Theme: Institution

  • Letter To Lew : On 30 Years Of The Mises Institute

    I posted this on Mises.org in response to The First 30 Years of the Mises Institute [I] was terribly afraid that you would not make this change in direction, and am both excited and pleased that you have decided to. Rothbardian ethics specifically avoids the Protestant requirements for symmetry of information, and warrantee in any transaction, and Rothbard consistently avoids the treatment of norms as a commons – despite the necessity of property as a norm. Both of theses facets of Rothbardian thought permanently render Rothbardian ethics regressive and insufficient for the high-trust society that is the moral ideology of the american population. Hoppe has supplied some of the necessary solutions, but they require institutional changes that first require the support of the population’s moral sentiments. And only constant exposure to morally agreeable ideas will make them tolerate institutional change. Ron Paul, whether intentionally or not, (I do not know) does not make the Rothbardian error in his promotion of libertarianism, and therefore renders social and moral code more acceptable to a broader audience of Americans – most of whom embrace the sentiments of the founders and some variant of the protestant ethic. Conservatives in particular see the morality of the normative commons as equal in importance to the rule of law. This is why Ron Paul’s message sells with the population more than Rothbard’s. Rothbard did give us Propertarian ethics and revisionist history, and the language we needed to talk about freedom. But his ethics is not tolerable by members of a high trust society, and libertarianism is only possible within a high trust society. Ron Paul’s ethics is tolerable, because implicitly, his message does not undermine the high-trust moral code. I’ve felt your use of ideology, education, and technology was always superior to the actual ethical program it contained. Hopefully the ethical program (which people sense, even if they cannot articulate) when subject to the Ron Paul ethos, will change, so that the operational superiority of the Mises Institute will be matched by a philosophical and ethical program that will take us beyond the support of a tenth of the population, with MI as the well-funded and leading organization behind that change. It’s also great to see Tom Woods put to full use, and that his confidence in himself and his ideas has finally taken hold – it comes across in everything he writes, says and does. I’m surprised and thrilled that you’ve brought in Napolitano. It would be helpful if we could recruit more time and effort from Bob Murphy – especially if he had some coaching on presentation of his arguments from Napolitano. (I’ve been toying with the idea of using Karl Smith, to play the foil for our side, because he is the only honest liberal economist emerging from the current generation that is literate in both moral and economic ideas. He has and will engage with Murphy. But the problem is in creating the appropriate venue, and I have enough work on my plate right now.) Anyway, all that said, congratulations on the change in direction. I”m one of the many people that owes an intellectual debt to MI. Curt

  • YET ANOTHER FOOL ON THE YELLOW BRICK ROAD OF THE DIASPORA The problem, given Zin

    YET ANOTHER FOOL ON THE YELLOW BRICK ROAD OF THE DIASPORA

    The problem, given Zinn’s writing, is in asking the question what do we mean by obedience? If it means to norms, or to labor, or to the productive results of labor, or to all of the above? Because each of these things involves one or more forms of coercion. Norms require the threat of ostracization from opportunities. Labor requires the application of violence to force people to cooperate according to some scheme that is preordained. The taking of the results of productive labor requires the application of violence according to someone’s preferences. So Zinn may rely upon soft words, but they are meaningless without the means of enacting them. And they cannot be enacted without obedience that is enforced by violence.

    In the end, Zinn is still a socialist: that some person’s view of the common good is superior to another’s, and that words must be used to justify the use of violence against some for the benefit of others.

    The aristocratic model minimizes population in favor of maximum productivity, the socialistic model maximizes population through emphasis on consumption and egalitarianism. Nothing more. These two points describe a spectrum that can only reach compromise in the middle by voluntary exchange between the two modes of operation. Otherwise any imposed homogeneity across both strategies requires acts of violence that serve the genetic preferences and interests of some at the expense of the genetic preferences and interests of others.

    Zinn is just another well meaning fool that does not comprehend this fundamental problem of political action.


    Source date (UTC): 2012-10-17 08:33:00 UTC

  • A Definition Of Libertarianism – Draft Two : From Intuitive Sentiment To Institutional Framework

    Libertarianism lih-ber-tair’-ee-un-ih’-zum (noun)1) SENTIMENT: A sentiment giving precedence to individual liberty above the competing sentiments of care-taking and order — which are the respective priorities of left and right. 2) POLITICAL BIAS: A range of political biases that express the precedence for liberty as the freedom from organized coercion through the minimization or elimination of monopolistic government — and therefore maximizing the self organizing civic virtues and norms. 3) ECONOMIC BIAS: An economic philosophy that seeks to maximize human prosperity by increasing the opportunity for entrepreneurial trial and error by advocating the inviolability of individual property rights, free trade, and sound money. 4) POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY: An explicitly articulated political philosophy that reduces all rights to property rights, where property has been obtained by the processes of homesteading, manufacture, and voluntary exchange, which are necessary for peaceful human cooperation because they facilitate the emergence of a market for goods and services where prices convey information that we can use to determine our actions. 5) INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK: An framework of political institutions that seeks to replace the monopoly of the abstract state and its attendant bureaucracy with private formal institutions and public informal institutions that are subject to the pressures of market competition. libertarian lih-ber-tair’-ee-un An individual who demonstrates a preference for one or more of the definitions of Libertarianism.

  • PRIVATE SCHOOLS SUCCEED

    http://econjwatch.org/articles/why-the-denial-low-cost-private-schools-in-developing-countries-and-their-contributions-to-educationWATCH : PRIVATE SCHOOLS SUCCEED


    Source date (UTC): 2012-09-24 21:23:00 UTC

  • LIBERTARIANISM AND INSTITUTIONS The mysterious criticism that libertarians decry

    LIBERTARIANISM AND INSTITUTIONS

    The mysterious criticism that libertarians decry all institutions is a false one. And if it were true, it would be self contradictory. Property is an institution, even if only an informal one. One cannot both argue that institutions are unnecessary, or universally malicious when property itself is an institution.

    And morals are institutions too, even if they are all, in the final analysis derivations of the institution of property as it is implemented by different groups. This fact helps us understand why some moral codes are superior to others: private, several property both allows more calculation of opportunities, and provides the incentive to act upon them

    Formal institutions are not contrary to liberty. Tribal leaders who resolve conflicts, and independent judges are institutions. A code of common law is an institution. A network of banks, and the practice of interest are institutions And perhaps the least intuitive to westerners who live within these institutions, the informal institution of objective truth, its implementation as truth telling, as well as the institution of ethical universalism by which we forgo opportunities to benefit self, family, and tribe, and restrict ourselves to actions that can be subject to the market – a counter-intuitive concept which we live every day, is the source of the germanic west’s limited corruption by comparison to other cultures. And the realization that our ethics is governed by the market rather than self, family or tribe, is alien to westerners who cannot conceive of any alternative way of thinking.

    If a group of people create a homeowners association, or found a new city, o even a new country, as long as they deprive no one else of property, either directly or indirectly by doing so, even if the formation of a such a contract is one to which all members and their guests and progeny must adhere, is not a violation of liberty. Even if they, like shopping mall owners, require that visitors and new members abide by that contract.

    These are all forms of institutions. So, institutions are not prohibited by the desire for liberty. It is not institutions themselves that eradicate liberty, since liberty is the result of the institution of property. It is human beings functioning within a bureaucracy that comprises an institution that eradicates liberty. Bureaucracies must of necessity, out of a lack of choice, act for the purpose of perpetuating the institution itself, or for the purpose of simplifying the job of its members. And both self perpetuation and self service are caused by the monopoly power granted to these institutions, when they are insulated from competition.

    Because while rules are abstractions which of themselves have no self interest to express, people are real things, and in the midst of complexity, have no cognitive choice but to rely upon simple rules of thumb, instinct, self interest and moral judgement.

    And those moral judgements, because of genetic necessity, vary. To argue otherwise is simply advocating totalitarian eugenics, while making the error that we are in fact materially equal, rather than equal in our right to property. That is, by the extension of enfranchisement to the lower classes, those with alternative allocations of property rights, those with habits of familialism and tribalism, and in particular, with the addition of women to the pool of voters and to the market for consumption, production and trade, – for whom males possess a polar reproductives strategy, all have quite different moral codes. Ad those moral codes are a gene expression. We have given those with alternative moral codes, the freedom to alter the western definitions of property rights to favor their preferred method of gene expression. And the more natural one. Aristocracy, that is, meritocracy, is a rarity. Just as are truth telling, and universalism.

    Bureaucracy was created to enforce homogeneity. And we are no longer homogenous. Any bureaucratic institution that exists to create homogeneity is by definition immoral, and enforcing not just self service, but self service by forced involuntary transfer from some to others, which in turn violates not just our property rights but our genetic composition and rights of reproduction. Rather than a bureaucracy of homogeneity, the only rule a population needs is several, personal, property, and the means by which to resolve conflicts over its transfer, and the willingness of some individuals to use their capacity for violence to maintain that right to personal property.

    So it is bureaucracy that is the threat to our freedom. When we criticize government broadly, we are making a mistake that confuses people outside the movement. A government is a set of institutions that assist people in cooperating in a division of knowledge and labor. It is the institutions that allow us to express and make use of the institution of property. As such a government is not necessarily bad, as Rothbard’s diasporic voluntarism, and Hoppe’s private government have show us. Is not government in the abstract then that is systemically corrupting of man. It is the abrogation of property rights and the very existence of a bureaucracy within a bureaucratic state that sap our liberty and all that follows from it.

    -Curt


    Source date (UTC): 2012-09-14 20:40:00 UTC

  • GREAT DIVERGENCE: CHINA “These immensely rich individuals not only failed to dev

    http://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2012/09/12/clannish-dysgenics/THE GREAT DIVERGENCE: CHINA

    “These immensely rich individuals not only failed to develop a capitalistic system; they seldom if ever acquire that acquistive and competitive spirit which is the very soul of the capitalistic system.”

    I’m a big fan of HBD_chick’s effort to explore the relationship between mating patterns, culture, political economy, and economics.


    Source date (UTC): 2012-09-12 21:05:00 UTC

  • People need institutions both formal and informal to help them cooperate despite

    People need institutions both formal and informal to help them cooperate despite their different feelings and objectives. instead we try to argue with one another in order to make each other agree independently of those institutions. As if any of us actually listens to or comprehends the other.

    Our institutions were designed to establish priorities among males who had extremely similar interests.

    But today we have clearly divergent interests. If only because of gender and family structure preferences. And our differences are magnified by the technology that has made us prosperous, the addition of feminine majority, and group diversity.

    If you diversify a population without altering its informal and formal institutions to allow for more complex cooperation – not upon ends but upon means – you will have institutional failure. The purpose of government is to help us cooperate despite our differences. The idea that we seek some form of truth in government is both an artifact of our prior homogeneity, the absurd bias of our democratic religion, and our belief in controlled choice rather than experimental cooperation.

    The market instead allows us to collaborate on means even though we might pursue different ends. Government as it is currently structured by contrast requires that we have similar ends or the fantasy that we can persuade one another to possess similar ends.

    When in fact it is both impossible for us to know what those similar ends should be, and given our various conflicting strategies about life in general, it is impossible for us to come to consensus on those ends. Or even understand all but a few of them.

    We are prisoners of a set of institutions that have failed us and that cannot help us cooperate in our current state.

    In most civilizations people abandon attempts at improving the government. That is the course we are on.

    Having our civic culture handed to administrative government accelerated that decline as well as our divergence. Cowering in our little spatial boxes we rail at one another about how to think and feel rather than architect institutions that would help us to cooperate on means even if we desire a multitude of ends. And that multitude of experimentation would lead to discovery of solutions none of us is wise enough to conceive on our own.

    Our vanity and hubris brought us here. Why is it that we think the next vanity of our intentions will be an exception to the rule?


    Source date (UTC): 2012-09-01 23:06:00 UTC

  • CLANS AND WESTERN UNIVERSALISM HBD_Chick finds yet another exceptional paper on

    http://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2012/08/31/the-return-of-the-return-of-chinese-clans/CHINESE CLANS AND WESTERN UNIVERSALISM

    HBD_Chick finds yet another exceptional paper on the impact of different cultural institutions:

    “The Return Of The Return of Chinese Clans”

    “In a clan, moral obligations are stronger but are limited in scope, as they apply only toward kin. In a city, moral obligations are generalized towards all citizens irrespective of lineage, but they are weaker, as identication is more difficult in a larger and more heterogeneous group. We refer to this distinction as limited vs generalized morality.“

    “Institutional mechanisms also differ between the clan and the city: clan enforcement mainly relies on informal institutions, whereas the city relies more on formal enforcement procedures. In terms of economic effciency, these two arrangements have clear trade-offs. The clan economizes on enforcement costs, whereas the city exploits economies of scale because it sustains cooperation in a larger and more heterogeneous community.”


    Source date (UTC): 2012-09-01 01:24:00 UTC

  • THE IRON LAW OF BUREAUCRACY “In any bureaucracy, the people devoted to the benef

    THE IRON LAW OF BUREAUCRACY

    “In any bureaucracy, the people devoted to the benefit of the bureaucracy itself always get in control and those dedicated to the goals the bureaucracy is supposed to accomplish have less and less influence, and sometimes are eliminated entirely.” – Pournelle


    Source date (UTC): 2012-08-23 10:48:00 UTC

  • THE IRON LAW OF OLIGARCHY “All forms of organization, regardless of how democrat

    THE IRON LAW OF OLIGARCHY

    “All forms of organization, regardless of how democratic they may be at the start, will eventually and inevitably develop oligarchic tendencies out of the necessity for leadership and decision making, thus democracy is practically and theoretically impossible: He who says organization, says oligarchy.” – Robert Michels


    Source date (UTC): 2012-08-23 10:46:00 UTC