(Profound)

We can learn from history that allegorical mythology was converted to factual description by taking advantage of the desire for certainty, and inventing the scriptural religions – despite the obervable and logical contradiction of mystical statements with reality of experience.

We can observe the continuing human desire for marxism, communism, socialism and redistributive social democracy despite its irrefutable logical impossibility, despite its universal failure, and despite our scientific knowledge of human behavior.

We can observe that humans desire to believe the many contradictory falsehoods in Postmodern thought that form the current progressive ideology, and which is taught in our schools as the civic religion of the state.

None if this should give us confidence that reason and fact will prevail, or that people desire reason and fact. Evidence is to the contrary.

Progressivism, freudianism, postmodernism, and marxism are – as Hayek warned us – a new mysticism ushered in by Marx (1848) and Freud (1902AD), just as Zoroaster (~1800BC), Abraham (~1800BC), Jesus, Peter and Paul (<~50BC) ushered in ages of mysticism for political purposes.

And we are, thanks to them, and thanks to human desires, despite our progress in the physical sciences, living in an age of regressive, pervasive, social mysticism.

That is the evidence.

Hayek suggested that future generations would see this as an age of mysticism. But there is little evidence of that in history. Instead, generations are perfectly happy to persist the social narrative and the scientific and economic narrative as if they were independent frames of reference for describing human history.

Property, truth, and reason are aristocratic values and virtues, and their dominance in any culture the result of the organized application of violence by aristocrats to protect themselves from the ignorance, mysticism, and desires of the many.

That humans benefit from aristocratic virtues and values is evidentiary. That they will voluntarily adopt aristocratic virtues and values is contrary to all evidence.

And membership in aristocratic rationalism REQUIRES that we observe and respect that evidence.

If you persist in the illusion that either the enlightenment vision of equality of ability limited only by will, or the postmodern vision of equality limited only by environment, then you are, in fact, non-rational, unscientific.

Reason, property rights, and aristocratic virtues and values will exist only where a minority is willing to use violence to impose them on an unwilling population more desirous of mysticism and mental comfort than objective truth.

Violence is the highest virtue, and the greatest asset one can possess. Everything else is just rhetorical justification to obtain property rights at a discount. And that is not aristocratic: it is fraud.

Curt Doolittle

Kiev

 

Eh..
Gist is right. Primary sources are better. Our knowledge is better today. But we are shaking off centuries of bias about our natural state, only to discover that humans organize according to production units counterbalanced by the competition between male and female reproductive competition. Not much more to it than that. We have a lot more detail, but in the end, if our survival depends upon it, we alter our informal and formal institutions to support our economic (productive and consumptive) demands.

Now, it’s certainly true that we often adopt BAD ways of doing things. And it’s certainly true that we resist adopting GOOD things when they disrupt (reorder) our existing formal and informal institutions. But cultures that adopt BAD things, or resist GOOD things are almost always "out gunned, out germ-ed, and out steeled" by cultures that make superior decisions.

Temporary destructive innovations like mongol and arab mounted raiding techniques paired with lack of supporting formal institutions, or the forcible adoption of socialism by the bolsheviks, the maoists, and the Cambodians as examples of what works as a promise in the short term, but fails in actuality the long.

 

The purpose of enlightenment program was isolate thought, morality and politics from the superstition of Magian religion. It was to launder superstition in favor of empirical reasoning in The analytic program’s objective was to incorporate the physical sciences into philosophy, but to hold onto the metaphysical program. The naturalistic, praxeological (action) and economic programs are attempting to launder the metaphysical program from philosophy. (Or that’s close enough for our purposes here.)

    1) All language is allegory to experience. The most complex terms are simply increasingly loaded combinations of basic experiences.

    2) Our experiences are limited. We can only sense so much on our own, with the physical bodies that we have to work with.

    3) Language allows us to collect a greater range of experiences than we can on our own. Even experiences separated by time and space.

    4) Our ‘calculative’ (not computational) ability is limited. We can only ‘figure out’ so much on our own.

    5) Language allows others to help us calculate what we could not calculate on our own.

    6) Systems of measurement allow us to ‘sense’ what we cannot sense with our senses alone.

    7) Systems of calculation and computation let us compare and contrast what we cannot figure out on our own.

    8 ) Language, Measurement, and Calculation and Reason allow us to extend our perceptions, and to create symbols that we can manipulate with the limited abilities that we do possess.

    9) The purpose of philosophy is to test, integrate, reconstruct, rearrange, evaluate, prioritize and articulate our body of knowledge to our advantage given the new information available to our senses by way of our tools, measurements, communications, and calculations, so that we can make best use of the information at our disposal.

The assumption in this line of reasoning, this set of priorities, is that with more knowledge we have more choices to determine how to make ourselves most happy through the accumulation of experiences.

The other line of reasoning, is that human beings are able at present to be happy if they seek to obtain

The problem is that humans demonstrate a preference for the consumption provided by the first, and demonstrate a preference to expend the intellectual and physical labor of the second. More accurately: they want others to expend the effort on the first, and to reserve for themselves the experiences of the second.

We call conflict of ambitions a desire for ‘free riding’. In fact, we can argue that more human calculation is performed for the purpose of pursuing free riding than any other end except sex.

Curt Doolittle.
Kiev, Ukraine.

(NOTE 1: “Calculation, in its broadest sense, refers to any comparison that permits a judgement. So while numeric computation is included in the definition of calculation, but so is ‘Where can I get a peanut butter sandwich?’ and ‘Do I like chocolate or vanilla ice cream more today?’. We use ‘calculation’ to distinguish simplistic processes from reasoning, which has a higher standard of demands – namely substitution and transformation.)

(NOTE 2: This approach abandons the metaphysical program.)

 

Hoppe would argue (and has) that the following statements are not possible to contradict – that they are falsifiable, but that is impossible in any circumstances for them be false.
1) increases in the minimum wage increase unemployment.
2) increases in the supply of money cause increases in prices.
3) democracy is simply a slow process of adopting communism.
Any circumstance under which any of these statements is false, is a statement of time and externality, not of the scope of the statement itself.

And this is why his argument is correct (true) within the framework of action:

Any change in the description of circumstances would mean a change in the meaning of the terms minium wage, unemployment, and externality. Any change in the meaning of newtonian gravity would mean a change in the concept of gravity that is open to direct experience. (In other words, as Popper advices elsewhere, our problem lies in our concept of measurement and the calculus of measurement.)

So, correctly stated, ACTION has a higher standard of temporal truth than does SCIENCE, and science a higher standard of inter-temporal truth, because science is discovery (the patterns will not change), and ACTION is invention because the pattern of relations are EXPECTED to change, yet we must act in real time to outwit the dark forces of time and ignorance.

Within the context of ACTION, the Newtonian theory of gravity is sufficiently precise for the actions to which it need be applied. It is insufficiently precise for larger and smaller relations. But for the scope of action it describes (direct experience), it is in fact, ‘true’. The error was made by those who attempted to extend it into different domains (where tools are needed to experience gravitational effects. Tools expand our perceptions, so we must extend our concepts with our tools.

And, it does not mean that any of these concepts likely to be falsified, even though they are falsifiable. It means that the scope of the statement does not require further precision than the statement contains. (The argument, for example, that there is no real reason for this apple not to fall through the table top. It’s just that the chance of such an event occurring requires a time frame many times greater than the existence of the known universe.) For the purpose of action in real time, this statement is true.

This is the difference between Humean and Popperian scientific criticism of induction, and the utility of induction for the purpose of taking action. It is also why Popper is ‘weak’ in that he maintains analytical philosophy’s attachment to the metaphysical problem – rather than fully moving into Naturalism. This ‘halfway’ postion is why he’s open to criticism.

The mistake in widespread application of the arguments against induction derives from the failure to treating philosophy as a symbolic language for the manipulation of the natural world that exists in our heads, and giving priority to science rather than the phenomenon of experience that we gain from constant bombardment of our short term memory by stimuli both direct and reflected from our memories.

So, Hoppe is correct I think, just inarticulate, because he makes a similar error to Popper by confusing domains, even though he is correct because he uses a theory of action. Popper is wrong, I think, because he maintains the language of the metaphysical error – truth independent of action.

It’s only by contrasting these types of arguments that we can see the errors in each. ie: we must subject theories to external tests, not those which are proscribed by the philosopher, or constrained by the language of the philosopher.

I would agree that the mind body problem exists. However, evidence is, that the physical sciences are solving this, and that the philosophical program has been distracted by solving it.

Philosophy is a language for transforming external information into perceptions. It is in fact, a system of measurement and calculation. But measurements and calculations must come from outside of us – if only because our internal ‘tools’ are not precise enough to self-analyze, and because we are prone to a pretty significant array of cognitive biases – and philosophy, as well as all other forms of measurement and calculation, must help us overcome those perceptual biases and errors.

Our ability to perceive, remember, and calculate (categorize, compare and manipulate) the world is actually incredibly weak. But with language to form networks of perception and calculation with others so that we can perceive more than we can on our own. Writing to store those perceptions and judgements for later consumption. Philosophy to test and manipulate objects, properties and relations (calculate). Tools for extending our perception. And measurements for transforming the output of those tools into sensations that we can perceive, and compare, we can compensate for our inherent weakness. That is: we have incredibly scary-good associative memories, but terrible short term memories, and the ability to grasp only three to five concepts at a time, on perhaps two axis. And while that is good for throwing stones and spears, it is notoriously terrible for understanding the flow, pool and eddy that most of the universe consists of, under Mandelbrotian fractal complexity, to us which appears as kaleidic uncertainty: … “magic”.

This means that the problem is in the scope of our statements in the context of our necessary actions. Not a problem with induction per se. But instead, a problem of induction when the scope of the problem is greater than the scope of action we attribute to it. Again, this is because philosophy is still trying to cure itself of the disease of the metaphysical problem. Religions die hard.

The criticism I’m levying is that popper is trapped in his era of philosophy (analytical proper) and Hoppe is not (action proper) probably stands. Hoppe’s argumentation ethic probably doesn’t stand. Hoppe’s criticism of popper’s recommendation that we experiment with policy despite the fact that economic statements such as the example he’s given, are open to experimentation, is in fact, a criticism that Popper is an advocate of the error of positivism.

Or something like that. I am not done experimenting with this line of argument obviously. The point being that deduction, induction, and abduction are simply statements about the amount of information we lack.

I have covered a very complex set of ideas here, and done the best I an in a short space. I hope it’s added some clarity. Perhaps it is just confusing.

 

Any political system wich seeks to implement involuntary transfers must be based upon justification.

Any political system which seeks to implement voluntary transfers need not be based upon justification. But this is an INSUFFICIENT ANSWER to the problem.

This sounds quite simple. However, the first problem is not voluntary versus involuntary transfer, but the distribution of control between the monopoly of private (several) property, and the prohibition on monopoly of control under the shareholder relations of common property (the commons) – and the difficult means by which commons are privatized without the conduct of free riding, profiting from interference, profiting from fraud by omission, profit from fraud, profit from privatization of the commons, profiting from rent seeking, from organizing for the purpose of extraction (taxes) and corruption, takings and war. It is true that private property improves both incentives and calculation, and reduces the friction, but the problem is that even at that point, the system of property rights is in fact a shareholder agreement, and there are very different moral arguments over the distribution of the proceeds produced by the corporation and its members. This question is not trivial, especially with the introduction of women into the voting pool, since women’s biological moral code, demonstrated by their voting pattern, is by definition one of rent seeking and totalitarian equality. Their moral code is not ‘wrong’ for them. It is very wrong for productive males.

These problems are not trivial. And libertarianism’s argument that LIBERTY is a universal desire has been demonstrated to be false. CONSUMPTION has been demonstrated to be a universal desire. But not Liberty.

All moral codes and the philosophies that justify them are in fact, class philosophies. It is illogical for one to adopt a philosophy that is a disadvantage to one and an advantage to another – especially if that advantage plays out over the long rather than the short run.

I hope this was more helpful than confusing.

 

ITS POSTMODERNISM, NOT SOCIALISM

All generals try to fight the last war. And it seems like all our libertarian intellectuals try to fight central control: socialism. Which is … fighting the last war.

A war that we won, by the way, at least against the statist intellectuals. The strategic, political and economic war was won by conservatives. Not by us. Conservatives speak in moral, not analytical language.

NAMES MATTER
They are shortcuts for ideas and socialism is a dead idea. It has been replaced by postmodernism – an attack on our system of liberty that is correctly termed egalitarian aristocracy.

Rothbard and Mises dont matter in the debate between Postmodernism and Egalitarian Aristocracy. Rothbard is wrong on ethics and Mises on Praxeology. Because they ignore the necessity of high trust in making liberty possible.

THE CURRENT BATTLE IS AGAINST THE IRRATIONAL

Postmodernism – the equivalent of a state religion for empires – is predicated on the same degree of falsehood as was Marx and the labor theory of value. Postmodernism is ideological as was socialism. But instead of trying to argue that socialism is moral and scientific – which we disproved – it borrows from Abrahamic and Zoroastrian theology, which uses the strategy of chanting desirable but patent falsehoods.

Whereas conservatives suffer because the form of conservatism is arational, even if its content is beneficial. Postmodern content, like continental philosophy, is irrational and its content economically destructive. But it is wrapped in pseudo rational language that attempts to obscure its deception through emotional and moral loading as well as linguistic complexity.

If something cannot be described as human actions, whereupon each action is subject to the test of the rational actor and rational incentives, then it is either incomplete, false, or deception.

Postmodernism is deception

Libertarians must fight intellectual battles and conservatives, who vastly outnumber us, must fight moral and political battles.

But we cannot perform our part of the division of labor if we fight the wrong battle.

And socialism is a dead horse. Our ideological battle is postmodernism, post-post, and all the derivative attempts to restore the communal, static, equalitarian, dysgenic poverty of the pre-aristocratic societies.

The silly distractions provided by Heritage, Cato, Mises, FEI rely on the failed assumption that liberty is a universal desire. When the data demonstrates that universally, women vote less diversely than men and favor totalitarian equality that is natural to their breeding strategy. And incrementally all democratic societies must incrementally adopt totalitarian equalitarianism under the female vote.

The battle is not socialism. The answer is not anarchy. The only solution we have is property rights and the guarantee of violence if deprived of them.

The only security against the necessity and expense if violence is to undermine the postmodern ideology and feminism.

It does not matter if other groups seek redistributive or communal ends if we employ a political system that allows them to operate as a class, and us to operate as a class.

In that political system we can negotiate exchanges with that class. We must understand that this creates a market for trading that is not structurally different from the market for goods and services. Dictatorship gives the majority communalists the advantage, and the free market gives us the advantage. Since it is illogical to ask either side to suffer the advantage if the other, the only compromise position is to create institutions that facilitate cooperation between classes with disparate interests.

Hoppe has provided a means of reducing or eliminating state bureaucracy and its attendant monopoly.

But the question of how we cooperate with those who have polarized interests had not been solved.

Curt Doolittle, Kiev

 

(Following up on Salman Rushdie’s argument that Islam is a weaponized and militarized religion)

Serious Stuff – The New Republic

The author reiterates the point that Islamic fundamentalism is a totalitarian political movement.

I’ve been saying this for years. And it’s true. It may be structured as a religion, the way marxism was a religion structured as a science, but it’s a political movement.

We had to defeat the east repeatedly in our history.

The greeks held the east at bay, and the romans conquered it to keep it at bay.

We arguably lost to christianity until the Germans freed us from it.

We could have lost to marxism and communism, but we spent the west coming to a stalemate.

We have lost our will to keep islam at bay.

Partly because Heroic Aristocracy is alien to the majority.

Totalitarianism is man’s preferred state.

We should observe the actions of those who say otherwise.

Because man demonstrates an interest in the fruits of the market.

But he does everything possible to avoid participating in it.

And women in particular seem to love it to their own detriment.

For some reason, women seem to confused: their desire for collective opinion is in fact, a desire for totalitarianism. They are the same.

It’s genetic. Women just havent been responsible members of the political universe long enough to incorporate that reality into their oral history.

Women have taken the country left. Period. End of story.

:)

(how much trouble will that get me in?)

 

FALSE

Conservatives and Sewars – The NYT

1) It doesn’t follow that a one time expense, followed by fees for use is the same as redistribution that creates dependencies. the first requires action, the second does not. THe free-rider problem is different from the progressive-fees problem. Free riding is a negative signal that says free riding is a ‘right’, progressive fees illustrate that this is not a ‘right’, but a ‘charity’. This sends ‘truthful’ signals to both parties. And truthful signals are necessary to prohibit involuntary transfers.
2) It doesn’t follow that investment in a commons is the same as state-mandated redistribution. If that was true, there wouldn’t be factories, universities, churches and roads.
3) It doesn’t follow that investment in a universal commons is not conservative. Only that to do so out of charity at a cost, is different than to do so out of opportunity for profit.
4) it doesn’t follow that taxes must be levied other than fees. (They don’t need to be.)
5) It doesn’t follow that taxes should be put into a general pool and open to use OTHER than the purpose levied. (they shouldn’t)
6) It doesn’t follow that the monopolistic state is more efficient than competitive private administration (it’s not)
7) It doesn’t follow that funding the bureaucracy doesn’t produce externalities that are of intolerable cost. (it does – one of which is forcing us to spend time defending ourselves against other people’s political movements, as they seek to control the predatory state)

Conservatism is a metaphorical language. Conservatives have one ‘curse word’ with multiple meanings: “Socialism” – state control of property and production and b) “Democratic redistributive socialism” – state ownership of the proceeds from limited private control of property. This ‘curse word’ is a catch-all for ‘those people that use the state to destroy aristocratic individualism and the status signals that I get from individualism regardless of my rank. And this is important. Conservatives do not feel victims because they obtain positive status signals from other conservatives regardless of their economic rank. This is obtainable in human societies only through religious conformity and it’s consequences, or economic conformity and its consequences.

Conservatives do not object to investment in the commons. Conservatism places higher value on delaying gratification than immediate gratification – the formation of moral capital – which is an inarticulate expression meaning training human beings to enforce a prohibition on involuntary transfers of all kinds.

Conservatism is the argument that we should not fund the expansionary bureaucratic state that out of deterministic necessity subverts our property rights and therefore our freedom, and therefore our ‘character’ – a euphemism for the prohibition on involuntary transfers of all kinds – because it is our universal prohibition on involuntary transfers both within our families and tribes and without, that is the source of western exceptionalism: the high trust society.

Our high trust society is unique because we CAN trust others to avoid involuntary transfers, because of the pervasive prohibition on involuntary transfer that we developed under Manorailism by demonstrating fitness needed to obtain land to rent. Partly as a rebellion against the Catholic Church, partly because the church forbid cousin marriage and granted women property rights, in order to break up the tribes and large land holding families. Partly as an ancient indo-european tradition of personal sovereignty in the nobility, which became a status signal, and, thankfully remains a status signal in conservatives.

Small homogenous polities are redistributive. Large heterogeneous polities are not. This is because trust DECLINES in heterogeneous polities. And trust DECLINES in heterogeneous polities because of the different signals used by different groups, and the fact that signals in-group are ‘cheaper’ (discounted) that signals across groups with differing signals. A strong state in a small homogenous polity that functions as an extended family and therefore with high redistribution, is entirely possible. But by creating a powerful state in a heterogeneous polity, it becomes necessary and useful for people to compete via extra-market means using the state by seeking redistributions and limited monopoly (legal) rights in order to advance their signaling strategy. (Which is what Dr. Krugman does, daily – advance an alternative strategy. A strategy that he does not recognize is from the Ghetto. And would cause a return to the low trust society. And **IS*** right now, causing a return to the low trust society.

Because the low trust society is natural to man. Thats why it exists everywhere but the aristocratic west.

 

Cultures are portfolios of property rights. The composition of, and distribution of those property rights, varies from culture to culture. In each culture, those rights are expressed as norms. Property rights themselves are a norm. Those property rights perpetuated by norms may be more or less beneficial than other portfolios of property rights.

But any idiot who thinks that (a) formal institutions don’t matter – such as libertarians or (b) that formal institutions are sufficient – such as progressives, will have history prove him wrong to the chagrin of the people who understand (c) that norms are a form of property – conservatives. Norms are a commons that we all pay for. The tax we pay for them with is forgone opportunity to consume them, and absorbing the risk that no others will absorb them too.

Aristocratic Egalitarian Culture (The West) prohibits not just fraud, theft and violence, but the more deceptive versions of fraud: profit from asymmetry of knowledge, and profit from involuntary transfer via externalities.

Market competition itself, is an involuntary transfer via externality from people outside of the exchange (competitors). This is why humans naturally object to it, and must be trained to respect and practice competition. But this externality provides instruction and incentive to all in the market, such that we all seek greater variety and lower cost of production. It produces beneficial ends. But it is non-trivial to create the norm of respecting and practicing competition. That’s why so few cultures did it.

Rothbard was wrong. The market isn’t sufficient to maintain the norms against fraud theft and violence, and certainly not against externalities. The marginal impact of reputation in the market is lower than the marginal impact of fraud. That’s why only the west developed the high trust society – by out-breeding such that the entire nation to be an extended family – at least within it’s social classes. Without excessive out-breeding that destroyed the perception of extended family through common physical properties, and common normative behavior. In order to retain the sense of extended family, both physical properties and normative properties must be similiar enough that signaling is consisten within the group, and only class (selection quality) within the extended family differentiates between group members.

Trust. The extension of familial trust to all possible exchange partners, by prohibitions on externality and asymmetry, when backed by warranty, is the composition that creates the high – trust society. Only AFTER these informal institutions are enforced by formal institutions, even if only the formal institution of the common law, will trust develop. And with trust, the velocity of trade that makes extraordinary marginal wealth possible for a group, because that group is more competitive than other groups.

 

The Economist: Don’t Flaunt It

*That’s what a Republic is. A Natural Rotation Of Oligarchs.*

Every country has an oligarchy. Oligarchies are NECESSARY and they are unavoidable.

The question is which composition of people do you want to be governed by: (a) soldiers, (b) priests or (c) commerce?

Why that list of three? Because there are only three forms of coercion avalable for humans to use in building organizations: (a) violence, (b) ostracization from opportunity and (c) exchange – or, technically, remuneration.

If, as we have seen, people DEMONSTRATE that they UNIVERSALLY prefer to live under conditions of wealth, and only ONE of these three coercive sets CREATES wealth, then it is only logical, that china DUPLICATES the rise of the West’s aristocracy – which is the SOURCE of western prosperity – by having government run by people who udnerstaand commerce. And in particular, who understand nationalism as a commercial strategy.

THEY DO IT RIGHT. WE DO IT WRONG NOW. Our leaders are priests of egalitarianism – who assume business will succeed and that they can simply plunder business at will. They are Not aristocrats responsible for the economic welfare of their citizens.

China is doing it RIGHT. They’re doing it RIGHT by imitating the rise of the WEST. The rise that we were programmed by the left to believe was evil, colonial, oppressive, masculine. When in fact, we dragged all of humanity out of pervasive ignorance and poverty with our aristocratic christian ethics, technology, and culture.

FLAUNT IT. FLAUNT IT EVERY DAY. AND CHEER THOSE WHO FLAUNT IT.

 
Set your Twitter account name in your settings to use the TwitterBar Section.