- On Debate
Save Bradley. The soldier who leaked the video to Wikileaks?
Sorry. No dice.
People die in war: People kill intentionally in war. All sorts of people die by accident in war. Guilty people die by accident. Innocent people die by accident. Innocent people die because of bad information. Innocent people may die simply because someone used poor judgement. War is dangerous, messy, confusing, frightening, and largely conducted by people who are dehydrated, frightened, under extreme stress, operating largely by instinct and without the time to think, and who are physically and mentally exhausted. Only very silly people think that war is surgical, or manageable, or nice or neat or safe — for anyone at all. And some people are foolish enough to think that soldiers have time to make good judgements. War is scary, dangerous and risky. Thats why people are very cautious of it. And besides that, it’s dangerous for soldiers to behave as if everyone isn’t out to kill them.
As a soldier, you are a voluntary, paid, and willing participant in killing, breaking, destroying life and property. And if you don’t believe in it, then you better not join. Because when you join, you give up your right to have an opinion. That’s how it works. And you’re just trying to steal a paycheck and benefits, or operate as a saboteur if you enter the military without understanding that this is the very purpose and nature of war.
We grant soldiers certain special rights when the enter the military. In particular, we allow them to kill people and destroy property. We allow them to do what we allow no others to do. And in exchange for that special right, they lose the right to have an opinion. Just orders are easy to understand. Unjust orders are not. The problem isn’t just or unjust orders. It’s the very fact that there is nothing just or good about war. It’s just war.
Immoral orders are one thing. Your choice is not to obey them, resign (accept court martial) and let the military court accept it. That’s the method the military has had for centuries. Accidents, bad judgement, stupidity are part and parcel of war. There isn’t any crime in error, any more than war itself is simply terrible.
If you want to leak something, become a journalist. We grant journalists very special rights that we would not grant others. Journalists are more often wrong than write, and create as much bad as good. We simply think the good is worth the bad. If you want to be a journalist, then be one. A journalist’s job is to have a point of view. A soldier’s job is to break stuff and kill people until the other side gives up. Period.
Besides. Telling us that people died by accident, or because someone made an error, or even lost their judgement during a military exercise, is simply stating the obvious. That’s what happens in war. And so the only reason to leak it is to create propaganda for the enemy, and undermine the will of the citizens to support their military.
Supporting the military may be a grand game. No one wants to see sausage made. But when you sign up, that’s what you sing up for. And if you break that confidence, those rules, from the inside, then you’re just thief and a criminal, and you deserve to be punished to the fullest extent possible.
Now assuming that he leaked it because he’s a young, stupid kid who had not motivations other than to show his friends something cool, is very different from having some cause or purpose. One is bad judgement, one is treason. That’s for the military courts to decide.
The NYT posted an article today titled The Economics of Libertarianism, Revealed. And the usual NYT crowd followed with critical comments. Which is useful. Because we get to see what the proletariat think of a subject about which they know little to nothing.
This is a very odd set of comments. Heresay on one end and incompetence and error on the other.
Desipte that libertarianism is the most fully articulated political philosophy we currently possess, it is both incomplete, its authors mix semi-charismatic language with reason, and they start from a convenient and erroneous premise: non-violence. And thereby simplify the problem of political economy dramatically enough that they overstate the ease of attaining their goals.
As a theorist in this field, I’ll try to correct some statements made here:
1) there are a numberer of libertarian sects. They share a preference forindividual freedom and property rights. But they vary greatly from a branch of articulated classical liberalism (cato – english sentiments) to articulated conservatism (hayekians – german sentiments) to articulated radical anarchists (rothbardians – jewish sentiments). You cannot take ‘libertariansim’ as a coherent body of work. Or better stated, you cannot take the words of any thinker at face value: most if not all human debate is an attempt to find a rational explanation for sentiments. And sentiments are residues of our cognitive biases. (Pareto)
2) Libertarianism is NOT anti-government it is anti-bureaucracy. This is the issue that confuses everyone by incorrectly framimg the debate. The terms Government and Bureaucracy are not synonyms. And libertarians are both right, rational, and supported by data when they argue against bureaucracy. It says that humans in bureaucracies (whether private or public) once they become insulated from the market and prices, live by self interest without the market function that puts their self interest to good use in the service of others. It is possible to live a life outside of the market by the homeless or hippie lifestyle, by making enough money to live on your wealth alone, or by joining the bureaucracy and simply living off the efforts of others, and ignoring their signals – prices.
The underlying theory of libertarianism is a) economic calculation is competitively impossible without prices and the market. b) market incentives are necessary to create a prosperous advanced society. c) our cultural institutions are economic strategies that, much like our sentiments, we do not yet fully understand and they should be treated cautiously. Most importantly, our most cherished values are often false: people are unequal, cultures are not equal in value, diversity breeds discontent not happiness, people are racist, classist and culturist, and it’s in their interest to be so, even if it is not in their interest for legislation to be so. (Really.) d) Leglislation as we understand it is infereior to credit as a means by which we can change the behavior of people in a society. We must move from the law-society to the credit society, and our government is not organized to make that change, while the private sector is. Therefore we must push our ‘bureaucracy’ into the private secctor where the market will kill off organizations once they are no longer useful. e) insurance companies taht are highly regulated will do a better job than the governmetn of regulating most market activity. But we have over-corporialized both banking, insurance and management. In simple terms, your banker should personally back your loan, and not be able to resell it. Same for insurance. This is a complex topic but we cannot abstract all accountabilty without losing the knowledge to be accountable with in the process. f) All bureaucracies are anti-market, anti-prosperity, self-serving, eventually corrupt, and stagnate the culture and prey upon the citizenry. The market puts our selfishness to better use than the bureaucracy does. It’s that simple.
The libertarian strategy is to push as much of the FUNCTON of government into the private sector where iti is subject to competitive market functions so that we can prevent the bureaucracy from forming. Because it is the bureaucracy, or, the market-exiting of people within the bureaucracy that is the problem, not government.
None of the libertarians is right, word for word. They are attemtping to find a solution to a perrenial problem: coordinatoin and ocoperatin in a dynamic dividsion of knowledge and labor. They intuit solutoins based upon their cultural heritage then try to articulate solutions in a long term, vast attempt, to explain what it is that we do, and why it works. We’ve had markets for a long time. Economits don’t invent anything. They just try to explain it the best they can.
Libertairnism is the best, most fully articulated political philosophy we have. But that does not mean it can be implemented without an ‘event’. Because our government is not structured to replace itself. And the citizenry will always favor democratically imposed tyrrany, commonly called Bonapartism, and teh certainty of it, over freedom.
Regarding Tech and Storage, and the idea of ‘finite content’ as an allegory to the ‘end of history’:
Humans are notoriously victims of boiling-the-frog biases: they cannot sense long term changes and discount prior (and forgotten) opinions for current ones. Inter-temporal cognitive biases are legion.
We are going to store increasing amounts of data – nearly endless in quantity. And as that data accumulates we will transform business, social life, and the economy. Think of it along these lines:
We have decreased the transportation cost of content. But in doing so we have reduced the barrier to distributing content. The problem will be whether we become better at the use of the available content, or whether we can synthesize something from all that content, good and bad, and produce another generation of new content. Frankly, as the number of channels with weak or repetitious content demonstrates, we are short of content, and innovative content is becoming very expensive to produce.
Or are we stuck with the same limited number of permutations of our basic narratives, and stuck with the same very large number of human cognitive errors and myths, and destined to live under the eternal problem of pedagogy: the vast number of permutations of the same content needed in order to convey the same 1500 ideas (that’s all there are) to billions of people in hundreds of cultures, all at different ages, at different states of development, each solving different problems in the context of their own individual experiences? Can we produce the conceptual equivalents of the mono-myth is each of our fields of study? Can we simplify pedagogical symbols as if they were fundamental truths, when such truths would be contra-beneficial to some cultures, races, classes, and much more beneficial to others?
As someone who does a painful amount of research, it is vastly easier today to learn anything at all than it was even five years ago. And compared to library-trading obscure works in college, vastly faster. What will come of this availability of information, or rather the frictionless availability of information?
Our accounting standards are a catastrophic block on data collection, because as they exist, they launder causality – accounting as we practice it is the dusty remnant of a bygone age of sea voyages. if we changed to tagged accounting data we would produce volumes of data for mining that cannot be easily found today. What would this mean for data and analysis? Taxation? Policy? Product development? THe structure of the corporation and credit cycles?
There are a number of startups producing hardware that you wear around your neck, and that take photographs every second, and record all sound all day long, creating a visually indexed record of your day. How would a storage system of that nature change the world?
Privacy is changing because we are socializing a new kind of manners wherein everyone is expected to be flawed, or imperfect. How will that change the world?
From a product and service manufacturer’s standpoint, the typical economic analysis using factors of production is antiquated. The primary problem for most companies is to produce a product that is interesting enough to purchase. All other things being equal, today people are purchasing almost entirely aesthetic objects for purely status-seeking and therefore opportunity-seeking purposes. The price of materials is not an issue any more than is the price of food. How is this design-economy accounted for in our models and how does this affect the craft of economics, when the design function is not as visibly a factor of resource costs?
Companies do not measure their brand potential (the sentiment of consumers toward a company and its products and how that sentiment is convertible into revenue) as a form of equity. If investors could see this information, how would that affect management of companies? If it becomes increasingly easy to measure it, how will that affect markets?
In the post war period, social democratic society was unified under a proletariat-and-middle-class system of inclusion-and-status-seeking-through-consumption. Now that the consumer society is ‘saturated’, and status due to ownership is insufficient to provide access to opportunities, (because everything is so cheap) how will people express their identities as purchases?
Each nation state has a different IQ distribution. (If you don’t like the reality of it, I’m sorry.) Since there are material thresholds to the learning of, and use of, abstractions, there appear to be limits at 130′s for designing and using ideas, 122 for designing machines, 110 for a classical education. 105 for repairing machines. How will this affect the markets, demand for technology, or the lack of demand for it?
There is no end of history. The problem of human coordination and cooperation is an endless process of temporal calculation for intert-emporal ambitions. The great revolution in farming took thousands of years to span the globe. The revolution in scientific thinking started by the anglos has only been in process for eight hundred years. The great revolution in production (and calculation) of the Anglos has taken only five hundred so far. But it has been a bloody process of resistance to change.
There is no end of content. Because there is no end of history.
There are a limited number of fundamental truths available to man. But fundamental truths are not as useful as we think they are. THe coordination of human beings toward shared goals requires that they believe in myths. And truth will only hinder their achievements. Combined with the human drive for status, and the different abilities of men – some less, some more – the permutations of myths (or deceptions) will create similar themes as we have seen in the past, forever. And the media and data used to distribute those infinite permutations will do nothing except increase in scale. ***Because, in the end, the primary purpose of our data collection is political in nature.***
It always has been.
An End To Nato, “Mike DiBaggio” from The Paleolibertarian Digest
There was once a time when the US hated piracy so much they went to war over
it, but that time has obviously come to an end. Israel’s attack on the
Turkish aid ship has generated little obvious outrage in the US, but then
again neither did the assault on the USS Liberty. Meanwhile the rest of the
world is pretty upset, and Turkey especially. Supposedly, the Turks have
vowed to send naval escorts with their ships in the future. The problem for
Israel then is that Turkey is a member of NATO. If their ships are attacked
again, they it stands to reason that they will try to invoke Article V and
call for military retaliation against Israel.
I agree in principle. However it appears that NATO is a parallel political organization that allows more stable relationships and stronger intelligence gathering and processing than do democratic societies and their fleeting party fashions. NATO functions as a weak imitation of monarchic relationships (which were military alliances) and NATO is providing the material value that was traditionally provided by monarchic relationships. There is no NATO, other than the US military. There really hasn’t every been a NATO other than the US military. The europeans are not capable of projecting power outside of their coastlines. The only material value nato has is to allow the US power in trade negotiations and to increase US debt capacity because of the demand that trade power places upon the dollar.
So, while Mike’s logic is accurate given the NAME of NATO, it’s not quite right given the FUNCTION of NATO.
The monarchic militaristic social order and social class still exists in the west. It is just nearly invisible because of the predominance of popular representative democracy. Just as the upper class is invisible to society, the military is in visible, and it’s very crucial, very useful, very capitalist relationships and culture are invisible. This is one of the benefits and dangers of democratic systems. They make the real problem of maintaining trade routes and enforcing contracts, and preventing shifts in power by military means, into the art, artifice and entertainment of redistributive government. This distracting entertainment makes the population entirely incognizant of what every poorer country’s citizens understand very clearly : that the purpose of the government, if there is any purpose at all, is to establish and pool investment within a geography so that citizens can compete in, or even participate in, the market. And that this is possibly the only legitimate purpose of government other than territorial defense, and the resolution of differences over property.
And the demonization of the military is propaganda for taking political control from the monarchy and transferring it to the middle class under the system of classical liberal republican government. (Just as political control moves to the masses under the system of democratic socialist secular humanism.)
Schumpeter didn’t go far enough. Socialism isn’t the only problem we must guard against. Its losing the entire reason why people coordinate in groups: to compete in the market. Or to fail to and return to poverty. Schumpeterian processes might not end in a slowly declining socialism, but a catastrophic end of a society, by ending its comprehension of the market.
Mariam Melikadze at Adamsmith.org references the movie 28 Days in order to criticize irrational and premature regulation.
“And so, much like of the opening scenes of an apocalyptic movie, science has reached a great milestone, … The era of bioengineered creatures has officially begun. … But in all apocalyptic movies the great invention inevitably goes wrong. The environmentalists seem to have picked up on this: only a few days have passed since the discovery was revealed and they are already demanding a ban on synthetic biology. Enter regulation, the obvious answer to all of mankind’s problems.”
Of course, the sentiment expressed in these movies, and our greek myths, is a warning against hubris. In science, economics, politics, and any other personal vanity we engage in.
She is right that we cannot unlearn technology. She is right that civilizations who do not adopt technology are conquered by those who out-gun, out-germ, and out-steel them. She is right that these technologies once mastered, tend to deliver material benefits to the survivors.
However, that doesn’t mean we should not be cautious, experimental, and cogent of our potential for hubris.
And to be cautious, we need to keep that particular mythology alive, lest we invent other technologies like eugenics, complex derivatives, communism and thalidomide.
Or engage in other acts of hubris, like the belief that regulation solves mankind’s problems.
Mark Thoma suggests that the government should both use Tax Cuts and Spending to improve an economy. Which is a pretty common sentiment among economists. Nothing new there. He is simply changing his mind on the value of Tax cuts because they help correct household balance sheets and therefore increase the likelihood of future spending.
In balance sheet recessions, tax cuts that are saved will help to end the recession sooner and hence should be part of the recovery package. The most important concern is still aggregate demand, and policies must be devoted to this problem first and foremost, but tax cuts have a role to play in the recovery process even when they are saved.
One of the posters commented (as leftists do, on his blog Economist’s View) that increasing Demand does not fix the problem. Which I then used as a springboard.
ken melvin said…
The implicit assumption that demand provides solution is not valid, hasn’t been since forever. The model is invalid, has been since forever. Yet, for lo these nearly 40 years. we pursue this model in the face of the ever mounting failure. The model, never really sacred, was built on forensics, and, more, to make the status quo work. From physics and bio-science, we’ve evidence that man is capable of divining forward. Now is the time for economists to ask ‘how should it be’?
But I think he misses the point.
Economists don’t have any idea how the world should be. The failures of the DSEM models are catastrophic. The problem of human memory (Mandelbrot-Taleb-Hume and to some degree Hayek) implies that humans are permanent victims to behavioral boiling-the-frog, and to the somewhere on the order of fifty cognitive biases.
We know, as you state, that demand does not work. We know that innovation is a supply-bias that generates demand. It appears that it is the only means of increasing velocity and volume in an economy.
We know that the state moved from saving-and-investment to consumptive redistribution and debt during the period of rapid industrialization and the act of selling off the american continent.
We know that we assumed we could use mathematics to control this by a number of levers we call monetary policy.
Vast Changes Give Our Ambitions Context
The world is going through a number of changes.
1) repricing due to the asian economies coming into capitalism and industrial production. (Just as the US did to europe in the mid 1800′s)
2) reorganization, as people must learn and move to new forms of production (jobs) without knowing what to move to.
3) the future-assumption-of-growth debt bubble bursting everywhere.
4) the movement of private debt failure to sovereign debt failure, destroying the ‘lender and insurer of last resort’.
5) the demographic shift to an older media age population that is lower production if not non-productive.
6) Increasing urbanization worldwide (urbanites and rural’s have different epistemological biases because of perceived opportunity density – different cognitive biases, but cites are increasingly becoming the home of the poor, and income disparity is largely an urban phenomenon)
7) Decline (as has been predicted since 1945) of american ability to police trade routes inherited from the English after the wars (military influence) and increasing destabilization of trade routes, power, and monetary systems that will come from that change in influence.
8) the permanent decline in the relative economic position of american middle classes that will result from this worldwide rebalancing.
The Failure Of The Democratic Republican Model Of Debate
It appears that the working class’s attempt to bankrupt the capitalist class, and the capitalist class’s attempt to bankrupt the state to defend itself, BOTH worked. States are very nearly bankrupt.
The republican model of debate between opposing forces for governmental decision-making under the unbounded system fiat money has failed. If we are going to have fiat money, we are going to have to find another way to debate the future. Fundamentally, our current republican form of government is government by non-productive people. By priests. It is quite the opposite of early republicanism under farmers, who specifically were productive. The classical liberal revolution failed to adequately define a government for the post-industrial era.
The republican model of debate between opposing forces for the purpose of governmental decision making has failed under fiat money. If we are going to have fiat money, we are going to have to find another way to debate the future.
And since we have a clear difference between class predictions of the future (entrepreneurs must take and absorb risks so they see the future as dangerous while independent laborers and craftsmen and small business people see a similar view, but white collar educated workers and government and union workers tend to see a stable future – because they are isolated from visible flows of capital and risk), then consensus from PERCEPTIONS ALONE (*that’s the issue right there*) between classes of people who are disproportionately distributed across geographies, cannot come to a consensus of PERCEPTIONS.
An emphasis on perceptions here: because a) the perceptions are vastly different, b) the data is insufficient and models are notoriously faulty in prediction c) our method of governance is not factual but PERCEPTUAL.
The most common perceptive difference between cultures and classes is time preference (in the austrian model this is a degree of willingness to wait for gratification.
In simple terms, people from different social classes have different views of time. Higher classes longer, lower classes shorter. There is some evidence that this is simply an expression of having means or not, or one of what a class teaches its children by implication and habit rather than intent, but that is counteracted by research showing that all classes have both short and long term thinking members. That would indicate that austrian model is correct, that the issue is the underlying drive for stimulation. In either case, these perceptions are material determinants of the differences in perceptions.
All mathematical formule are improvements on our perceptions. If they prove true in forecasting outcomes they are extension of our senses. Or better said, they alter our perceptions of the world by improving our perceptions in limited domains. But data must come from categories of actions that we can measure. We cannot measure many dimensions. In particular cannot measure the alternative worlds that people to NOT choose (as we can forecast in physics using alternate world hypotheses). And we tend to measure commodities and ‘flatness’ best, and outside of those who worlds can barely forecast anything at all.
How Do We Make Choices?
SO in this ‘fact-less’ world, how should we know what to do, and how should we CHOOSE what to do, and what mechanism for CHOOSING what to do will work to produce outcomes that are beneficial enough, that productivity increases sufficiently to allow for redistribution, so that status-envy and status-achivement-for-mating-purposes are both satisfied?
(And I am not ruling out that due to status envy a large part of any population will happily encourage the diminution of an economy. There are too many records of this effect in history.)
We have the wrong form of government. We lack shared perceptions of the world – for structural reasons. We lack the tools and formulae to scientifically prove one set of perceptions or another, in order to come to agreement.
How Should We Reform Government?
So, how should we organize society, and what research should economists pursue, so that we can calculate, estimate, judge, plan or whatever, a future that we can agree upon in a democratic society? Or should we simply try to come up with another set of ridiculous religious concepts even if they are metaphysical (marx and Smith) or positivist (keynes and Friedman)?
Or is there yet another way? Is there a way to look not at mysteries (religions and metaphysics and morality tales) or to look at false sciences (formula and application of the constant physical world principles to the heuristic world), as means by which to FORCE AGREEMENT BY FALSITY under the assumption that the world is either externally created, or naturally bound, or scientifically predictable? All of which we know are FALSE.
Or instead, is there a way to cooperatively EXPERIMENT and DISCOVER that world and SHARE COOPERATIVELY in it’s RESULTS?
In other words, is there a way to create a government of DISCOVERY that rewards all citizens for their participation?
And more importantly, is there a way to create the correct SENSATIONS that are PERCEPTIBLE to both the entrepreneurial and the craft and the labor classes, such that the CAUSE and EFFECT of one’s actions allow the productive classes to coordinate and profit, without the systemic bureaucratic pilferage for the purpose of profiting from class warfare? Or better stated, how can we create a system of information post-agrarian, post-industrialization, that stops the priesthood, whichever form of mysticism that they practice, whether it be Monotheism, Traditionalism, or Progressive (Socialist) Democratic Secular Humanism? The rational man asks, how do we kill off religions, and that means all of them, including positivism?
We are asking the wrong question
So, I think both left and right are asking the wrong question.
And if they are not asking the wrong question, then they are simply a band of fraudulent thieves.
The problem is not one of solving economic science, so that we can justify one position or another, using what we claim is science.
The problem is the very nature of our process of government.
The Republican Model Of Debate Is Insufficient For Political Action, because men and women in government are incapable of possessing the information necessary to make the level of decisions with which they are tasked. We know that socialism fails because of a failure of ‘calculation’ and of ‘incentives’. We know the political model of republicanism fails above a certain very small population for the same reason that socialism fails outside of a family: that calculation becomes impossible, and incentives fail to encourage and reward productive behavior.
Sensation, Perception and Complexity
We live in an advanced industrial society with tens of millions of products and hundreds of millions of people, calculating a complex future in a vast division of knowledge and labor, using metaphysical and inherited systems of perception under a government that was designed for a minority of wealthy farmers to coordinate decisions for a large number of farmers and subsistence farmers. WE use religion, and law, and now false application of science (which is simply a process of organized discovery of an existing system) to make our choices. But our choices fail. THey fail here in America. They fail in the more socialist world of europe. They failed in the most socialist and communal world of the east. They fail everywhere. Religion and Law and the republican model are artifacts of the agrarian world which we left behind a century ago.
The Answer Is In Front Of Us
So what is it that we need to do instead?
The answer sits in front of us. It’s our religious cultural fantasies that create the mythos that prevents us from seeing it. It doesn’t matter if that silly religion is christianity (military mysticism), judaism (minority mysticism), or “democratic secular socialist humanism” (positivism: mathematical mysticism).
We create a lot of social habits without really understanding them. We invent behaviors and technologies by accident and define them later on when we finally understand them. We label them and then claim to understand them, as if we invented rather than stumbled upon them by trial and error.
The answer isn’t any form of ‘ism — It’s just to work at it. The question is, how do we get everyone to voluntarily work at it? What institutions do we need to make it work? How do we change government so that these institutions succeed? THe libertarians have been right about a lot of these institutional problems. They have been wrong on selfishness and money. Christian protestants have been right about cultural discipline and production, but wrong about separation of church, state, and banking. Keynesians and Friedmanites have been wrong about free trade and monetary policy. Everyone is just a little bit right.
Or do we, like all other urbanized civilizations in history fall prey to the real reason for Collapse (Diamond was wrong) : the failure of law and religion (punishment and ostracization) in an urban society due to permanent anonymity that breaks the prisoner’s dilemma of social cooperation in families, friends, tribes and among farmers and craftsmen, who are dependent on themselves for their production?
Since we created the market, people have increasingly chosen to enter it. First by making excess production in order to get money to buy scarce goods that they could not produce on their own. Second, by entering the market, by producing ALL goods for the market and relying entirely upon the market for sustenance. They stepped into a world of risk without the comforting cushion of their farms. Then, once dependent upon the market, they started seeking jobs in the market-bureaucracy where they were isolated from the market risk. (this is the purpose of going to college today – to exit the market). And this is the entire issue for our civilization: so many white collar people have exited the market by joining the private sector market-bureaucracy, and are compensated highly for it (as were priests in pre-secular society), that they ‘sense’ that the market doesn’t exist. So we have a productive class (people who speculate with capital whether) we have a dependent class, and we have a bureaucratic class (the state, and the private sector white collar and union workers). The dependent class cannot function in the market. The bureaucratic class lives off other people in the market but are exited from it – living in the best of both worlds, and the capital-risking class is the minority of the market taking all the risk.
The market is a process of discovery. The question is how do we build a democratic society for a world of discovery without having the white collar market-exiters (Schupeterian intellectuals) destroy the market? Or rather, how to we reward the productive classes, whether they are laborers, craftsmen, entrepreneurs or capitalists, and deprive the priesthood who lives off them?
Because all Priesthoods. All bureaucracies. Are predatory. And our Bureaucracy, our priesthood, has simply extended into the private sector.Today’s economists are no different. They are, in large part, part of the positivist priesthood.
That’s the reason for Collapse: Schumpeterian collapse: The dependent and bureaucratic classes cause the collapse of the productive entrepreneurial class, who, like Atlas can no longer carry them, or is no longer willing to.
The solution is to create a government that does not pool information and thereby launder it. But that informs everyone accurately of their contribution, or dependence, upon the cooperative endeavor, the joint stock company that administers the market that we call ‘the state’.
Germany Moves East
Germany and Russia are now more politically aligned because they are now economically aligned.
Europe will have:
1) the German-Russian block, which will reclaim the eastern block countries.
2) the France and PIGS block (latins – portugal, spain, italy and greece over whom it can feel superior)
3) The UK trying to figure out if it’s part of the Anglo-american, French or German block, and becoming irrelevant unless it simply becomes the world version of switzerland -weak but trustworthy with your money.
The European left-coast lost.
And the USA can’t protect anyone any longer.
Stratfor has released an article today that suggests that German and Russia have more to offer each other than does the rest of Europe. Russia has intelligent labor, and resources, but it has a terrible capital structure and little technology. Germany has technology, a terrific capital structure, but needs resources and labor. Better yet, the labor can stay where it is: in Russia, rather than immigrating into Germany and further burdening its infrastructure and creating additional civil unrest.
France will have little chance but to follow germany into the relationship, because it is not powerful enough on its own to unify the Club-Med states (Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain (the Pigs).
What I find most humorous about this pairing, especially given the pro-german position I’ve taken in the Anglo-German European civil war, is that despite being defeated by the Anglo coalition, Germany once again has proven that it is a more prosperous and hard-working and innovative culture than its local competitors. It has risen from the ashes so to speak. And left England in the distance.
I can’t think of anything I find more attractive: a unified germany and russia. After all, the south and west have contained Germany for two and a half millennia. The world wars were only the most recent instance of german containment.
Now, this has broader implications for Byzantine civilization. Germany and northern europe are protestant christian civilizations with a positive ethic. Byzantine civilizations are nominally christian, but have a nihilistic ethic. How will cooperation change either of these ethics? How would europe change if the PIGS are left to their own devices?
Stratfor has suggested in the past that Turkey is in the likely heir to islamic power, but not byzantine power. A German-Russian alliance that built byzantine power would be superior at keeping the mandatory-ignorance of Islam at bay, and might resurrect Byzantine civilization, and restore Russia to a leadership position.
This kind of talk would have been heresy during the cold war and the possibility of communism. But post-communism, in a world of universal capitalism, it seems like a win for Germany, Russia, eastern Europe, the rest of Europe by consequence, and humanity by implication.
Seattle, WA, United States
I am an independent theorist of Political Economy in the Conservative Libertarian tradition. And as a methodological Propertarian I attempt to complete the work of Rothbard and Hoppe by suggesting post-democratic political solutions for heterogeneous polities.
"De Philosophia Aristocratia"
Anglo Conservatism is the remnant of the European Aristocratic Manorial system and the Classical Liberal philosophy of the Enlightenment, combined with our ancient tribal instincts for group persistence and land-holding. It currently consists as a set of sentiments rather than as an articulated rational philosophy. And without that rational articulation, conservatives lack the ability to create and promote a plan that is a positive and rhetorically defensible alternative to the hazards of accidental bureaucracy and purposeful socialism.
This lack of an articulated philosophy leaves conservatives vulnerable in the public debate with Schumpeterian public intellectuals whose advantage in both volume of production, and simplicity of argument poses a nearly insurmountable challenge.
Libertarianism by contrast, is a rational philosophy of an articulate but permanent minority. It is based upon a solid, rational and critical methodology, even if it is flawed in its initial assumption: the principle of non-violence.
Unfortunately the Rothbardian Anarchist movement has appropriated the term "Libertarian", and left Classical Liberals and Conservatives alienated from the only system of thought with which they need to articulate their political sentiments in rational and empirical rather than moralistic and sentimental form.
By repairing the flaws in Libertarian philosophy we can use its methodology to provide a rhetorical solution for conservatives - a language which in turn may become an articulated philosophical body of argument and advocacy for the frustrated conservative majority.
Kinsella’s Criticism of Locke, and My Explanation of Locke’s Reasonable Mistake, and What To Do About It.
67 days ago
Liberty Isn't Inherent. It's unnatural. We create it with Organized Violence.
71 days ago
Propertarian Definition: REVOLUTION
71 days ago
Giving Rorty Another Try
71 days ago
An Skeleton Argument In Defense Of Rorty From Hoppe
71 days ago
A Propertarian Definition of Ruthless
71 days ago
The Self Deception Of The Enlightenment View Of Man
71 days ago
On Rent Seeking
71 days ago
- Kinsella’s Criticism of Locke, and My Explanation of Locke’s Reasonable Mistake, and What To Do About It.