Curt Doolittle

Theme: Reform

  • MORE ON BOETTKE’S HYPOTHESIS (AND CAPLAN’S CRITICISM OF HOROWITZ) : WHY AUSTRIAN

    MORE ON BOETTKE’S HYPOTHESIS (AND CAPLAN’S CRITICISM OF HOROWITZ) : WHY AUSTRIANS ARE’T MAINSTREAM

    Caplan has it correct in his own odd way, as usual. Then he proceeds, as he does with ‘Why I’m not an Austrian’ to contradict himself with the same kind of logical problem he accuses others of making. (In the most famous case, that incentives are more important than calculation. And failing to realize that such a statement is meaningless, since incentives require calculation – the terms are mutually dependent.)

    BARRIER TO ENTRY

    The barrier to entry for quantitative macro economics is higher than the barrier to entry for subjective MORAL politics. Because of this, of course there will be more ridiculous ‘austrian’ advocates than there are ridiculous amoral quantitative macro economists like Paul Krugman and Brad DeLong. And its easier to criticize abuse of an ISLM vs ISMP curves because there isn’t any subjective loading possible. They aren’t’ dependent upon norms. Whereas it’s very easy to criticize abuse of involuntary transfers according to whatever set of norms we have learned over our lifetimes.

    PRAXEOLOGY

    I’ve consistently criticized Praxeology – which is a narrower discipline than austrian economics, because it does not treat opportunity costs as real costs, and as such, both Mises’ and rothbard’s deductions from it are mistaken – because they do not account for the cost of norms, and as such, they assume that the market is sufficient for the constraint of norms – or at least sufficient to constrain norms to the point where private property is possible because of high trust. And Mises and Rothbard are wrong on this. And because they are wrong, the entire libertarian movement has tried to base the justification for private property on natural law, argumentation, and abstract morality rather than something scientific and explanatory of all moral codes – as I have done.

    NORMS, TRADITIONS AND TRUST AS CAPITAL

    I don’t put a lot of stock in Austrian ‘Economics’ because it’s frankly all been assimilated by the profession. It’s that the long term consequences to norms and institutions have NOT been incorporated into the mainstream profession, and are treated as irrelevant. While in Austrian terms, norms are not – particularly if we include Hayek.

    It turns out that norms are VERY important. They are the most expensive kind of capital a nation can build. Norms are a living monument. Thats’ why younger civilizations with less scientific maturity have trouble creating them.

    So I tend not to make Austrian versus the Mainstream a question of empirical science, but a distinction in WHAT MUST BE MEASURED in order to make sure that we are in fact creating rather than consuming or destroying capital. This is not an argument over method per se. The progress in the empirical method, do more to the contribution of Experimental Psychology than to economics in my opinion.

    I criticize the mainstream for not measuring changes to normative (informal capital) because it is convenient to ignore it, and by ignoring it they justify both the progressive and statist agenda.

    The problem is that it is very difficult to measure such changes to norms, traditions, and other factors that we tend to bundle into the abstract but somewhat measurable distinction between TRUST and CORRUPTION. Or, what is more accurately described as the extension of the familial (kinship) trust, to others (non-kin) by the suppression of all involuntary transfers except market competition, and the systemic enforcement of warranty to prevent fraud by omission.

    GENES AS CAPITAL

    As a member of the ‘Dark Enlightenment’, I consider a gene pool a form of capital. I also think that Austrianism, like Aristocracy (and what we call Conservatism) implicitly favors beneficial market-based eugenics, while progressivism implicitly favors destructive dysgenics by not allowing families to concentrate capital behind productive genes, and transferring reproductive ability from better genes to worse genes.

    SUMMARY

    So Austrianism is flawed because it has a low barrier to entry, because praxeology as articulated is false, and has led libertarianism into catastrophic errors even Hoppe has only marginally been able to rescue it from.

    But Austrianism is useful in that it a) allows us to test the rationality of actions and incentives, b) makes visible involuntary transfers c) tries to account for increases or decreases in informal institutional capital d) implicitly represents the conflict between dysgenic and eugenic reproduction that is the natural conflict between male and female reproductive strategies. And as such Austrianism helps us understand why there is political discord, and provides us with clues, that I have made use of, to provide explanatory power in politics, that is not provided by correlative macro mathematics.

    —————–

    (For Reference)

    —————–

    BOETTKE’S HYPOTHESIS WHY AUSTRIANS ARE NOT MAINSTREAM

    “Verbal logic is not adequate to explain economic relationships. In the absence of formal logic, one cannot really test propositions. In other words, syntactic logic matters more than semantic logic.” (Hypothesis H4)

    AND

    “Science is not about absolutes, but about refutation. If AE is about (apodictic) certainty, then it is not a science, but a pastime.” (Hypothesis H5)

    Well I disagree with AE as apodictic unless it’s complete. As I’ve written elsewhere it’s not complete. However, if expressed as complete, then it’s possible to propose means of falsification. And “m not sure it isn’t possible to model. Just very, very difficult, because we need much, much more data than we have today. Tis is where experimental psychology comes in.

    In this sense, AE has a higher bar, because it tries to provide greater explanatory power than mainstream economics.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-24 07:03:00 UTC

  • Notes From Hoppe’s Essay: “What Must Be Done”

    SUMMARY: INCREMENTALLY PRIVATIZE EVERYTHING. [G]reat analysis. Not sure how strong the solution is. (It isn’t strong at all) I don’t like to criticize the master of our movement. He should have had one of us edit it (Roman Saskiw) because there are too many small problems with it. I don’t like mixing analytical rigour and moralistic language. It doesn’t help us. Not when there isn’t any need for it. We can maintain rational rigour in our movement. That aside, I’ll just say that either of my two main solutions is better. My solution is grander. But it’s likely to work. Partly because it’s grander. Because it has worked so many times in history. Because momentum matters. Because the majority adopt the positions of those they trust. I’ve tried to limit the quotes to the necessary argument, and clarify in brackets what required it.

    Hans-Hermann Hoppe. What Must Be Done . Ludwig von Mises Institute. (2013) THE GOAL

    [The] ultimate goal … is the demonopolization of protection and justice. Protection, security, defense, law, order, and arbitration in conflicts can and must be supplied competitively— that is, entry into the field of being a judge must be free. – (Kindle Locations 166-168).

    THE ARGUMENT

    Every monopolist takes advantage of his position. The price of protection will go up, and more importantly, the content of the law, that is the product quality, will be altered to the advantage of the monopolist and at the expense of others. – (Kindle Locations 95-96)

    …once there is no longer free entry into the business of property protection, or any other business for that matter, the price of protection will rise, and the quality of protection will fall. The monopolist will become increasingly less of a protector of our property, and increasingly more a protection racket, or even a systematic exploiter of property owners. He will become an aggressor against and a destroyer of the people and their property that he was initially supposed to protect.” (Kindle Locations 74-77)

    What happens [under democracy, is that] the territorial protection monopoly [is transformed into] public [from] private property. Instead of a prince who regards [the institutions] as his private property, [an elected official, who has the incentives of] a temporary and interchangeable caretaker is put in charge of the protection racket. The caretaker does not own the protection racket. Instead, he is just allowed to use the current resources for his own advantage. He owns [The right to enjoy the use and advantages of another’s property short of the destruction or waste of its substance,] but he does not own the capital value. This does not eliminate the self-interest-driven tendency toward increased exploitation. To the contrary, it only makes exploitation less rational and less calculating, – (Kindle Locations 122-126).

    …because entry into a democratic government is open— everyone can become president— resistance against State property invasions is reduced. This leads to the same result: increasingly under democratic conditions, the worst will rise to the top of the State in free competition. Competition is not always good. Competition in the field of becoming the shrewdest aggressor against private property is nothing to be greeted. – (Kindle Locations 127-130).

    Under highly centralized democracy, … the security of private property has almost completely disappeared. The price of protection is enormous, and the quality of justice dispensed has gone downhill constantly. It has deteriorated to the point where the idea of immutable laws of justice, of natural law, has almost entirely disappeared from public consciousness. Law is considered nothing but State-made law— positive law. Law and justice is whatever the State says it is. There is still private property in name, but in practice private property owners have been almost completely expropriated. Rather than protecting people from invaders and invasions of person and property, the State has increasingly disarmed its own people, and stripped them of their most elementary right to self-defense. – (Kindle Locations 142-146).

    Instead of protecting us, then, the State has delivered us and our property to the mob and mob instincts. Instead of safeguarding us, it impoverishes us, it destroys our families, local organizations, private foundations, clubs and associations, by drawing all of them increasingly into its own orbit. And as a result of all of this, the State has perverted the public sense of justice and of personal responsibility, and bred and attracted an increasing number of moral and economic monsters and monstrosities. – (Kindle Locations 157-160).

    1) First: that the protection of private property and of law, justice, and law enforcement, is essential to any human society. But there is no reason whatsoever why this task must be taken on by one single agency, by a monopolist. [Instead]… it is precisely the case that as soon as you have a monopolist taking on this task, he will [of] necessity destroy justice and render us defenseless against foreign as well as domestic invaders and aggressors. – (Kindle Locations 162-165). 2) …because a monopoly of protection is [a violation of natural, moral, and economic laws, then], any territorial expansion of such a monopoly is [a violation of natural, moral, and economic laws]. … Every [attempt, or suggestion, to increase] political centralization must be on principle grounds rejected [and fought against.]. In turn, every attempt at political decentralization— segregation, separation, secession and so forth— must be supported. – (Kindle Locations 169-170). 3) … [the] democratic protection monopoly … must be rejected as a [violation of natural,] moral and economic [laws]. Majority rule and private property protection are incompatible. The idea of democracy must be ridiculed [,criticized, attacked, and delegitimized as systemic corruption]: it is nothing else but mob rule [ and organized expropriation, justified by majority rule]. – (Kindle Locations 170-172).

    THE STRATEGY

    1) one must attempt to restrict the right to vote on local taxes, in particular on property taxes and regulations, to property and real estate owners. Only property owners must be permitted to vote, and their vote is not equal, but in accordance with the value of the equity owned, and the amount of taxes paid.- (Kindle Locations 346-348). … all public employees— teachers, judges, policemen— and all welfare recipients, must be excluded from voting on local taxes and local regulation matters. These people are being paid out of taxes and should have no say whatsoever how high these taxes are. … The locations have to be small enough and have to have a good number of decent people.- (Kindle Locations 349-353). … Consequently, local taxes and rates as well as local tax revenue will inevitably decrease. Property values and most local incomes would increase whereas the number and payment of public employees would fall. – (Kindle Locations 353-354).

    2) In this government funding crisis which breaks out once the right to vote has been taken away from the mob, as a way out of this crisis, all local government assets must be privatized. An inventory of all public buildings, and on the local level that is not that much— schools, fire, police station, courthouses, roads, and so forth— and then property shares or stock should be distributed to the local private property owners in accordance with the total lifetime amount of taxes— property taxes— that these people have paid. After all, it is theirs, they paid for these things. These shares should be freely tradeable, sold and bought, and with this local government would essentially be abolished. – (Kindle Locations 356-360).

    3) Under the realistic assumption that there continues to be a local demand for education and protection and justice, the schools, police stations, and courthouses will be still used for the very same purposes. And many former teachers, policemen and judges would be rehired or resume their former position on their own account as self-employed individuals, except that they would be operated or employed by local “bigshots” or elites who own these things, all of whom are personally known figures.- (Kindle Locations 366-369). … Accordingly judges must be freely financed, and free entry into judgeship positions must be assured. Judges are not elected by vote, but chosen by the effective demand of justice seekers. – (Kindle Locations 373-374).

  • Logic, Praxeology And Science: Dependency And Demarcation. Reforming Libertarianism By Incorporating Scientific Argument Rather Than Relying On The Purely Rational

    LOGIC, PRAXEOLOGY AND SCIENCE: DEPENDENCY AND DEMARCATION. REFORMING LIBERTARIANISM BY INCORPORATING SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENT RATHER THAN RELYING ON THE PURELY RATIONAL [T]hose three terms, Logic, Praxeology, and Science describe a spectrum. But what is the point of demarcation between each? Which of these domains is capable of testing which category of problems, and what constraints does any domain place upon the others, given that each is open to error, and requires the other to test its hypotheses. I’ve been working on this problem now for quite some time, and have almost got my arms around how to talk about it praxeologically: as observable human action: and therefore a test of possibility, rational choice and incentives. WHY DOES THIS MATTER I have, I think, reformed the concepts of property and morality, but I can’t reform the system of thought that we call libertarian political theory without reforming the distinction between logic (unobservable, internally testable), praxeology (observable and subjectively testable), and science (unobservable, and objectively & externally testable.) That work may have been done somewhere but I haven’t found it yet. And I have a very hard time slogging my way through metaphysical assumptions and highly loaded vocabulary of both logicians on one end and rationalists on the other. Current libertarian (Rothbardian) ethics rely upon very weak rational arguments. I’ve tried to systematically falsify each of them – there are only a handful really. And I think I have been successful. Current progressive (Rawlsian) ethics rely upon very weak rational arguments. I think that I can falsify that argument without much difficulty. Veil of ignorance being a logical fallacy so to speak. Conservatives don’t have an argument, so I have to explain their implied argument in libertarian terminology. [W]hat I find most interesting, from our perspective, as libertarians, is that we acknowledge that the common law is an organic process, and it functions because it must be digestible and applicable by ordinary people in juries. We understand that the english built an empirical society, not a rational one. And that the French took the british concept of liberty and made it into a rational one. Then the germans have tried, and continue to, make it a spiritual one. In other words, Rothbard’s arguments, and one of hoppe’s (his only weak one) rely on rationalism rather than empiricism. And while praxeology may be a test, and while reason may be a test, the purpose of empirical analysis is to extend our senses, and reduce what we cannot sense to analogies that we can perceive by proxy. Now, prior generations had to suffer with the limited tool of Rational argument, because they didn’t have data, and the socialistic system of central control produces data on short periodicity, and can justify itself with that data. While the libertarian and conservative argument is that the externalities produced outweigh the short term benefits. But we have to WAIT for our data, and therefore socialistic arguments gather momentum in and civic behavior alters while we wait. Thankfully we have data now. Our rational arguments were correct. The conservative arguments look like they are correct too. The only progressive argument we are unsure about at present is whether or not fiat money itself can function in a positive fashion, under some as yet undefined circumstance. (We argue that it can’t, out of hand, on rational grounds, but I’m not sure we can prove that there aren’t holes in our reason sufficient to undermine our position.) We are lucky. Time has passed. We’ve learned more than our preceding generations had available to learn. And as such we can debate and restate libertarian theory using scientific rather than rational arguments. And that is what I’m trying to do.

  • Logic, Praxeology And Science: Dependency And Demarcation. Reforming Libertarianism By Incorporating Scientific Argument Rather Than Relying On The Purely Rational

    LOGIC, PRAXEOLOGY AND SCIENCE: DEPENDENCY AND DEMARCATION. REFORMING LIBERTARIANISM BY INCORPORATING SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENT RATHER THAN RELYING ON THE PURELY RATIONAL [T]hose three terms, Logic, Praxeology, and Science describe a spectrum. But what is the point of demarcation between each? Which of these domains is capable of testing which category of problems, and what constraints does any domain place upon the others, given that each is open to error, and requires the other to test its hypotheses. I’ve been working on this problem now for quite some time, and have almost got my arms around how to talk about it praxeologically: as observable human action: and therefore a test of possibility, rational choice and incentives. WHY DOES THIS MATTER I have, I think, reformed the concepts of property and morality, but I can’t reform the system of thought that we call libertarian political theory without reforming the distinction between logic (unobservable, internally testable), praxeology (observable and subjectively testable), and science (unobservable, and objectively & externally testable.) That work may have been done somewhere but I haven’t found it yet. And I have a very hard time slogging my way through metaphysical assumptions and highly loaded vocabulary of both logicians on one end and rationalists on the other. Current libertarian (Rothbardian) ethics rely upon very weak rational arguments. I’ve tried to systematically falsify each of them – there are only a handful really. And I think I have been successful. Current progressive (Rawlsian) ethics rely upon very weak rational arguments. I think that I can falsify that argument without much difficulty. Veil of ignorance being a logical fallacy so to speak. Conservatives don’t have an argument, so I have to explain their implied argument in libertarian terminology. [W]hat I find most interesting, from our perspective, as libertarians, is that we acknowledge that the common law is an organic process, and it functions because it must be digestible and applicable by ordinary people in juries. We understand that the english built an empirical society, not a rational one. And that the French took the british concept of liberty and made it into a rational one. Then the germans have tried, and continue to, make it a spiritual one. In other words, Rothbard’s arguments, and one of hoppe’s (his only weak one) rely on rationalism rather than empiricism. And while praxeology may be a test, and while reason may be a test, the purpose of empirical analysis is to extend our senses, and reduce what we cannot sense to analogies that we can perceive by proxy. Now, prior generations had to suffer with the limited tool of Rational argument, because they didn’t have data, and the socialistic system of central control produces data on short periodicity, and can justify itself with that data. While the libertarian and conservative argument is that the externalities produced outweigh the short term benefits. But we have to WAIT for our data, and therefore socialistic arguments gather momentum in and civic behavior alters while we wait. Thankfully we have data now. Our rational arguments were correct. The conservative arguments look like they are correct too. The only progressive argument we are unsure about at present is whether or not fiat money itself can function in a positive fashion, under some as yet undefined circumstance. (We argue that it can’t, out of hand, on rational grounds, but I’m not sure we can prove that there aren’t holes in our reason sufficient to undermine our position.) We are lucky. Time has passed. We’ve learned more than our preceding generations had available to learn. And as such we can debate and restate libertarian theory using scientific rather than rational arguments. And that is what I’m trying to do.

  • THE EUROPEAN NEW RIGHT IS AN INTELLECTUAL CATASTROPHE I complain the the America

    THE EUROPEAN NEW RIGHT IS AN INTELLECTUAL CATASTROPHE

    I complain the the American right doesn’t do anything at all to innovate. They even resist adopting right-libertarian ideas, in their quest for cultural homogeneity.

    But the European New Right, isn’t any more rational than the Continental philosophers, and those philosophers are even worse than the Anglo Postmodernists.

    WE DONT NEED A NEW RELIGION. The monotheistic religions are a form of tyrannical government. And the christianization of Europe was one of the greatest tragedies in human history.

    We don’t need a new religion. We have one. It’s western history. HIstory is polytheistic. It’s full of role models. We can even accommodate the christians in that pantheon. History is us. It’s rational. History is humanity laid bare for our use and understanding.

    But we can’t teach western history as the superior cultural values that it represents. Diversity fears superiority.

    Libertarians are lost in their silly sidetrack in the judaic ghetto rebellion.

    So, we get our lunch eaten by the religion that IS succeeding: Postmodernism.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-10 12:42:00 UTC

  • 9 Points On The Libertarian Reformation

    9 Points On The Libertarian Reformation: http://www.propertarianism.com/2013/07/10/notes-on-the-libertarian-reformation-revised-and-edited

    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-10 09:55:17 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/354901633446060032

  • Notes On The Libertarian Reformation (Revised and Edited)

    [D]raft of the principles of the libertarian reformation. 1) Our generation’s challenge is not socialism, it’s the state religion of anti-scientific, anti-rational Postmodernism. (The religion of progressivism.) The dogma, literature, and ideological bias of the libertarian movement is a generation behind. Emphasis on past heroes is not constructive or valuable. It is indicative of the failure to produce successful solutions to the communalist adaptation to the failure of socialism in theory and practice: Postmodernism. 2) Government per se, is not a ‘bad’. What’s ‘bad’ is the corporeal state, monopoly, bureaucracy, majority rule, and legislative law. When we fail to make this distinction we are in fact, ‘wrong’. A government that consists of a monopolistically articulated set of property rights and the terms of dispute resolution, operating under the common law, and a group of people whose purpose is to facilitate investments in the commons by voluntary contract, but who cannot make legislative law, is in fact, a government. And it is a good government. It may not be necessary government among people with homogenous preferences and beliefs. But it is somewhere between necessary and beneficial government for people with heterogeneous preferences and beliefs. It is however, not a bad government. A monopoly set of property rights is necessary for the rational resolution of disputes, with the lowest friction possible. 3) Property is unnatural to man. Tribal human settlement is matrilineal, egalitarian, malthusian and poor. Mate selection is determined by sexual favors within the group, and raiding, capturing and killing for women outside the group whenever there was a shortage of women. 4) Property rights and paternalism were an innovation made possible by the domestication of animals and the ability of males to accumulate wealth outside of the matrilineal order. Property rather than sexual favors was such an advantage that it inverted the relationship between the sexes and determined mate selection. (The feminists are correct.) 5) Property rights were created by a minority who granted equality of property rights to one another in exchange for service in warfare. The source of property rights is the organized application of violence to create those property rights. Because property rights are the desire of the minority. However, property rights created such an increase in prosperity and consumption that others sought to join the ranks of property owners. 6) The redistributive state that was voted into power by women, has reversed the innovation of private property and in concert with feminists, is eroding the nuclear family, and the male ability to collect property. The institutions of marriage, nuclear family, and private property cannot survive when a democratic majority can deprive men of private property rights, and their ability to control mating and reproduction. 7 ) Rothbardian Libertarian ethics are ‘insufficient’.The high trust society forbids involuntary transfers by externality and asymmetry of information, and enforces this demand with a requirement for warranty. The ethics of the high trust society forbid all involuntary transfers except through competition in the market. They also boycott although they do not forbid, profit without demonstrated addition of value. 8 ) Rothbardian ethics are wrong (and bad): The market incentives alone are not high enough to overcome corruption, and create the high trust society without these two additional moral prohibitions instituted both formally and as norms: norms are a commons. They are property. Conservatives are right. “Externality and Symmetry Enforced By Warranty” are ethical constraints necessary for markets to function as the only permissible involuntary transfer: by competition in the market. 9 ) Libertarians do not exist in sufficient numbers. And it is not possible to enfranchise the conservatives (classical liberals) with Rothbardian ‘ghetto’ ethics. Without conservatives, who have the broader set of moral biases, and demand for adherence to norms, the libertarian bias is morally objectionable to too large a population, and libertarians are too small in number to accumulate and hold the power necessary to determine property rights in a geography. It’s important to understand that Rothbardian ethics are ‘wrong’ because they are insufficient to achieve what they claim to.

  • NOTES ON THE LIBERTARIAN REFORMATION 1) Our generation’s challenge is not social

    NOTES ON THE LIBERTARIAN REFORMATION

    1) Our generation’s challenge is not socialism, it’s the state religion of anti-scientific, contra-rational postmodernism. (The religion of progressivism.) The dogma, literature, and ideological bias of the libertarian movement is a generation behind.

    2) Government per se, is not a ‘bad’. What’s ‘bad’ are the corporeal state, monopoly, bureaucracy, majority rule, and legislative law. When we fail to make this distinction we are in fact, ‘wrong’. A government that consists of a monopolistically articulated set of property rights and the terms of dispute resolution, operating under the common law, and a group of people whose purpose is to facilitate investments in the commons by voluntary contract, but who cannot make legislative law, is in fact, a government. It may not be necessary government among people with homogenous preferences and beliefs. But it is somewhere between necessary and beneficial government for people with heterogeneous preferences and beliefs. It is however, not a bad government.

    3) Property is unnatural to man. Tribal human settlement is matrilineal, egalitarian, malthusian and poor. Mate selection is determined by sexual favors within the group, and raiding, capturing and killing for women outside the group whenever there was a shortage of women.

    4) Property rights and paternalism were an innovation made possible by the domestication of animals and the ability of males to accumulate wealth outside of the matrilineal order. Property rather than sexual favors was such an advantage that it inverted the relationship between the sexes and determined mate selection. (The feminists are correct.)

    5) Property rights were created by a minority who granted equality of property rights to one another in exchange for service in warfare. The source of property rights is the organized application of violence to create those property rights. Because property rights are the desire of the minority. However, property rights created such an increase in prosperity and consumption that others sought to join the ranks of property owners.

    6) The redistributive state that was voted into power by women, has reversed the innovation of private property and in concert with feminists, is eroding the nuclear family, and the male ability to collect property. The institutions of marriage, nuclear family, and private property cannot survive when a democratic majority can deprive men of private property rights, and their ability to control mating and reproduction.

    7 ) Rothbardian Libertarian ethics are ‘insufficient’. The high trust society forbids involuntary transfers by externality and asymmetry of information, and enforces this demand with a requirement for warranty. The ethics of the high trust society forbid all involuntary transfers except through competition in the market.

    8 ) Rothbardian ethics are wrong (and bad): The market incentives alone are not high enough to overcome corruption, and create the high trust society without additional moral prohibitions: norms are a commons. They are property. Conservatives are right.

    9 ) Libertarians do not exist in sufficient numbers. And it is not possible to enfranchise the conservatives (classical liberals) with Rothbardian ‘ghetto’ ethics. Without conservatives, who have a broader set of moral biases, the libertarian bias is morally objectionable to too large a population, and libertarians are too small in number to accumulate and hold the power necessary to determine property rights in a geography. It’s important to understand that rothbardian ethics are ‘wrong’ because they are insufficient.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-08 08:07:00 UTC

  • STUDENT LOANS If you want to fix student loans, the incentives in the university

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324688404578541372861440606.htmlFIXING STUDENT LOANS

    If you want to fix student loans, the incentives in the university system are currently perverse, and you can’t fix student funding without fixing university incentives.

    1) zero interest. Any amount. Six total years of coverage. This process can be repeated every ten years for lifetime performance.

    2) The amount is paid back as a payroll deduction over thirty years at fixed, x% of income . (This effectively reduces the student cost to zero, but doesn’t allow students to abuse it.)

    3) Colleges and Universities must use 100% of the money for undergraduates ONLY for the undergraduate program, only for undergraduate departments, only for undergraduate teachers who teach, and many not use any for research, sports, or for their endowment. Undergraduate departments must perform as teaching departments not reserach departments, and all publication requirements for teaching professors must be removed. No exemptions or devices for circumvention in theory or practice. Limit administrative overhead costs to 20%. And that will take care of the economics of the system, and make sure our students have the best professors in the world.

    4) Since all financial barriers are removed, then remove all quotas, and require domestic students receive full access prior to foreign students.

    Most of these are Sowell’s ideas.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-02 10:55:00 UTC

  • THE IRS

    http://www.abolishirsnow.com/?c=816063acee64f86b98e372d11138c365ABOLISH THE IRS

    Source date (UTC): 2013-06-05 07:44:00 UTC