Theme: Institution

  • “Way’s Of Thinking” Are Premodern Solutions. We Need Understanding of Our Failures and Institutions That Correct Them.

    We dont need another way of thinking. We cant convince anyone to adopt it. We dont need a new religion or belief. What we need is to understand why our beliefs, ways of thinking, and institutions failed to survive the extension of the franchise, and what to do about it now that they have failed. We cannot turn back the clock. Nor is the absurdity of the progressive fantasy either possible or survivable. It appears possible to reform our institutions by impending systemic collapse, or by outright insurrection. But it is clear that the majority favors feudal equality over entrepreneurial freedom. Numbers tell us that they do. So if we are to have freedom and they equality without one side conquering the other then we must sever our relations into multiple states or develop an alternative to majority monopoly rule. Given the value of scale in an insurer of last resort, and the virtue of a multiplicity of city states. And given the economic opportunity and cultural freedom that secession creates for each state, it may be possible to design a compromise solution which serves the moral differences and financial commonalities if each given modern technology. It would take a few years to implement but that time would permit demographic adjustment as well as the dismantlement of the federal monopoly, and the possibility if the solution would give vent to what is now leading to civil war.

  • "Way's Of Thinking" Are Premodern Solutions. We Need Understanding of Our Failures and Institutions That Correct Them.

    We dont need another way of thinking. We cant convince anyone to adopt it. We dont need a new religion or belief. What we need is to understand why our beliefs, ways of thinking, and institutions failed to survive the extension of the franchise, and what to do about it now that they have failed. We cannot turn back the clock. Nor is the absurdity of the progressive fantasy either possible or survivable. It appears possible to reform our institutions by impending systemic collapse, or by outright insurrection. But it is clear that the majority favors feudal equality over entrepreneurial freedom. Numbers tell us that they do. So if we are to have freedom and they equality without one side conquering the other then we must sever our relations into multiple states or develop an alternative to majority monopoly rule. Given the value of scale in an insurer of last resort, and the virtue of a multiplicity of city states. And given the economic opportunity and cultural freedom that secession creates for each state, it may be possible to design a compromise solution which serves the moral differences and financial commonalities if each given modern technology. It would take a few years to implement but that time would permit demographic adjustment as well as the dismantlement of the federal monopoly, and the possibility if the solution would give vent to what is now leading to civil war.

  • THEORISTS, PROFESSORS, PUBLISHERS, ADVOCATES, ACOLYTES, FOLLOWERS A movement nee

    THEORISTS, PROFESSORS, PUBLISHERS, ADVOCATES, ACOLYTES, FOLLOWERS

    A movement needs all of them.

    Don’t discriminate.

    Utilize.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-11-27 06:04:00 UTC

  • QUESTIONING THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF THE SCALE OF THE STATE. (profound) (worth rea

    QUESTIONING THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF THE SCALE OF THE STATE.

    (profound) (worth reading)

    (And an additional hypothesis)

    by Peter Boettke

    –“States capacity is required for tax collection, but the emergence of property rights and their enforcement predate both the formal state and the establishment of a taxing authority. Tyler gives a nod to Franz Oppenheimer in his link — Oppenheimer’s The State was a classic discussion of the conquest origins of formal government. The state is violence, the state is war. At least that is one way to put it. But does that conquest theory of the origins of the state undermine or support the state as essential for modern economic growth hypothesis?

    An alternative hypothesis is that rules that enable individuals and groups to realize the gains from social cooperation under the division of labor can arise outside of the formal apparatus of the state, and be supported through a diversity of institutional arrangements. I already linked to my close colleague Dragos Paul Aligica’s new book on Institutional Diversity and Political Economy, but today I was pointed to (ht: Angel Martin) to a new project among younger scholars in Europe focusing on the question of institutional design and institutional diversity influenced by Douglass North, Avner Greif, and Elinor Ostrom.”–

    by Mark Lutter:

    — “I don’t think state capacity and competition between states are mutually exclusive. During the middle ages there existed growth inhibiting organizations and institutions other than the state, guilds for example. State capacity essentially ensured sufficient power to stop local barriers to trade.

    Another aspect in which state capacity could lead to economic growth requires thinking about optimal tax theory. Certain types of taxation inhibit growth more than others. Increasing state capacity allowed the state to collect taxes using distortionary mechanisms.”—

    by Curt Doolittle

    I’ll offer a fourth hypothesis: centralization of free riding and rent seeking forces the decentralized citizenry to enter the market.

    The way to articulate and therefore understand these abstract processes is to refer to their causes not effects: free-riding and rent seeking.

    The statement “State capacity essentially ensured sufficient power to stop local barriers to trade” is correct, but would be causally articulated as the state forced the centralization of rent seeking.

    This is the same purpose that the federal governments provides: negotiation of terms for access to markets.

    In other words, they force market prices to be free of rent seeking. The question is whether the multiplier from central rent seeking or the multiplier from distributed rent seeking is superior. I think that’s very hard to prove.

    In fact, all we can prove is that the state centralizes rent seeking. I don’t think we can prove that there is much benefit to the centralization of rent seeking. It appears only that stability in rent seeking is superior to volatility in rent seeking, because stability in rent seeking forces all individuals to compete in the market now that the capacity to seek rents is put at a distance.

    Conversely, the concentration of rents creates a rental economy that generates rent-based wealth. (Washington DC). But there isn’t any evidence that rent based wealth has an particular value to a society other than generating wealthy consumers that are concentrated in the local rent-economy.

    The entire problem remains the same: how to force out rent seeking and free riding such that all individuals are participating in the market for goods and services.

    This is the necessary foundation for any economy, and the necessary foundation of property rights: property rights are a prohibition on rents and free riding, forced from the family to the individual, as rents and free riding are forced upward into the state at the expense of the family.

    If you grasp that this is what is being done, then you will grasp the causal nature, not the descriptive nature, of the process of developing states: the centralization of rent seeking and free riding, and in doing so, forcing individuals to compete in the market for goods and services.

    I am not convinced that this organized monopoly on rents and free riding is more influential to the economy than whatever ‘investments’ are made by the state. One can argue that the business of rent seeking and free riding is extremely profitable. That’s possible to argue.

    But in any human population, driving the maximum number of individuals to compete in the market for goods and services is what increases productivity under the division of knowledge and labor.

    Like all human cognitive processes, we identify what is visible as causal, rather than what is invisible.

    The scale of the state and the provision of taxes are meaningless. They are a MEANS but not the good provided. The good provided, and the benefits to any society, are created by the universal prohibition on the visible crimes of violence, fraud and theft, and the invisible crimes of rents and free riding. We accomplish these prohibitions by forming an institution that enforces those prohibitions and provides insurance against them.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-11-27 05:58:00 UTC

  • Reasons For The Decline Of The Humanities

    (good)(attack on academia) (Disclaimer: I have a fine art degree: art history and theory. Aesthetic philosophy. Although I am also educated in economics, philosophy, history and computer science.) [Warning: Harsh words follow.] 1) COST. Now, if I paid 10K for this degree, or even 20K, that would be one thing. But these degrees are too expensive for the cost of the education. Humans make cost benefit analyses and the data is in: there isn’t a return on them. 2) CONTENT. Philosophy departments can alight with the humanities and religion (which is a death sentence) or align with science, economics, politics, business and law (where it is terribly useful). 3) FAILURE OF PHILOSOPHICAL PROGRAM. The academic humanities bear much of the responsibility for their plight having tried fitfully to prove via the metaphysical program on one hand (a demonstrated failure), via the logical program on the other (a demonstrated failure), by the mathematical program (a failure at least at the set level to correct mathematical platonism rather than justify it), that philosophy is a science in itself, rather than the means by which we interpret the findings of the sciences and therefore to inform and alter our perception and understanding, such that we adapt our actions to the new knowledge. Philosophy then is a moral discipline, where morality is the study of action. It is not a means of attempting find justification that philosophy is a science. It is not. It cannot be. Because science requires that we use instrumentation to confirm our senses. 4) REPLACING THE CHURCH: It is not lost on those of us who are critics (even those few of us who write philosophy nearly full time), that Academia, originating as an extension of the church, has sought to replace the church’s influence over moral and political life. It has done so. It has done so largely by a) promoting both socialism, communism, postmodernism and totalitarian humanism, social democracy, and therefore bearing the responsibility of both the decline of the west’s aristocratic mythos, and the death of nearly one hundred million people. If that is not an indictment I don’t know what is. And rather than extend rights to all, academics encouraged extraordinary rights, and in particular supported feminism as a means of increasing revenues and attracting women to previously male dominated universities. However, the feminist program has been successful in undermining the nuclear family, and are the voting force that allows socialists, democratic socialists, and totalitarian humanists produced by the university system, to obtain political power, by which to both undermine the 14th amendment, the Absolute Nuclear Family which is the necessary component of the high trust society, and to undermine the western model through forcible large scale immigration. Even now, the supreme court is populated by non-protestants. And that matters. Because protestants are the keepers of the Absolute Nuclear Family, and the High Trust, Individualist, Risk taking, Experimental society. 5) FRAUDULENT PRODUCTS: The source of much of our political trouble is the fascination in the humanities introspection and self reinforcement rather than external evidence and adaptation, combined with its fascination with totalitarian humanism, and philosophy with postmodernism and socialism. Economics departments don’t teach Marx. It’s bad economics, and really bad philosophy. Furthermore, the evidence is in, and is decidedly against democracy – we cannot seem to make all men aristocrats. So much of the philosophical tradition is not only demonstrably false. It is not only false. But it is harmful. 6) CRIMINALLY DEFECTIVE GOODS: It is not lost on us that academic wares are not warranted, any more than religious wares are warranteed. If they were I suspect academia would rapidly change. The fact that the state gives license to academics who sell faulty goods, but punishes ‘thought crimes’, is evidence enough to demonstrate that academic humanities has in fact, succeeded in replacing the mystical religion of christianity, discrediting the church, only to replace aristocratic egalitarianism and christianity, with totalitarian state humanism – effectively communism by other means. 7) INCENTIVES: It is not lost on any of us that the INCENTIVES in academia are (in economic terms ) ‘perverse’. That we have spent two generations now exchanging personal retirement accounts of parents, for overpriced education of children, most of which ends up in rapid expansion of academic administration, diversion from teaching professors to research faculty, physical capital, and endowments. That graduate students are little more than slave labor, that their work products are almost universally shoddy, that the quality of writing in the humanities is offensively bad, and that obscurant language is used consistently to mask weak, false and unsupported thought. SO BEFORE YOU JUSTIFY THE HUMANITIES PERHAPS AN *EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS** WOULD HELP YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THE BENEFITS ARE SOLELY RESERVED FOR ACADEMICS AT TRAGIC COST TO SOCIETY. AND THAT BY AND LARGE, THE HUMANITIES HAS BEEN THE SOURCE OF MORE HUMAN SUFFERING AND CORRUPTION THAN THE CHURCH EVER MANAGED TO MUSTER. That’s what SCIENCES tell us. So choose whether you will be part of another tragic religion, or move into hard science with the rest of us. Cheers Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev   http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?p=7629 The Decline of Humanities blog.talkingphilosophy.com One of the current narratives is that the humanities are in danger at American universities. Some schools are cutting funding for the humanities while others are actually eliminating majors and dep..

  • Reasons For The Decline Of The Humanities

    (good)(attack on academia) (Disclaimer: I have a fine art degree: art history and theory. Aesthetic philosophy. Although I am also educated in economics, philosophy, history and computer science.) [Warning: Harsh words follow.] 1) COST. Now, if I paid 10K for this degree, or even 20K, that would be one thing. But these degrees are too expensive for the cost of the education. Humans make cost benefit analyses and the data is in: there isn’t a return on them. 2) CONTENT. Philosophy departments can alight with the humanities and religion (which is a death sentence) or align with science, economics, politics, business and law (where it is terribly useful). 3) FAILURE OF PHILOSOPHICAL PROGRAM. The academic humanities bear much of the responsibility for their plight having tried fitfully to prove via the metaphysical program on one hand (a demonstrated failure), via the logical program on the other (a demonstrated failure), by the mathematical program (a failure at least at the set level to correct mathematical platonism rather than justify it), that philosophy is a science in itself, rather than the means by which we interpret the findings of the sciences and therefore to inform and alter our perception and understanding, such that we adapt our actions to the new knowledge. Philosophy then is a moral discipline, where morality is the study of action. It is not a means of attempting find justification that philosophy is a science. It is not. It cannot be. Because science requires that we use instrumentation to confirm our senses. 4) REPLACING THE CHURCH: It is not lost on those of us who are critics (even those few of us who write philosophy nearly full time), that Academia, originating as an extension of the church, has sought to replace the church’s influence over moral and political life. It has done so. It has done so largely by a) promoting both socialism, communism, postmodernism and totalitarian humanism, social democracy, and therefore bearing the responsibility of both the decline of the west’s aristocratic mythos, and the death of nearly one hundred million people. If that is not an indictment I don’t know what is. And rather than extend rights to all, academics encouraged extraordinary rights, and in particular supported feminism as a means of increasing revenues and attracting women to previously male dominated universities. However, the feminist program has been successful in undermining the nuclear family, and are the voting force that allows socialists, democratic socialists, and totalitarian humanists produced by the university system, to obtain political power, by which to both undermine the 14th amendment, the Absolute Nuclear Family which is the necessary component of the high trust society, and to undermine the western model through forcible large scale immigration. Even now, the supreme court is populated by non-protestants. And that matters. Because protestants are the keepers of the Absolute Nuclear Family, and the High Trust, Individualist, Risk taking, Experimental society. 5) FRAUDULENT PRODUCTS: The source of much of our political trouble is the fascination in the humanities introspection and self reinforcement rather than external evidence and adaptation, combined with its fascination with totalitarian humanism, and philosophy with postmodernism and socialism. Economics departments don’t teach Marx. It’s bad economics, and really bad philosophy. Furthermore, the evidence is in, and is decidedly against democracy – we cannot seem to make all men aristocrats. So much of the philosophical tradition is not only demonstrably false. It is not only false. But it is harmful. 6) CRIMINALLY DEFECTIVE GOODS: It is not lost on us that academic wares are not warranted, any more than religious wares are warranteed. If they were I suspect academia would rapidly change. The fact that the state gives license to academics who sell faulty goods, but punishes ‘thought crimes’, is evidence enough to demonstrate that academic humanities has in fact, succeeded in replacing the mystical religion of christianity, discrediting the church, only to replace aristocratic egalitarianism and christianity, with totalitarian state humanism – effectively communism by other means. 7) INCENTIVES: It is not lost on any of us that the INCENTIVES in academia are (in economic terms ) ‘perverse’. That we have spent two generations now exchanging personal retirement accounts of parents, for overpriced education of children, most of which ends up in rapid expansion of academic administration, diversion from teaching professors to research faculty, physical capital, and endowments. That graduate students are little more than slave labor, that their work products are almost universally shoddy, that the quality of writing in the humanities is offensively bad, and that obscurant language is used consistently to mask weak, false and unsupported thought. SO BEFORE YOU JUSTIFY THE HUMANITIES PERHAPS AN *EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS** WOULD HELP YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THE BENEFITS ARE SOLELY RESERVED FOR ACADEMICS AT TRAGIC COST TO SOCIETY. AND THAT BY AND LARGE, THE HUMANITIES HAS BEEN THE SOURCE OF MORE HUMAN SUFFERING AND CORRUPTION THAN THE CHURCH EVER MANAGED TO MUSTER. That’s what SCIENCES tell us. So choose whether you will be part of another tragic religion, or move into hard science with the rest of us. Cheers Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev   http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?p=7629 The Decline of Humanities blog.talkingphilosophy.com One of the current narratives is that the humanities are in danger at American universities. Some schools are cutting funding for the humanities while others are actually eliminating majors and dep..

  • Eliminating the Corporation Insured by the State

    (Sketch) Eliminate the state sponsored corporation. A corporation is a partnership whose members are insured by a monopoly insurer insulated from competition: the state. All associations are, and only can be, partnerships. Restore right of suit for any and all involuntary transfers, outside of morally sanctioned competition, against any and all individuals within the partnership and their agents. Require insurance bonds be purchased by the partnership. Require all employees be bonded if they communicate with or act on behalf of, customers. (The incentives will favor truth telling and allocate money and status to truth-tellers.) Stock certificates shall not represent ownership, but a purchase of contractual rights to dividends that are guaranteed by the assets in the event of liquidation or sale. Control then shall not be democratic, but contractual.

  • Eliminating the Corporation Insured by the State

    (Sketch) Eliminate the state sponsored corporation. A corporation is a partnership whose members are insured by a monopoly insurer insulated from competition: the state. All associations are, and only can be, partnerships. Restore right of suit for any and all involuntary transfers, outside of morally sanctioned competition, against any and all individuals within the partnership and their agents. Require insurance bonds be purchased by the partnership. Require all employees be bonded if they communicate with or act on behalf of, customers. (The incentives will favor truth telling and allocate money and status to truth-tellers.) Stock certificates shall not represent ownership, but a purchase of contractual rights to dividends that are guaranteed by the assets in the event of liquidation or sale. Control then shall not be democratic, but contractual.

  • The Two Dark Or Anglo-counter-enlightenment Projects

      1) Attack on diversity and equality as a means of preserving our ability to use historical deliberative classical liberal institutions 2) Formulation of alternative institutions that make possible the voluntary cooperation between diverse and unequal people. THE RIGHT IS DOING THE FIRST. I (as a libertarian) AM DOING THE SECOND. THE DARK ENLIGHTENMENT IS NOT REACTIONARY – ITS RADICAL.

  • The Two Dark Or Anglo-counter-enlightenment Projects

      1) Attack on diversity and equality as a means of preserving our ability to use historical deliberative classical liberal institutions 2) Formulation of alternative institutions that make possible the voluntary cooperation between diverse and unequal people. THE RIGHT IS DOING THE FIRST. I (as a libertarian) AM DOING THE SECOND. THE DARK ENLIGHTENMENT IS NOT REACTIONARY – ITS RADICAL.