Theme: Institution

  • THINKING. TRUST. RUSSIA. Despite my criticism of Russian politics and culture si

    THINKING. TRUST. RUSSIA.

    Despite my criticism of Russian politics and culture since the invasion of Ukraine for purely dishonest reasons, I tend to have deep affection for Russian people, even when I think they are absurd, superstitious and crazy.

    Because I love that they are brave. Americans are brave by and large *outside of the millennial generation. Some brits are brave, if a minority. But continentals seem submissive and feminized to the core.

    So that is why I love Russians. Every crazy, lunatic, superstitious, conspiracy-theorizing, pseudoscientific, one of them – at least in the middle and upper classes. Russian working class is as boorish as the come, and the saddest example of white people( outside of California. lol).

    The wonderful thing about Russians is personal craftsmanship – pride in cunning in particular (which blows up as frequently as it succeeds). But they are very proud of their work, and very prideful in judging it. I find them very American in this regard.

    Unlike americans they do not easily trust one another, so while individual work is exceptional, collective work must be managed. And management is universally poor among Russians.

    The most obvious obstacle to Russian (and Ukrainian) trust is that admitting ignorance to others places you at the mercy of those who claim to possess knowledge that they almost always don’t have, but seek as a means of obtaining status, control, and as a consequence, work avoidance. Achieving ‘rest’ (laziness) is somehow seen as a reward, or bonus, or status symbol (Mafia Ethics – Russia is a Mafia Culture, just as Judaism is a Mafia Culture, and the two are closely related in that Judaism relies on cunning and Russian culture relies upon force).

    Russians ‘fence’ to demonstrate who should be in control. They lack the socratic and jesuit, and anglo technique of slowly ‘seeking to understand’ one another’s position. Women do this all the time. Instead Russian men seek to trip one another up or argue for position of authority rather than seek to collect Knowledge from each other and come to a consensus. Men do this all the time.

    This is how trust is built between peers. But Russians, like the Chinese and muslims, always seek hierarchy.

    The reason to do business with anglos and germans is because they are trustworthy and honest, and friction and risk are reduced. The reason other cultures like to work with their own is that they understand one another’s lie-signals and so they can lie honestly with one another and consider it manners. It is less economically productive but more comfortable for them. Conversely, when working with higher trust peoples, the feel weaker, or more nervous.

    Now, Muscovites are not equal to Russians. Many Moscow business people are like very poor versions of Germans. They are highly empirical, and work very hard. But they live in a world of corruption and theft, and fragile infrastructure. So they must be more skeptical than the westerners.

    I have more than a few times tripped up using anglo french political language with Russians and they view it as dishonest or patronizing. I must keep it in mind at all times.

    I am not an authority on this subject. I write so that I can understand it. I think I have come to understand, a bit, the Russian character. But I can only empathize so far. I know who I am and where I come from. We are the most trusting people on earth – to our own detriment.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-08-07 10:37:00 UTC

  • DEAR RUSSIANS: TRUST The only way to institutionally manufacture widespread trus

    DEAR RUSSIANS: TRUST

    The only way to institutionally manufacture widespread trust is an incorruptible independent judiciary, the common organic law, property rights to property-en-toto, public registries of property ownership, universal standing in matters of the commons, and the most severe prosecution of perjury.

    The world will trust you only when you can trust yourselves.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-08-07 03:21:00 UTC

  • Law: Genetic Pacification: The Problem of Retaliation.

    [I] think that anyone with knowledge of the intellectual history of law is keenly aware of the church’s problem of breaking up the large family holdings, and the law’s problem of preventing retaliation.

    What I think has proven difficult for most people in the conservative and certainly in the libertarian movements, is the recognition that property rights must extend to cover all those impositions that invoke retaliation.

    —-“Frost and Harpending argue that Human nature has been domesticated through breeding out violent men by the state. HBD chick & Jayman are arguing that the state replaced clan violence and directed it toward its enemies. It‘s really a question of whether cooperation with strangers on a mass scale occurred before or after the rise of the state. They agree on most things, “Yes, I see the two processes as being complementary. The dissolution of clannishness was both a cause and an effect of the pacification of social relations.”—-Bret Lynn

    (See http://www.europeanguardian.com/82-uncategorised/science/4-western-europe-state-formation-and-genetic-pacification)

    While we consider the central problem the state, the state is the result of suppressing private impositions while preserving political rents to pay for that suppression.

    But the central problem we face if we wish to reduce or eliminate the interference and rent seeking of the state, is to eliminate by way of the common law, using positive assertion of property rights, all actions that produce rents, whether in public or private life.

    First we centralize rents to suppress local rents and increase local productivity.  Next we eliminate rents in order to suppress political parasitism endemic to all monopoly and all monopoly bureaucracy.

  • Law: Genetic Pacification: The Problem of Retaliation.

    [I] think that anyone with knowledge of the intellectual history of law is keenly aware of the church’s problem of breaking up the large family holdings, and the law’s problem of preventing retaliation.

    What I think has proven difficult for most people in the conservative and certainly in the libertarian movements, is the recognition that property rights must extend to cover all those impositions that invoke retaliation.

    —-“Frost and Harpending argue that Human nature has been domesticated through breeding out violent men by the state. HBD chick & Jayman are arguing that the state replaced clan violence and directed it toward its enemies. It‘s really a question of whether cooperation with strangers on a mass scale occurred before or after the rise of the state. They agree on most things, “Yes, I see the two processes as being complementary. The dissolution of clannishness was both a cause and an effect of the pacification of social relations.”—-Bret Lynn

    (See http://www.europeanguardian.com/82-uncategorised/science/4-western-europe-state-formation-and-genetic-pacification)

    While we consider the central problem the state, the state is the result of suppressing private impositions while preserving political rents to pay for that suppression.

    But the central problem we face if we wish to reduce or eliminate the interference and rent seeking of the state, is to eliminate by way of the common law, using positive assertion of property rights, all actions that produce rents, whether in public or private life.

    First we centralize rents to suppress local rents and increase local productivity.  Next we eliminate rents in order to suppress political parasitism endemic to all monopoly and all monopoly bureaucracy.

  • Truth is Enough to save us. The common law is enough of an institution. Our hist

    Truth is Enough to save us. The common law is enough of an institution. Our history is enough for myth – and its true.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-08-06 01:00:00 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/629094537269497856

    Reply addressees: @AliceTeller

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/628728169890058240


    IN REPLY TO:

    @AliceTeller

    It is easy to mock images from castles to anime but we need myths that uplift or we are left to stare at the gutter and call it clean.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/628728169890058240

  • Since when did the corporation (state) take precedence over the family (kin)?

    Since when did the corporation (state) take precedence over the family (kin)?


    Source date (UTC): 2015-08-04 16:47:14 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/628608142537027584

    Reply addressees: @AppleCiderRadio

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/628606475573661696


    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/628606475573661696

  • Most of us have no problem with socializing the costs of health care. We object

    Most of us have no problem with socializing the costs of health care. We object to the government administration of it.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-08-04 06:00:31 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/628445387859337216

    Reply addressees: @Bipartisanism

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/628396101226201088


    IN REPLY TO:

    @Bipartisanism

    You oppose “socialized health care” yet LOVE Medicare. #SignsYoureRightWing http://t.co/8WyzF9RTxk

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/628396101226201088

  • Either reform the Mises Institute or shut it down. We have had enough pseudoscie

    Either reform the Mises Institute or shut it down. We have had enough pseudoscience and pseudorationalism for one century. #libertarian #NRx


    Source date (UTC): 2015-08-02 14:58:05 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/627855896794791936

  • Classical Contractualism and Rule of Law

    (law) (definitions) (learning propertariansim) [O]liver Wendel Holms really screwed American and anglo law. The more I study American history the more obvious it becomes that without the many nearby competitors we had faced as Europeans in Europe, that the new continent provided an excuse for the conquerors to take license with the law given the unanimity of sentiment: seizure of the opportunity to profit from the conquest of the continent. A unanimity that was not present in Europe (and which is only present under empire.) Law consists of the one rule necessary to preserve cooperation: the prohibition on parasitism that causes cooperation to be a rational preference.  And by causing cooperation to be a rational preference, we create and preserve the disproportionate rewards of cooperation, and the disproportionate rewards of the division of labor and knowledge in that is possible under cooperation. The one rule of prohibition on parasitism includes all forms of parasitism: violence, theft, extortion, fraud, externality and conspiracy. 

    Parasitism must be performed against something: Life, Mates and Offspring, Relations, Property,  Shareholder Property, Informal Institutional Property, and Formal Institutional Property. And we must know how NOT to perform parasitism: by limiting our actions to Productive, fully informed,  warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of parasitism by the same criteria. And we must agree to enforce this requirement in fulfillment of the prohibition on parasitism, by providing insurance to one another consisting of both the Obverse: we will provide a means of retaliation against violations of the rule; and Reverse: we will not retaliate against  retaliations that are performed against a violation of the rule. To provide means of insurance by providing an organizational means of retaliation against violations of the one rule, we will construct a court (testimony), a jury, presided by one or more judges. To simplify the act of determining whether violations have or have not occurred, we will record our decisions as the obverse: property rights, and the reverse: prohibitions on violations of those rights. THE EVOLUTION OF NON-LAW FROM LAW 1) LEGAL SCIENTISM (SCIENTIFIC) or CLASSICAL LEGAL THEORY Law consists of a set of axioms which cannot be violated (true). As such, law is if not a science, at least a formal logic, that is both internally consistent, externally correspondent and universally decidable. Political preference cannot override these principles. (Rule of Law) 2) LEGAL REALISM (RATIONAL) – THE FIRST AMERICAN VIOLATION OF RULE OF LAW Law is constructed from both political and logical origins. 3) LEGAL POSITIVISM (ARATIONAL) – THE SECOND AMERICAN VIOLATION AND THE TOTAL ABANDONMENT OF RULE OF LAW Law is a social construction unbound by any constraint other than its origin. REFORMATION: LEGAL SCIENTIFIC CONTRACTUALISM (RATIO-SCIENTIFIC) Law consists of a set of axioms which cannot be violated, since such violation whether singular grand and visible, or invisibly accumulated from multitudinous and minor errors, would violate and destroy the incentive to cooperate within a government by rule of law. However, nearly any desirable contract can be constructed by voluntary agreement of parties, so long as the internal transfers are enumerated and the net result is productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange free of external imposition of costs upon others. PROPERTARIANISM = LEGAL CONTRACTUALISM = CLASSICAL LAW See Also: “The First Principles of Propertarian Ethics” Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine, (Tallinn, Estonia)
  • Classical Contractualism and Rule of Law

    (law) (definitions) (learning propertariansim) [O]liver Wendel Holms really screwed American and anglo law. The more I study American history the more obvious it becomes that without the many nearby competitors we had faced as Europeans in Europe, that the new continent provided an excuse for the conquerors to take license with the law given the unanimity of sentiment: seizure of the opportunity to profit from the conquest of the continent. A unanimity that was not present in Europe (and which is only present under empire.) Law consists of the one rule necessary to preserve cooperation: the prohibition on parasitism that causes cooperation to be a rational preference.  And by causing cooperation to be a rational preference, we create and preserve the disproportionate rewards of cooperation, and the disproportionate rewards of the division of labor and knowledge in that is possible under cooperation. The one rule of prohibition on parasitism includes all forms of parasitism: violence, theft, extortion, fraud, externality and conspiracy. 

    Parasitism must be performed against something: Life, Mates and Offspring, Relations, Property,  Shareholder Property, Informal Institutional Property, and Formal Institutional Property. And we must know how NOT to perform parasitism: by limiting our actions to Productive, fully informed,  warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of parasitism by the same criteria. And we must agree to enforce this requirement in fulfillment of the prohibition on parasitism, by providing insurance to one another consisting of both the Obverse: we will provide a means of retaliation against violations of the rule; and Reverse: we will not retaliate against  retaliations that are performed against a violation of the rule. To provide means of insurance by providing an organizational means of retaliation against violations of the one rule, we will construct a court (testimony), a jury, presided by one or more judges. To simplify the act of determining whether violations have or have not occurred, we will record our decisions as the obverse: property rights, and the reverse: prohibitions on violations of those rights. THE EVOLUTION OF NON-LAW FROM LAW 1) LEGAL SCIENTISM (SCIENTIFIC) or CLASSICAL LEGAL THEORY Law consists of a set of axioms which cannot be violated (true). As such, law is if not a science, at least a formal logic, that is both internally consistent, externally correspondent and universally decidable. Political preference cannot override these principles. (Rule of Law) 2) LEGAL REALISM (RATIONAL) – THE FIRST AMERICAN VIOLATION OF RULE OF LAW Law is constructed from both political and logical origins. 3) LEGAL POSITIVISM (ARATIONAL) – THE SECOND AMERICAN VIOLATION AND THE TOTAL ABANDONMENT OF RULE OF LAW Law is a social construction unbound by any constraint other than its origin. REFORMATION: LEGAL SCIENTIFIC CONTRACTUALISM (RATIO-SCIENTIFIC) Law consists of a set of axioms which cannot be violated, since such violation whether singular grand and visible, or invisibly accumulated from multitudinous and minor errors, would violate and destroy the incentive to cooperate within a government by rule of law. However, nearly any desirable contract can be constructed by voluntary agreement of parties, so long as the internal transfers are enumerated and the net result is productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange free of external imposition of costs upon others. PROPERTARIANISM = LEGAL CONTRACTUALISM = CLASSICAL LAW See Also: “The First Principles of Propertarian Ethics” Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine, (Tallinn, Estonia)