but we have lost school of the non-discretionary, non-interference, where were seek only to improve the information provided by institutions not alter it deceptively for any reason. There may, in fact, be room in economic science and political policy for each of these schools because they range from the short term (fiscal-discretionary) to the medium term (monetary0-rule of law), to the long-term (institutional non-interference). But without the existence of all three there exists insufficient intellectual competition for each to be limited to its boundaries. Currently, our think tanks appear to follow the academic rule that thought only reforms with the death of its proponents. So we are stuck with romantic historicism of Heritage, the Moral Contractualism of Cato, the various smaller groups still hanging on economics rather than all of social science, and the Mises institute still dragging the limp body of failed eastern European libertinism into which they’ve overinvested their life’s works like the Ashkenazi enlightenment has dragged its peers on >>>>> ‘s chain: marxism/socialism and neoconservatism. All are nonsense that deny mankind’s demonstrated behaviors in an attempt – like its religious forbearer – to produce a psychic alternate reality that brings nothing but dark ages. I am not an advocate of any institution, but of liberty itself. And the only existentially possible liberty is that where we use the promise of organized violence to prevent the alternatives. Because liberty is unnatural to man. It requires productivity that is hard, unforgiving, genetically bound, prone to risk, and entirely meritocratic. That liberty is produced by a militia, a book of Natural Law, an independent judiciary treating the common natural law as sacred, and the total suppression of parasitism by every possible means, interpersonal, economic, and political. Hayek was correct in that the common law of natural law and property is the source of liberty. Mises discovered operationalism in economics, at the inspiration of weber and spencer. Popper discovered that darwin;s survival applied to knowledge, and that Hum’s criticism of induction was correct. Rothbard discovered that all ethics, morality and law could be represented as property rights. Hoppe discovered that representatives (agents) cannot possess beneficial incentives, and further explained that all political institutions could be converted into constructions of property rights – providing universal decidability. Haidt discovered that we all vote our reproductive interests, and I discovered that these interests can also be expressed as property rights. My meager contribution has been to unite these thinkers, providing the Wilsonian synthesis, and to extend the division of labor into the division of perception and advocacy on behalf of our reproductive strategies. This is the future of liberty. Truth and the incremental suppression of parasitism from all walks of life by the judical application and common law discovery of natural law: the law of property Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine -
Ancapism Cannot Survive Market Competition
***”anarchism lacks institutions for construction of decidable law, and the production of commons necessary for the continuous development of suppression of parasitism and continuous development of competitive commons. It’s an ethic for disasporic people who free ride upon nation states, but it cannot serve as the institutional basis of a voluntary polity because one cannot create a polity that can compete for members with other polities. in other words, ancapism cannot produce a polity that can survive in the market for polities without a host polity and institutions that it parasitically lives within”***
-
Ancapism Cannot Survive Market Competition
***”anarchism lacks institutions for construction of decidable law, and the production of commons necessary for the continuous development of suppression of parasitism and continuous development of competitive commons. It’s an ethic for disasporic people who free ride upon nation states, but it cannot serve as the institutional basis of a voluntary polity because one cannot create a polity that can compete for members with other polities. in other words, ancapism cannot produce a polity that can survive in the market for polities without a host polity and institutions that it parasitically lives within”***
-
Markets: Designed, Constructed, Or Evolved?
It’s that men did in fact create markets by forcible suppression of alternatives (parasitism) in all walks of life. Now this is different from ‘designed’. The market arises as a consequence of this suppression. So we ‘liberate’ the market as well as man, from parasitism. we construct liberty and market by the same means: suppression of its alternatives. So it’s not that we design the market, it’s that the market evolves from the design of suppression of parasitism. but reality is that market towns were established as were shopping malls today. So trade may exist prior to suppression – but markets are made. cooperation may exist prior to suppression – but liberty is constructed.
-
Markets: Designed, Constructed, Or Evolved?
It’s that men did in fact create markets by forcible suppression of alternatives (parasitism) in all walks of life. Now this is different from ‘designed’. The market arises as a consequence of this suppression. So we ‘liberate’ the market as well as man, from parasitism. we construct liberty and market by the same means: suppression of its alternatives. So it’s not that we design the market, it’s that the market evolves from the design of suppression of parasitism. but reality is that market towns were established as were shopping malls today. So trade may exist prior to suppression – but markets are made. cooperation may exist prior to suppression – but liberty is constructed.
-
A Subjective To Objective Translation Worth Repeating
—Humans are adapted to want traditional forms of governance. They want law. They want to be ruled by legitimate, worthy, and trusted authority. They want a leader who commands the force of the nation to represent them to the outside world.”— Adolphus Völkermord Yes … and we want them because we want low opportunity costs (a dense population), low transaction costs (trust), low-cost information(homogeneity language, and interests), low-cost negotiation (stable norms: manners, ethics, morals), high returns on our work effort (a market and competitive commons), insurance against defection and defectors(law), and insurance against our failure (insurer of last resort), and insurance against the loss of all of the above (military defense).
What I have learned to say is that we want a low cost of ‘calculating’ probability of success in our endeavors, and high returns on our efforts expended: *The greatest return, in the shortest time, for the least effort, with the greatest degree of certainty, at the lowest risk* In other words, we are like every other creature, object, molecule, and particle in the known universe. -
A Subjective To Objective Translation Worth Repeating
—Humans are adapted to want traditional forms of governance. They want law. They want to be ruled by legitimate, worthy, and trusted authority. They want a leader who commands the force of the nation to represent them to the outside world.”— Adolphus Völkermord Yes … and we want them because we want low opportunity costs (a dense population), low transaction costs (trust), low-cost information(homogeneity language, and interests), low-cost negotiation (stable norms: manners, ethics, morals), high returns on our work effort (a market and competitive commons), insurance against defection and defectors(law), and insurance against our failure (insurer of last resort), and insurance against the loss of all of the above (military defense).
What I have learned to say is that we want a low cost of ‘calculating’ probability of success in our endeavors, and high returns on our efforts expended: *The greatest return, in the shortest time, for the least effort, with the greatest degree of certainty, at the lowest risk* In other words, we are like every other creature, object, molecule, and particle in the known universe. -
Why Do Central Banks Use Intermediaries?
IMPORTANT: WHY DO CENTRAL BANKS USE INTERMEDIARIES? —“Question: why do central banks continue to do stimulus through intermediaries like banks when they can wire the money directly to consumers? Eg. by issuing them with prepaid cards to spend?”— Ayelam I am not an econometrician but I suspect I’ll hold my own against any living econometric economist on this subject: The answer consists of the following components: (1) The distribution of physical money through the banks was a necessity. (2 )There was no other distribution channel available until perhaps 20 years ago at the earliest. (I remember how hard it was to get people to use credit cards). (3) Digital money is actually not a very old technology and we have just recently begun to understand it.Governments move very slowly and this will disrupt the entire economy in (good) ways that will totally fuck the institutional investors that fund DC campaigns with ill-gotten gains unearned, since they merely distribute a costless good to the highest bidder for a commission. They are auctioneers. That is all. (4) The banker/crediting agency investigates the probability and insures the probability that the debt will be repaid. This INSURER function is actually what bankers do: insure the shareholders (citizens) that their fiat money (shares) are used judiciously. This argument has increasingly become specious because we have such accurate actuarial data now that we can predict the performance of a bucket of consumers with nearly perfect accuracy. 4A) It benefits the various rent seekers and politicians if all fiscal(spending) stimulus to the economy is provided by government to government suppliers just as all monetary stimulus is distributed through the financial sectors. What would happen to the construction of high cost government projects when consumers were able to say “but I could have used that money here at home?”. (5) There is a (mistaken) belief that the time value of productivity for the purpose of consumption (consumer income) needs interest for calculation purposes just as business and industry need interest for economic calculation purposes. This is a long conversation but I don’t see how consumption is any kind of entrepreneurial risk. it’s the cause of entrepreneurial risk. (6) The very idea was kind of poisoned by the MMT crowd. Particularly – we do not know the impact it would have on interest rates. And at present interest rates are the metric that the world uses to control the ‘price’ of money(which is not driven by cost of production), by regulating its ‘manufacture’ by states. Without interest rates we need another measure. This measure has been in dispute for many years, with some favoring some sort of purchasing power metric, and others favoring some productivity metric, and others some ‘growth’ metric. But if money loses its intertemporal predictability then economic calculation of contracts over any period of time increases and with that, the cost of all production, and therefore all prices, increases rapidly. (remember that money = influence that saves time and is therefore a store of time-in-production. Fiat money issued as credit money is a risk that the time will be more than saved over the interim period. (7) The moral hazard of distributing directly to consumers is frightening because unlike market activity, where people blame employers and the economy when activity shrinks and so does their income, we are fearful that people will change from living paycheck to variable paycheck, to living from monetary distribution to monetary distribution but retaliate politically against the government in the case of shrinking. Thereby all but making total communism a deterministic outcome – which is why some of the left advocate for it. (8) With the advent of leftist influence on the judiciary, it is no longer a social science bound by natural laws. So we have no means of putting such a policy into the constitution such that it’s immutable. Thereby eliminating the hazards articulated above. (9) I was nobody in 2008-2009 when I was talking about it, but as far as I know Galbraith was the only mainstream guy who articulated this problem correctly, and he correctly advocated the direct payment of mortgage debt. It would have price stabilized the world economy. But it would have fucked (undeserving) institutional debt-holders the same way greek debt holders were fucked. (His death was untimely) And conservatives (wrongly) thought it created a moral hazard (which would have been solved by giving people credit lines who had acted properly, and credit lines to those people over the next x years who were able to buy a house. ) I’ve also recommended limiting mortgages to 15 years in order to limit this problem further. Why? all increases in salary are eventually absorbed by housing prices and redistributed to long term property holders (indirect retirement savings accounts ). (10) So net net, we can buy or nationalize the ( worst )credit card company (mastercard), and distribute liquidity directly to consumers, as long as we put constitutional safeguards in place, and as long as the amount is dependent upon the overall economy. And let industry and business determine the interest rate, which should drop dramaticlaly if we reidstribute to consumers. Because the truth is that fiat currency is such an advantage that a people cannot compete without it. Competing currencies and commodities exist but they are not anywhere near as price stabilized as fiat money CAN be. So we are always going to have it. Probably digital will replace it and it will have to because the abuse of it has gotten out of hand. What real purpose does government debt serve over simply printing money and paying with it? You pay the price of interest in order to delay the equilibrial neutrality of money working through the economy. In other words, the faster new money moves the faster prices in the existing cycle of production adjust. Fast adjustment is bad if it interferes with production ( planning ) cycles. So instead we pay interest and sell government debt so that we inflate away the interest at about the same rate that prices adjust in the economy. If you understand it, then it seems ridiculous. A clever network of lies not really different from religion.
-
Why Do Central Banks Use Intermediaries?
IMPORTANT: WHY DO CENTRAL BANKS USE INTERMEDIARIES? —“Question: why do central banks continue to do stimulus through intermediaries like banks when they can wire the money directly to consumers? Eg. by issuing them with prepaid cards to spend?”— Ayelam I am not an econometrician but I suspect I’ll hold my own against any living econometric economist on this subject: The answer consists of the following components: (1) The distribution of physical money through the banks was a necessity. (2 )There was no other distribution channel available until perhaps 20 years ago at the earliest. (I remember how hard it was to get people to use credit cards). (3) Digital money is actually not a very old technology and we have just recently begun to understand it.Governments move very slowly and this will disrupt the entire economy in (good) ways that will totally fuck the institutional investors that fund DC campaigns with ill-gotten gains unearned, since they merely distribute a costless good to the highest bidder for a commission. They are auctioneers. That is all. (4) The banker/crediting agency investigates the probability and insures the probability that the debt will be repaid. This INSURER function is actually what bankers do: insure the shareholders (citizens) that their fiat money (shares) are used judiciously. This argument has increasingly become specious because we have such accurate actuarial data now that we can predict the performance of a bucket of consumers with nearly perfect accuracy. 4A) It benefits the various rent seekers and politicians if all fiscal(spending) stimulus to the economy is provided by government to government suppliers just as all monetary stimulus is distributed through the financial sectors. What would happen to the construction of high cost government projects when consumers were able to say “but I could have used that money here at home?”. (5) There is a (mistaken) belief that the time value of productivity for the purpose of consumption (consumer income) needs interest for calculation purposes just as business and industry need interest for economic calculation purposes. This is a long conversation but I don’t see how consumption is any kind of entrepreneurial risk. it’s the cause of entrepreneurial risk. (6) The very idea was kind of poisoned by the MMT crowd. Particularly – we do not know the impact it would have on interest rates. And at present interest rates are the metric that the world uses to control the ‘price’ of money(which is not driven by cost of production), by regulating its ‘manufacture’ by states. Without interest rates we need another measure. This measure has been in dispute for many years, with some favoring some sort of purchasing power metric, and others favoring some productivity metric, and others some ‘growth’ metric. But if money loses its intertemporal predictability then economic calculation of contracts over any period of time increases and with that, the cost of all production, and therefore all prices, increases rapidly. (remember that money = influence that saves time and is therefore a store of time-in-production. Fiat money issued as credit money is a risk that the time will be more than saved over the interim period. (7) The moral hazard of distributing directly to consumers is frightening because unlike market activity, where people blame employers and the economy when activity shrinks and so does their income, we are fearful that people will change from living paycheck to variable paycheck, to living from monetary distribution to monetary distribution but retaliate politically against the government in the case of shrinking. Thereby all but making total communism a deterministic outcome – which is why some of the left advocate for it. (8) With the advent of leftist influence on the judiciary, it is no longer a social science bound by natural laws. So we have no means of putting such a policy into the constitution such that it’s immutable. Thereby eliminating the hazards articulated above. (9) I was nobody in 2008-2009 when I was talking about it, but as far as I know Galbraith was the only mainstream guy who articulated this problem correctly, and he correctly advocated the direct payment of mortgage debt. It would have price stabilized the world economy. But it would have fucked (undeserving) institutional debt-holders the same way greek debt holders were fucked. (His death was untimely) And conservatives (wrongly) thought it created a moral hazard (which would have been solved by giving people credit lines who had acted properly, and credit lines to those people over the next x years who were able to buy a house. ) I’ve also recommended limiting mortgages to 15 years in order to limit this problem further. Why? all increases in salary are eventually absorbed by housing prices and redistributed to long term property holders (indirect retirement savings accounts ). (10) So net net, we can buy or nationalize the ( worst )credit card company (mastercard), and distribute liquidity directly to consumers, as long as we put constitutional safeguards in place, and as long as the amount is dependent upon the overall economy. And let industry and business determine the interest rate, which should drop dramaticlaly if we reidstribute to consumers. Because the truth is that fiat currency is such an advantage that a people cannot compete without it. Competing currencies and commodities exist but they are not anywhere near as price stabilized as fiat money CAN be. So we are always going to have it. Probably digital will replace it and it will have to because the abuse of it has gotten out of hand. What real purpose does government debt serve over simply printing money and paying with it? You pay the price of interest in order to delay the equilibrial neutrality of money working through the economy. In other words, the faster new money moves the faster prices in the existing cycle of production adjust. Fast adjustment is bad if it interferes with production ( planning ) cycles. So instead we pay interest and sell government debt so that we inflate away the interest at about the same rate that prices adjust in the economy. If you understand it, then it seems ridiculous. A clever network of lies not really different from religion.