Theme: Reform

  • PRIVATIZE IRS INSPECTORS AND REQUIRE (a) they have a law degree, and (b) they ar

    PRIVATIZE IRS INSPECTORS AND REQUIRE (a) they have a law degree, and (b) they are CPA’s, and (c) that they are bonded and insured – just like lawyers and doctors.

    This will mean that only very good people will conduct audits and investigations, and that their careers will depend on their neutrality.

    It also means that they will make quite a bit of money, won’t waste their time, will protect their ‘meal ticket’, and will be in short supply, so we don’t have to see them very often.

    Of course, just doing away with the entire institution would be better… šŸ˜‰


    Source date (UTC): 2013-05-15 09:06:00 UTC

  • PRIVATIZE IRS INSPECTORS AND REQUIRE (a) they have a law degree, and (b) they ar

    PRIVATIZE IRS INSPECTORS AND REQUIRE (a) they have a law degree, and (b) they are CPA’s, and (c) that they are bonded and insured – just like lawyers and doctors.

    This will mean that only very good people will conduct audits and investigations, and that their careers will depend on their neutrality.

    Of course, just doing away with the entire institution would be better… šŸ˜‰


    Source date (UTC): 2013-05-15 09:05:00 UTC

  • Aren’t Social Conservatives Always On The Wrong Side Of History? Social Conservatives Were Against The Ending Of Slavery. Social Conservatives Were Against Women Gaining The Right To Vote. Social Conservatives Were Against The Civil Rights Movement.

    Conservative means ‘in relation to the status quo, resist non-organic changes by force of law’.  In the USA it means conservative toward european aristocratic egalitarianism, and the nuclear family as an economic unit.

    Conservatives were against slavery (Democrats were for it), and against communism (Democrats were for it, and adopted the platform).

    I”m not sure you can really argue this out either way.  It is becoming clear that the postmodernist movement is both false and dangerous, but the democratic party, and liberals practice it as their social religion the way that conservatives practice the cult of the revolution.

    I can’t really address an issue of this scope here, but conservatives are decisively not always on the wrong side.  The conservative strategy simply requires that you achieve something through merit not by force.  So whatever you wish to accomplish (gay marriage) will be successful once you’ve demonstrated that you’ve ade your case and convinced the majority.  This is how they work.

    https://www.quora.com/Arent-social-conservatives-always-on-the-wrong-side-of-history-Social-conservatives-were-against-the-ending-of-slavery-Social-conservatives-were-against-women-gaining-the-right-to-vote-Social-conservatives-were-against-the-Civil-Rights-Movement

  • I”M NOT SURE THE LOGIC FOLLOWS. INSTEAD I HAVE A BETTER ANSWER FOR UKRAINE. If i

    http://usembassykyiv.wordpress.com/2013/02/15/why-should-ukrainians-care-about-intellectual-property-rights/IP? I”M NOT SURE THE LOGIC FOLLOWS. INSTEAD I HAVE A BETTER ANSWER FOR UKRAINE.

    If intellectual property rights helped countries prosper, then China would demonstrate the worst performance. But it’s just the opposite.

    Ukraine’s problems are (a) a lack of property rights in courts (b) a lack of insured identity provided by the government, (c) a lack of credit because of (a) and (b). There is a lot of sound and fury here that the government is corrupt, but the truth is, all government’s are corrupt – the USA”s included, if not spectacularly so. Systemic corruption (involuntary transfer, free riding, rent seeking, privatization of public goods, and socializing private losses) is no different from interpersonal corruption (bribery, graft) and oligarchical rent seeking and privatization – and we can argue pretty effectively that interpersonal corruption( bribery, graft) is far less harmful than systemic corruption.

    The problem in Ukraine is that the judiciary would need to be replaced, or a parallel judiciary for consumer contracts created using lawmakers from western (common law) countries. If this judiciary were married with an insurance company that people paid to prove their identity so that they could have access to credit, because credit would then be insured, then this would RAPIDLY, within three to six years, revitalize the Ukrainian state.

    WHY? Because the problem for any country is generating consumption, and consumption of complex goods requires credit. Consumption must come BEFORE production. This is a common problem, in economic understanding pervasive in all nations except perhaps for China.

    In the United States, the state acts as insurer of last resort, and will adequately find and punish people for credit crimes. (Other than identity theft which for some reason the USA is legally incompetent to solve.) In the Ukraine, the courts are too corrupt to insure consumer credit, and no government organization capable of providing insurance is sufficiently free of corruption to act as an insurer. It is quite possible that european countries could provide these services, but they have no means of extracting violators or their assets from ukraine. Therefore the only possible solution is either reform of the court against the existing Ukrainian Constitution, or creation of a parallel court, and insurance provider, so that credit from the willing west can be used to fund consumption in Ukraine. And consequently, local production can arise to meet that consumption.

    My admittedly short analysis of the progress of Ukrainian law is that lawmakers are taking adequate measures, but that the endemic corruption in the post-soviet bureaucracy, and certain cultural norms, make it impossible to ensure that citizens have property rights, that their contract rights are upheld, and that credit can be created as a tolerable risk for anyone.

    Once this system was in place, and member judges had the incentives that come with such status, it could be used to defend against the arbitrary seizure of property, and the graft and bribery that is pervasive in the country.

    But back to the original topic – it is very hard to make a functionally moral argument in favor of any Intellectual Property Right other than trademarks. Patents and Copyrights are hunting licenses to extract higher prices from a population than could be achieve by the process of meritocratic competition alone. Trademarks are weights and measures that prevent fraud. If you want to make a country wealthy, intellectual property rights are just another burdensome tax on a challenged economy. And that is both the logical outcome of any analysis, and the empirical evidence that will result from any analysis.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-04-07 10:04:00 UTC

  • IS PROPERTARIANISM THE INTELLECTUAL CURE TO POSTMODERNISM? I am not sure yet. If

    IS PROPERTARIANISM THE INTELLECTUAL CURE TO POSTMODERNISM?

    I am not sure yet. If the enlightenment was completed (corrected) then could it posit a defense against postmodernism? If we recognaize that democracy is net ‘bad’ because we no longer are families with similar interests and reproductive strategies, then possibly yes. But we must have a solution to the problem of collective investment in commons.

    I am pretty sure I have solved this problem. I am not positive. But pretty sure.

    More from Hicks:

    “Tracing postmodernism’s roots back to Rousseau, Kant, and Marx explains how all of its elements came to be woven together. Yet identifying postmodernism’s roots and connecting them to contemporary bad consequences does not refute postmodernism. What is still needed is a refutation of those historical premises, and an identification and defense of the alternatives to them. The Enlightenment was based on premises opposite to those of postmodernism, but while the Enlightenment was able to create a magnificent world on the basis of those premises, it articulated and defended them only incompletely. That weakness is the sole source of postmodernism’s power against it. Completing the articulation and defense of those premises is therefore essential to maintaining the forward progress of the Enlightenment vision and shielding it against postmodern strategies.”

    Hicks, Stephen R. C. (2010-10-19). Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault (Kindle Locations 4640-4648). Ockham’s Razor Publishing / Scholargy. Kindle Edition.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-03-30 08:22:00 UTC

  • DEMOCRACY: HELP MAKE IT PAST TENSE

    DEMOCRACY: HELP MAKE IT PAST TENSE.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-03-17 12:17:00 UTC

  • Propertarian Definition: REVOLUTION

    1) SOCIETY: A society is an organization. It is an organization of people by norms, using exclusion from, and inclusion in, opportunities to gain adherence to norms. 2) GOVERNMENT: A government is an organization. it is an organization of people who make decisions over the use of property using a bureaucracy that operates by rules, and violence to ensure those inside and outside the bureaucracy obey the decisions and rules. 3) MARKET: A market is an organization. It is an organization of people by the use and allocation of resources using the incentives produced by prices, and the promise of deprivation or benefit by adhering to the incentives produced by prices. 4) CORRUPTION: In any bureaucratic organization, some individuals have greater access to rent-seeking (corruption) than other individuals. 5) PARTIAL MONOPOLY RENTS: In any market organization, some individuals have greater access to the bureaucracy and can therefore obtain licenses for rents (partial monopolies). 6) REVOLUTION: A revolution is a replacement of individuals in a GOVERNMENT by a different set of individuals, who allocate property differently to different people, using the same or a different bureaucracy according to the same or different rules. (Revolutions are very expensive and societies rarely recover from them without the passage of generations.) Revolutions occur when one group of individuals outside the government has greater economic power than the individuals inside the government, and seek control over the government to perpetuate and improve their organizations. a) a market is a continuous reordering of society – revolutions are called ‘corrections’. b) a society is a continuous revolution – revolutions are called ‘reformations’. c) Government’s are a process of calcification because of: i) bureaucracies that stagnate rather than contracted private services that adapt, ii) laws that do not expire when irrelevant, rather than contracts that do when fulfilled. iii) Taxes regardless of the effect of the government, rather than commissions because of the productivity of the government. 7) IRON LAW OF OLIGARCHY: All groups need decision makers. Decision makers must consolidate power across a network of alliances in order to make decisions. A bureaucracy is necessary to support conformity to the organization. Once the organization is stable, all individuals inside it seek rents, and the organization exists for the purpose of self perpetuation rather than the fulfillment of its charter. NOTE: OH. And remember: all emotions are responses to changes in allocation of property. ***The mind is a property engine.*** Purportedly Moral language is just a way of trying to steal from one another and get away with it. :)”

  • REVOLUTION (Expensive and destructive) SECESSION (Expensive) NULLIFICATION (dirt

    REVOLUTION (Expensive and destructive)

    SECESSION (Expensive)

    NULLIFICATION (dirt cheap.)

    Nullification is the least expensive and least procedurally complex means of weakening the central government.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-02-08 11:40:00 UTC

  • NULLIFICATION IS CHEAPER THAN REVOLUTION OR SECESSION 1) Nullification. Inexpens

    NULLIFICATION IS CHEAPER THAN REVOLUTION OR SECESSION

    1) Nullification.

    Inexpensive. Weakens tyranny, allows greater social experimentation, preserves existing economy, promotes local opportunity while preserving federated trade, credit, insurance and military assets.

    2) Secession.

    Expensive. Eliminates tyranny, allows greater social experimentation. Creates opportunity, improves the economy, and autonomy. Allows adaptation of institutions. *Can* weaken credit, insurance, and military assets. Can also improve them.

    3) Revolution.

    Devastatingly expensive. Damages the economy, social capital, institutional capital, trade, credit, insurance, and military assets.

    Revolution carries a very high cost. The choice between Nullification and Secession is simply whether the value of the federated services of insurance, trade, credit and military are more or less valuable. Assuming that the federated system is anywhere near solvent, nullifying LAWS while retaining legitimate functions of a federal system – largely as insurer of last resort – inexpensively reduces the state to it’s only beneficial function.

    We needed a federal government because we had a vast continent that could be occupied by competitive international powers. This federated system allowed us to conquer that territory, and insure no foreign power did so instead. This strategy worked.

    But that was the ONLY REASON for the federal government at the time.

    At present, the federal government has only one redeeming value, and that is as insurer of last resort, and provider of military services too costly for independent states to field on their own.

    Nullification is the systematic means by which to devolve the united states federal government from a law-making body to a body that does nothing but provide insurer of last resort services.

    (Originally under Dave Quick’s excellent post on nullification – Here for record purposes.)


    Source date (UTC): 2013-01-15 04:27:00 UTC

  • ARGUMENTS AGAINST SOMETHING AREN’T ALL THAT USEFUL UNLESS YOU ALSO HAVE ARGUMENT

    ARGUMENTS AGAINST SOMETHING AREN’T ALL THAT USEFUL UNLESS YOU ALSO HAVE ARGUMENTS FOR SOMETHING ELSE.

    This is libertarianism’s problem. A failure to provide a solution to the problem of institutions both formal and informal.

    Without formal institutions you have a religion. Not a replacement for the state.

    Institutions create norms.

    Property is a norm.

    Property was created by the application of violence.

    Propertarianism gives us the tools with which to create formal institutions in heterogeneous populations.

    Propertarianism completes libertarianism.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-01-12 17:12:00 UTC