Theme: Reform

  • The federal government only gained that power by directly collecting (huge) inco

    The federal government only gained that power by directly collecting (huge) income tax and holding the states hostage. It’s a relatively easy system to change.


    Source date (UTC): 2021-02-18 01:46:06 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1362216790470885378

    Reply addressees: @Inductivist

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1362195322538139649

  • @yanisvaroufakis gave a solid lecture at Tubingen recently identifying problems

    @yanisvaroufakis gave a solid lecture at Tubingen recently identifying problems of the present order but repeating an impossible solution dependent on employee competency. Instead we can tie them to durable polity not non-durable firm w/same consequences for the financial sector.


    Source date (UTC): 2021-02-17 17:32:58 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1362092691664830469

  • Is Economics A Science? No. But it Can Be – By Converting from Via Positiva to Via Negativa.

    I could give a similar lecture that would reduce economics to a science, and my claims would be obvious, and obviously true, and they would terrify the audience. In large part, economics is a pseudoscience that tries to circumvent the laws of the universe just as do philosophy and religion, when the underlying science is rather simple: The demographic composition and distribution of a people, the institutional sequence and time necessary to produce rule of law of natural law, by the incremental suppression of irreciprocity, resulting in the highest trust, least friction in an economy at whatever of level of effort (work hours) the population prefers in exchange for its standard of living (consumption). What’s the problem? markets perform natural selection if they can suppress reproduction of the unfit for markets, and democratic politics suppress natural selection until the population’s abilty to maintain pace with competitors eliminates the possibility of redistributions by investments in commons. In other words, the only long-term variable that maintains competitive advantage is human capital and the single most important human capital is the combination of intelligence and conscientiousness both of which are the result of neotenic evolution by natural selection for cooperation in increasingly complex markets. Or in simple form: economic science is and always will be limited to the measurement of the success of institutions in producing human capital by adherence to the logical, physical, behavioral, and evolutionary laws of the universe by the implementation of rule of law, markets, and meritocratic reproduction. Now try to sell that inescapable scientific law of the universe under democracy, the entire function of which appears to be to use fiat credit to evade the laws of the universe, and return us to Malthusian limits. That’s the science. So like I said, what we call positive economics is an attempt to cheat mother nature and it’s just never going to happen. The only economic science is like the law, negative: eliminating what we should NOT do.

  • Is Economics A Science? No. But it Can Be – By Converting from Via Positiva to Via Negativa.

    I could give a similar lecture that would reduce economics to a science, and my claims would be obvious, and obviously true, and they would terrify the audience. In large part, economics is a pseudoscience that tries to circumvent the laws of the universe just as do philosophy and religion, when the underlying science is rather simple: The demographic composition and distribution of a people, the institutional sequence and time necessary to produce rule of law of natural law, by the incremental suppression of irreciprocity, resulting in the highest trust, least friction in an economy at whatever of level of effort (work hours) the population prefers in exchange for its standard of living (consumption). What’s the problem? markets perform natural selection if they can suppress reproduction of the unfit for markets, and democratic politics suppress natural selection until the population’s abilty to maintain pace with competitors eliminates the possibility of redistributions by investments in commons. In other words, the only long-term variable that maintains competitive advantage is human capital and the single most important human capital is the combination of intelligence and conscientiousness both of which are the result of neotenic evolution by natural selection for cooperation in increasingly complex markets. Or in simple form: economic science is and always will be limited to the measurement of the success of institutions in producing human capital by adherence to the logical, physical, behavioral, and evolutionary laws of the universe by the implementation of rule of law, markets, and meritocratic reproduction. Now try to sell that inescapable scientific law of the universe under democracy, the entire function of which appears to be to use fiat credit to evade the laws of the universe, and return us to Malthusian limits. That’s the science. So like I said, what we call positive economics is an attempt to cheat mother nature and it’s just never going to happen. The only economic science is like the law, negative: eliminating what we should NOT do.

  • The church lost tool of influence. Or another way to look at it is that without

    The church lost tool of influence. Or another way to look at it is that without our present failure, the church had no EVIDENCE necessary to instruct it to reform. So, maybe, this is just the normal cycle of reform: it takes a century of struggle to produce demand for reformers. https://twitter.com/curtdoolittle/status/1361706913994575874

  • Reforming the catholic church so that it once again holds the three legged stool

    Reforming the catholic church so that it once again holds the three legged stool of European trifunctionalism is entirely possible. Church doctrine ALMOST succeeded in uniting spirituality, reason, and science, in Natural Law. As the history of uniting classes it ALMOST won.


    Source date (UTC): 2021-02-16 15:23:45 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1361697783426744322

  • Trump is the only political figure correctly reforming the govt and economy for

    Trump is the only political figure correctly reforming the govt and economy for the present and future geostrategic order. There is no one else. The whole western world is still operating on postwar presumptions. And no chance of reform. And a terrifying future economy.


    Source date (UTC): 2021-02-15 10:08:56 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1361256168262410241

    Reply addressees: @BobMurphyEcon

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1360972598163685379

  • Most people, setting out to reform religion, law or government, would begin with

    Most people, setting out to reform religion, law or government, would begin with a presumption and then justify it. Instead, one should identify the problem, and seek the truth: first principles – and try to solve the problem from those first principles.
    Religion is (was) HARD.


    Source date (UTC): 2021-02-15 03:06:19 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1361149816533835776

  • RT @Outsideness: … “Late in any empire, there is an air of dismal futility to

    RT @Outsideness: … “Late in any empire, there is an air of dismal futility to all these efforts at reform. Since talking about what shoul…


    Source date (UTC): 2021-02-14 08:35:38 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1360870302050381825

  • 1) In the 1980’s we enacted major changes in the legal system. This is what redu

    1) In the 1980’s we enacted major changes in the legal system. This is what reduced litigation. It was adequate but not beneficial. IN the previous decades due to the Jewish migration to the west we enacted devolutions of our law. In the previous century we enacted devolutions.

    2) As far as I know we are restoring (reversing) the common law prior to those ‘enlightenment’ modifications. and correcting the problem of the inability to demarcate free speech from free testifiable and reciprocal speech.

    3) The traditional method by which these laws are tested are by jurists the way medical procedures are tested by doctors. By testing how we would handle present cases under the new law. This is indifferent from how the supreme court handles cases today.

    4) However, there is very little opportunity to implement half measures. instead it is far better to have the top jurists ‘test’ the arguments against the body of historical cases and present cases. This has proven effective in the past.

    5) What I have suggested is that we are very clear about the scope of such constraints, and that we provide special dispensation for christianity. And expressly state that we are attacking the abrahamic method of deceit. (which is in the documents already).

    6) But all law is open to incremental application and incremental revision. So in the end we are left with the choice between attempting to suppress the Marxist-pomo-woke destruction of the west or the consequences of doing so. There are no free rides. Only tradeoffs.


    Source date (UTC): 2021-02-13 17:05:03 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/105725028202932734