Theme: Reform

  • THE 150 YEAR BATTLE Hmmm… We won the battle over capitalism – property rights.

    THE 150 YEAR BATTLE

    Hmmm…

    We won the battle over capitalism – property rights.

    We’re in the middle of winning the battle over economics – a) the necessity of preserving the quality of the information system, b) the limit of credit and interest, and c) the restoration of the contract between the generations.

    We are very close to overturning a century of progressive anti-reason and anti-science.

    We have at least undermined the fantasy of universal democracy as a ‘good’.

    But we are just beginning to work on institutions and norms. And, of all of these. That will be the most difficult I think. I do not know if we can put destruction of the family by the feminists back in the bottle.

    (Which as a nerd, is what makes it an interesting problem. šŸ™‚ )


    Source date (UTC): 2013-10-07 03:44:00 UTC

  • RAISING POLICE QUALIFICATIONS Officer in the military in a combat capacity with

    RAISING POLICE QUALIFICATIONS

    Officer in the military in a combat capacity with a college education. ( Pretty soon, given the number of lawyers we’re producing, we can hire lawyers for our police ranks. )

    You don’t think that putting upper proletarians in charge of law enforcement is going to lead to people respecting legal rights do you? I mean, just TRY to find a policeman that actually knows the law, rather than what they can get away with in court. They know the latter. They practice the latter.

    We have a lot of highly paid upper proletarians on power tips running around doing what should be the work of elected and insured private individuals (sheriffs). These people are predators at the service of the state.

    They are constantly confused by rules versus harm. If there is no harm, there is no application of the rule.

    Why would you forbid someone access to a state park?

    NO HARM NO FOUL


    Source date (UTC): 2013-10-06 10:33:00 UTC

  • A QUICK REWRITE OF THE DARK ENLIGHTENMENT PRINCIPLES (Comment: Steve Sailor like

    A QUICK REWRITE OF THE DARK ENLIGHTENMENT PRINCIPLES

    (Comment: Steve Sailor likes to pick on libertarians and “Aspergys” as socially clueless. I kind of reject that. The Rothbardians are just ‘wrong’. But the Rothardian movement is moral and ideological, not ratio-scientific. It’s a rebellion movement. And there are good uses for rebellion movements. The protestant movement is the best example. Fundamentalism is an exceptionally effective means of resistance in no small part, because like ideology, religion can be counter to reason and therefore uncriticizable.

    LACK OF ECONOMIC CONTENT

    Libertarians place economic capital ahead of moral capital. Conservatives place moral capital ahead of economic capital. And, as I’ve been arguing, I think that the conservatives are right. We may not have been able to prove that a century ago, but I think we can now. We have enough evidence from a multitude of studies of morality, trust and corruption around the world. And it’s pretty hard to argue with. Without the right institutions you cannot have the right norms. Without the right norms you cannot produce the right economy. Without the right economy you cannot MAINTAIN the right institutions. The circle is pretty challenging to maintain across generations, which themselves are cyclical.

    So again, we see the illustration of the differences between the libertarians and conservatives, as placing different weights on different moral criterial.

    THE CURRENT PRINCIPLES OF THE DARK ENLIGHTENMENT

    This list is evolving. Conservatives are notoriously challenged because their arguments are even more morally loaded than libertarians. I’ve tried to improve it a bit.

    And I’m reluctant for a few reasons. THe first is that conservatives are very leery of our rather analytical language. If we express their morals in propertarian terms they seem to feel like all meaning is lost.

    That is the most interesting part of the problem of bringing conservatives into the rational fold.

    LIST

    – Rejection of The Cathedral. A rejection of The Cathedral in all it’s guises: Totalitarian Humanism, Universalism, Political Correctness, (or whatever other names it goes by, such as Universalism or Political Correctness).

    – Particularism.

    A rejection of sociological universalism, egalitarianism, equalitarianism, diversity as regressive, and destructive. And a preference for particularism, innovation, and excellence.

    – Science.

    The use of science and reason as compatible with particularism, as a contrast to the irrationalism of postmodernism that is necessary to provide cover for, and distract from, universalism.

    – Evolution.

    An acceptance of Darwinian evolution, shunning egalitarian political correctness both from the left and from the Trotskyite right.

    – Biodiversity.

    An acceptance of human biodiversity.

    – BioPolitics.

    Particular people’s have varied biological and demographic interests and imperatives.

    – Incompatibility:

    That human populations are not fungible. They are unique. And therefore, skepticism about mass Third World immigration.

    – Political Institutions.

    The recognition that there is no single best political order. As Aristotle notes in the Politics, some ethnicities are better suited for totalitarianism, some monarchy; some for aristocracy; others, for participatory forms of government such as the city state.

    – Aristocracy:

    Freedom and Democracy are Incompatible. Liberty is incompatible with democracy, and democracy leads to mediocrity.

    – Uneven Progress: An acceptance of science and futurism as a means to improve at least some peoples’ lives. And a recognition that ā€˜progress’ will be available only to some, and not the entire human population.

    – Religion: Atheistic, Agnostic and with a preference for Ancestral Neopaganism or a form of Christianity that is ethnocentric and particularist.

    – Introspection:

    The end of ‘White Man’s Burden’ as well as ‘Colonial Guilt’ and ‘White Guilt’. We dragged humanity out of ignorance and poverty kicking and screaming. And, they will never thank us for it.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-10-05 10:05:00 UTC

  • PRIOR WARNING TO MY FEMALE FRIENDS I have to kill off the ideas of Universalism,

    PRIOR WARNING TO MY FEMALE FRIENDS

    I have to kill off the ideas of Universalism, Postmodernism and Democracy, not morally, but rationally and empirically. In doing so I must criticize feminism and democracy, and some of the emotions that women intuitively hold dear.

    Unlike other reactionaries (aggressive conservatives) I don’t recommend returning to the past. Like a libertarian, I recommend freedom. But I also recognize the difference in reproductive strategies and moral sentiments between men and women.

    Given that it is no longer necessary for women to be exclusively bound to home and child rearing, and that women both participate in the work force and dominate it’s middle ground, the past arrangement between men and women under agrarian society is no longer necessary even if it were preferable.

    GIven this change from a male economy and a female homestead, to a pre-agrarian female homestead, with transitory males, now that he feminists have succeeded in destroying the family, by forcing economic cooperation between men and women via marriage, through the proxy of the state via taxation. It seems prudent to attempt to construct a social order that recognizes the heterogeneity of our interests as males and females.

    One thing is deterministically certain. If we the long term monogamous family is indeed a dead or at least marginal institution, the current remnants of family (child support and spousal support) will disappear along with that institution. Largely because large members of men will continue to lack incentive to work and pay taxes, or to signal status by familial conformity. And the increasingly disturbing rate of single mother hood will continue to reduce the majority of women and children into single parent poverty, until the system of redistribution is perceived as not only unfair but destructive, and overwhelms both the tax system, the economy and the political system.

    We see this slowly happening now. And the economic luxury we possessed when first the socialists, then the feminists, then the multi-culturalists, banded together, no longer exists and is no longer possible due to the flooding of the world workforce with billions of laborers after the fall of communism and the failure of the socialist project.

    So what does this have to do with me? I think it’s possible to take what we have learned from the market and technology and to produce a political order that allows us to cooperate on means even if we have opposing ends.

    But in order to make a new idea both understandable, and desirable, I must criticize and show the failure of the existing ideas.

    I must criticize it so that I can replace it with something better.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-09-23 00:50:00 UTC

  • This weekend I’m going to go collect all my postings on all the progressive web

    This weekend I’m going to go collect all my postings on all the progressive web sites over the past five years, where I argue that it’s not possible to pass economic legislation that the opposition considers immoral. And all the postings where I recommended how to achieve a compromise. And all the postings where I recommended how we could price-correct the housing bubble, and show that I was right. And that this is why the progressives are looking around for a new strategy.

    And lastly, why I’m completely irrelevant to the discourse. lol


    Source date (UTC): 2013-08-29 08:59:00 UTC

  • IN JOURNALISM; A PROBLEM AND A SOLUTION (The Common Law) Craig WIlly, a blogger

    http://www.craigwilly.info/2013/08/14/can-media-tell-the-truth-on-new-vs-traditional-journalism/TRUTH IN JOURNALISM; A PROBLEM AND A SOLUTION

    (The Common Law)

    Craig WIlly, a blogger who I follow who writes honestly about EU affairs, will leave blogging for a position as a reporter with a financial new service in Germany.

    In his column he states the obvious: that there is no such thing as journalism, only opinion writing. “Opinion Journalism”. He uses a quote from Julian Assange to justify the journalistic economy: It is the clashing of these voices together that reveals the truth about the world as a whole”. Just like any other form of capitalism.

    But I would argue, given the statements below, that if you don’t get paid for it, it’s an opinion. But if you sell it, it’s a product. And if you sell a product, you must warrantee it. And journalists, or at least media providers, should be held accountable for the quality of their products.

    Our courts made a vast mistake undermining traditional common law on libel and slander. And we worsen that mistake with not requiring warrantee on the products of reporters. If products must come to market with warrantee, then fewer of them will come, but they will be of much higher quality.

    It should be noted that the government gives corporations the permission to pollute, and journalists the permission to lie, slander and commit fraud, by revoking your right of standing in the court of law, as a consumer of a good that was purchased on the market.

    So while I agree with Craig’s argument, I do not agree that the market without the courts, is a sufficient guarantee of public good. Not even market anarchists make this argument. Nor do I agree that the market for information is a sufficient guarantee of public good without the protection of the courts in enforcing warrantee on the quality of the product that we consume. Nor do I agree that the market for academic knowledge without the courts is a sufficient guarantee of public good.

    Personally, I’d like to take Dan Rather to court for all the damage he did to America.

    QUOTE:

    “Today, years later, I’ve come to be more aware than ever that media are generally not in a particularly good position to tell the truth. There are too many structural problems:

    The journalist (or media) is often an amateur-generalist who writes about subjects about which he has no expertise. (How many Yugoslavia-experts were there in Western media in the 1990s? How many Islam experts after 9/11? How many Germany experts since the euro crisis?)

    1) The journalist has to write to very short time constraints, before the ā€œfog of warā€ clears.

    2) The traditional (print or TV) journalist has to simplify according to the constraints of column size and screen time (ā€œconcisionā€).

    3) The journalist panders to the powerful in order to preserve ā€œaccess.ā€

    4) The journalist panders to his audience’s prejudices in order to acquire and keep readers.

    5) The journalist engages in sensationalism to get ā€œhits.ā€

    6) The journalist must respect the interests of his paymasters (corporate or government owners, subsidizers, advertisers, subscribers…).

    7) ā€œThe journalistā€ is defined here as he who lives by his writing, each of these points could be extended to media in general.

    The point here is all media, all journalists, have necessary and structural conflicts of interest that potentially compromise and bias the truthfulness of their writing.”


    Source date (UTC): 2013-08-15 13:18:00 UTC

  • IF DEMOCRACY IS A MEANS OF SQUASHING PUBLIC OPINION” We can’t improve, repair, o

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QT8Q-Hcll0″WHAT IF DEMOCRACY IS A MEANS OF SQUASHING PUBLIC OPINION”

    We can’t improve, repair, or replace government, if you think that democracy is a means for change, rather than a means of preventing change.

    My definition of libertarian is anyone who advances liberty.

    So that positioning out of the way, If you eliminated the advocacy of Ron Paul from this video, so that it would be entirely neutral, it would be the most accurate condemnation of american government that a talking-head has made on-air.

    It’s worthy of one of the great orators of our past.

    And I can’t recommend it enough.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-08-15 08:48:00 UTC

  • YOU TOM WOODS FOR PROMOTING NULLIFICATION

    http://www.politico.com/story/2013/07/states-nullification-obama-94826.html?hp=t1THANK YOU TOM WOODS FOR PROMOTING NULLIFICATION.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-28 07:30:00 UTC

  • Steering Libertarian Criticism Away From Socialism to Postmodernism, and The Completion Of The Anarchic Research Program

    [I] am trying to steer some of libertarian criticism away from socialism onto Postmodernism. And that’s partly why I spend so much time on the “Dark Enlightenment” and their attempt to dethrone universalism. The question is, if we dethrone universalism and admit our differences, then moral ends and therefore moral statements will be likewise different. And as such we would need institutions that did not depend upon moral or ideological homogeneity, but that still assisted us in cooperating on means, even if we possess different ends. All current political models were developed under ‘national’ homogeneity. Or like Chinese, forcible homogeneity in order to simply allow their political system to function. yet, we evolved the market to assist us in cooperating on means, even if we have complex or opposing ends. Given that the market functions by forcing all undesirable involuntary transfers (violence, theft, fraud, and free riding) be converted into desirable involuntary transfers via competition. And given that the investment in and development of commons cannot possibly be constructed via competition in the market because competition is an undesirable involuntary transfer in the context of a commons, then government is necessary in order to assist us in producing commons. However, how do we create government that cooperates as does the market, without involuntary transfer via competition? The European princedom model was in fact, little more than corporatist city states – because city states were in fact, private corporations. Thats where they came from. But acknowledging this fact casts doubt on the legitimacy of liberty. So we avoid it. I think I have solved this problem. If I HAVE done it, then for all intents and purposes, the Anarchic Research Program started by Rothbard will be complete: 1) Rothbards rule of the homogenous by homogenous morals (anarchic religion) 2) Hoppe’s rule of the homogenous by competing institutions (anarchic nation state) 3) My rule by of the heterogeneous by heterogeneous institutions (anarchic federation) There is no other combination that we yet know of that cannot be satisfied by these three solutions.

  • YES I’M WRITING A LOT RIGHT NOW. SORRY IF I’M SPAMMING. IT WILL END SOON. šŸ™‚ (FB

    YES I’M WRITING A LOT RIGHT NOW. SORRY IF I’M SPAMMING. IT WILL END SOON. šŸ™‚

    (FB is such an awesome substitute for a classroom.) šŸ™‚

    I’m trying to finish my work on reforming Austrianism in the context of libertarianism. And I have only one problem left, and that is this damned point of demarcation between the scientific and real, and the logical and platonic. (And I don’t find it interesting really. I actually find it ridiculous. )

    But I’m close enough that I need only follow bibliographies and read a bit in order to understand the current state of the argument. And as such undermine the attack on skepticism as psychological and moral rather than a description about the universe.

    Mathematical and logical platonism being a substitute for scriptural wonder isn’t actually good for anyone. Because it certainly looks like Hayek was right: The twentieth century was an era of mysticism. He said it was created by Marx and Freud. But at this point I’m going to have to throw in Cantor and Chomsky. With the opposition provided by Nietzsche, and Hayek and any number of finitists. And the absurdity is that this certainly looks like a conflict between the Jewish cultural predisposition for magianism and opposition to land holding norms, and the germanic cultural predisposition for mechanism and the necessity of land holding norms.

    I hate it when these big ideas turn out to be complex silly fantasies that we and our cultures bring with us. The world is quite simple. Even the physics of the universe appears quite simple when we understand it. The complex mystical nonsense, as always, involves some sort of magical anthropomorphization or deification of simple processes, whether they be Religion, Philosophy, Logic or Mathematics. The reality is that the world is not very complicate. We make it complicated. If you go SEARCHING for a way to make numbers and sets infinite you will find it, because any ratio is an infinite expression. But measurements are REAL and finite even if RATIOS can be infinite. Sets are a simplistic function once you separate them from the universe of human knowledge. Of COURSE you can create infinite sets that way. But in human REASON using LANGUAGE that’s not possible. Look at the tricks Godel had to come up with – a variation on Cantor, to make his mystical game come true. But he went LOOKING for it in a platonic universe. Science looks for phenomenon using measurements in the real universe.

    Why we desire the world to seem mystically complex, I think, is so that we can, like every mystic in history, use that pretense to take control over others – power from the presumption of knowledge to invalidate normative statements, even if one cannot provide a replacement answer to it. If instead, we admitted that the world was indeed as simple as it is, then most people who are public intellectuals would have very little to do.

    The world is very simple really. The problem isn’t in collecting the 1500 or so ideas that constitute the entire human conceptual vocabulary. It’s in distinguishing them from the extraordinary number of permutations of error.

    Mysticism is mysticism. Nothing real is infinite. Zero is a symbol that exists when we want to represent the idea of nothing countable. The infinity symbol is a shorthand for ‘I have no idea’: when we want to represent more than is countable. That’s it.

    Platonism is silly.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-24 07:24:00 UTC