IDEAL METHODS OF GOVERNMENT DO NOT EXIST. THEY ARE SIMPLY TECHNOLOGIES TO APPLY IN DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES.

(you probably want to read this)

Ideal RULE exists: rule of natural law, and markets in everything providing perfect decidability in matters of conflict. Ideal *Government*- meaning the production of commons, must adapt as does any organization to market (conflict, peace, prosperity) demands.

THE ORIGIN OF OUR CONSTITUTION

Our constitution was proposed as an alternative – a third way – an alternative to the parasitic rents of the arbitrary commands of the martial aristocracy, and the dysgenia, deceits, and parasitic rents of the church bureaucracy. A *purely meritocratic order* free of rents whether constructed of arbitrary commands or superstitious excuses – A constitution of Natural Law. And the restoration of our ancient meritocratic order.

Our founders created an *alternative* to the classes of europe, and not a duplication of it.

All nations need not be the same. Some for the low, some for the strong, and some for the meritocratic. All those who pursue rents via arbitrary command and rents by deceit, merey flee to the green fields of meritocratic orders to parasitically profit from the high trust that they engender. Then drive them asunder through arbitrary command and incremental deception.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev Ukraine

THE FOUNDERS WERE USING CURRENT TECHNOLOGY TO DESCRIBE NATURAL LAW

Natural Law, and the writings of Locke, Smith, and Hume were understood by Jefferson and Adams, as the most current technology available. But that he, and they, were still victims of the poetry of scripture and wrote their laws in that verse. So they used *higher context* and less-precise language and I’m using *lower context* and more-precise language, in order to prevent ‘interpretation’ (abuse) of Natural Law through the act of misrepresenting terms written in high context as permissive, and therefore eliminating possibility of abuse through ‘interpretation’

THERE IS ONLY ONE MORAL AND JUST GOVERNMENT

There is but one moral course of government, and that is the construction, operation, and preservation, of a condition of Natural Law, by Rule of Law, under Universal Suffrage of Natural Law, whose application is discovered by the Common Law by Judges, under the requirement that all words and deeds be limited to productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfers of Property-in-Toto, free of imposition of costs by externality against the Property-in-Toto of others.

All else consists of the predatory farming of man for the benefit of others.

THE DECLARATION

UPDATING THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

When in the course of human events it becomes preferable for one people to dissolve the political institutions, treaties, laws, agreements, capital, and territorial commons which have united them, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect for the opinions of all mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created unequal in ability, potential, and circumstance; that to prosper despite our inequality we must voluntarily cooperate on shared means, even if on competing ends; and to preserve our cooperation our disputes must be decided by the equal application of the law; and as such we must establish equal rights under the law; and that among these rights is Natural Law of Reciprocity: the right to Life, Body, Mind, Action and the Pursuit and Accumulation of interests in Property, for Self, Family, Clan, Tribe, Kin and Nation, through productive, truthful, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary, exchange, free of the imposition of costs by externality, against the demonstrated interests in property of others.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, and limited by the the Natural Law of Reciprocity — That whenever any Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right and Obligation of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to produce and preserve those those rights and achieve those ends.

Prudence dictates that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience has shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to deprive them of their rights, it is their right, it is their duty, and it is the demand of Nature and Nature’s God, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their security, rights, and prosperity.

Such has been the patient sufferance of our Families, Clans, Tribes, and Nations; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.

The history of the present Federal Government, all its Branches and all its Bureaucracies, is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the circumvention of Natural Law, the subjugation of the different States and their peoples to an empire by the subversion of the constitution upon which our states were found, and the terms by which we consent to be governed.

To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world:

the creation and expansion of military, political, and financial empire against the interests of our peoples;

the construction of a vast privileged, parasitic, unaccountable bureaucracy,

the submission of our sovereignty to predatory and hostile international institutions,

the submission of our sovereignty to hostile foreign treaties,

our suffrage of arbitrary legislation by art and artifice,

our submission to judicial activism by art and artifice,

the circumvention of the constitution by art and artifice,

the deprivation of rights of juridical defense in matters of tax,

the deprivation of equality in matters of debts,

the purchase of political influence in pursuit of privileges against interests hostile to the people,

the use of pseudoscientific accounting financial device and deception,

the forcible payment of interest on fiat credit and the unjust privatization of the fruit of that commons,

the destruction of intergenerational lending

(consumer protections)

entrapment clauses, punishment profits

advertising and marketing scams

pseudoscientific drugs and supplements and food.

(funding of pseudoscience)

(forcible takeover of the academy)

(undermining our military culture that is thousands of years old)

(failing to care for our woulded soldiers in wars of adventure)

and hostile immigration by intention

the failure to secure our borders

the falure to secure our information

the militarization of our police forces

the arming of our bureaucrats

the submission of our people to search

the circumvention of our governors by direct election of our senators

the suppression of our religion, it’s replacement by adoption and expansion of an Alien and deceitful pseudoscientific cult via artful accounting, cherry-picking of measures, and wilful ignorance of the changes in the capital of kin, culture, norm, tradition, and civilization;

the forcible monopolization of our education, its use for indoctrination against our religion, and for the cult of the state;

– the sum object of which is the destruction of our families, clans, tribes, nations, culture, traditions, and our civilization through the decimation of our peoples, the prohibition of their religion, their history, traditions, and laws.

—- end list —

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our founding and their permission to rule in our stead. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of _________, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these These States, solemnly publish and declare,

This goverment be unmade, the government and all its institutions, laws, treaties and debts, dissolved, a new constitution adopted, and that our rights under natural law be restored.

That we are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

STATE OF THE EMPIRE

All revolutions are dismissed in prospect and obvious in retrospect. But never has an empire been more fragile, nor could one fall more quickly. The people cannot retreat to the fields. They have no stores of food. A full quarter have no monetary reserves, and half only a few month’s worth. The food, gasoline, transport, power, water, gas, communications, emergency services, police, military, and financial sector have but days of reserves and weeks of tolerance. A few men in each city can overwhelm services. A few days of fear and the streets will be full of predators. The world has turned hostile due to The State’s Ideological and Imperial Adventure, and meanwhile patient powers long-seeking revival and recompense wait for opportunity to seize past glories, and we and Europe are held hostage at home, and surrounded by waves of barbarians of greater mobility and lethality than the bronze or iron age migrations – just as lusty with envy, avarice, and aggression, and even more likely to cause repeat of those dark ages.

No longer do we live in an era where the many must march in the streets.  No longer need more than but a fraction of one percent of the men commit themselves to heady murder. No longer must we seize leaders, institutions, fortresses or armories. No longer does the Peace of Westphalia limit actors, whether foreign or domestic – what comes is a war of all against all, and a fall like no other in history.

So we pray thee take heed. Do not dismiss our entreaty. Our demands are right, just, possible and in the interests of our peoples.  And if demanding fails we shall compel. And if we compel, we will make the Horrors of the French Revolution turn so feeble, that men will remember our prosecution of you for ten thousand years.  For when all our ancestors that have been before, and all our descendants that have yet to be, demand our lives in their honor, we will not shirk our duty to them. And we will have no mercy in our execution.

REMEDY

Dr. Peterson;

This is a rather deep question so hope you will tolerate the bit of wordiness in asking this question by analytic means. 😉

GIVEN:

We can tell as much about a person, his understanding, his ethics, his culture, his civilization by the methods of his argument as by its content.

When we speak, when we describe, when we persuade, when we argue, we can transfer meaning with error or without. With hazards or without. With suggestions or without. With deceptions or without.

When we hear speech, we must both construct the meaning, but also test it.  And it turns out that testing meaning is quite a difficult thing.  Because we seem to have evolved to describe, opine, negotiate, and deceive more so than testify.  We did not evolve to speak the truth independently of our biases. Otherwise mathematics, science and law would not be necessary.

While I’m glad that over the past ten months or so you’ve joined the “ok, this is enough” movement in western civilization. And while I’m glad your mastery of the literature of the social, psychological, and cognitive sciences is thorough.  And while many of us appreciate your ability to teach what seems extemporaneously – and with passion and conviction.  There is something very troubling in with your reliance on literature that I’d like to ask you to consider.

A SHORT CRITICISM ON METHOD – WHY?

You’ve made the case that the Postmodernists (we’ll avoid the Marxists for now) not only practice falsehood, but intentionally deny truth. And that they do so to circumvent discourse.  Presumably because they cannot win an honest, truthful, true, and moral (test of reciprocity) argument. You’ve made the case less directly that Postmodernists are not engaging in reciprocity. (Correct) But not necessarily that they are doing so for the purpose of parasitism, or theft, rather than engaging in voluntary exchanges. (I believe you position this as ‘wrong’ or ‘immoral’ but not ‘theft’ or ‘predation’.)

You’ve made the case that Truth is has been the competitive advantage of the West. (I am not sure if you have made the point that this reduces transaction costs, and therefore reduces opportunity costs, and therefore increases experimental velocity in a division of perception, valuation, labor, and advocacy.

You’ve demonstrated that you rely heavily on the literary model of Jung. (Understandable – but questionable.) Why choose wisdom literature instead of scientific, economic, and historical literature? Isn’t the difference one of precision?

You’ve made the case that you have worked for many years to understand the myth and literature of civilizations – and that is was hard work. ( Understandable – but curious why one would choose ‘wisdom literature’ for one’s research? )

You’ve demonstrated that you’ve kept current with the research in cognitive science and (recently operationalized) experimental psychology. (Obvious, understandable, and necessary)

You’ve demonstrated that you can identify correspondences between the research and the survival of the content of these myths over many generations: Monomyth, Archetypes, and then less specifically virtues.

You’ve made the case that one must extract from this (vast) literature, that which allows you to functionally (demonstrably) succeed, and NOT what prevents you from functionally (demonstrably) succeeding.

I am not sure if you’ve distinguished between the western use of DEFLATIONARY TRUTH, common law, philosophy, and science that preserves competition between institutions and disciplines, and the Fertile Crescent use of CONFLATIONARY WISDOM using Supernaturalism to produce a monopoly that doesn’t preserve competition between institutions and disciplines.

I am pretty certain that you haven’t distinguished between the decidability of deflated truths and conflated wisdom. Or the difference between low context deflationary truth, and high context wisdom literature. Or the costs of producing each. Or the difference of rule by via-negativa (common law) versus via-positiva (commanded law), and the consequences it produced.

Because high context low precision monopoly wisdom literature empirically produces very different rates of innovation and adaptation compared to the use of low context, high precision, competitive literature (or the difference in consequences between heroic and scientific (western pagan), and submissive and religious (persian/abrahamic), and familial and ‘rational’ (Sinic/Japanese) forms of literature.

You’ve tried to maintain the difficult position of conflating the true (decidable), good(commons), preferential (personal) and useful (possible) in the fertile crescent tradition, as a method of argument (decidability) rather than as a method of advice (wisdom). (‘darwinian arguments’).

And I don’t think you’ve touched on the use of conflationary fictionalisms as methods of deception:
1) Pseudo-mythology: scriptural monotheism that conflates law, wisdom, and truth. False promise of life after death. Promise of life after death.
2) Pseudo-science: the construction of cosmopolitan pseudosciences (Boaz, Marx, Freud, Cantor, Mises), Promise of paradise.
3) Pseudo-rationalism: the construction of modern idealism (platonism, the the frankfurt school, the postmodernists) – creating ‘reality by chanting’ (social construction) Promise of power.

And perhaps most importantly you don’t illustrate, that I know of, that the west lost to conflationary wisdom literature (christianity) in the ancient world, including the closure of the institutions of ‘deflationary literature’ (the stoic schools), and was resurrected by the restoration of truthful literature in the enlightenment, and that conflationary literature is the means by which the postmodernists have adopted the work of the marxists.

And this all leads me to a set of questions:

How does one know what to select without knowing what to select already? Or worse, how does one know what NOT to select? From the herd of literary preachers of wisdom literature, how does one decide between them? How does one choose: a) that which I prefer, b) that which is good independently of what I prefer, c) and that which is true regardless of whether I prefer it, or  whether we think it is good or not – because we can only decide conflicts over goods by what is true. So, we can only decide between the useful, the preferable, and the good, by what is true (decidable)?

What is the cost of teaching wisdom (conflationary) literature versus truthful (deflationary and decidable)literature? What are the consequences of teaching wisdom literature instead of truthful? And most importantly, what opportunities do we perpetuate and create by teaching wisdom literature instead of truthful literature?

How is fictionalism not only a terrible thing to teach, a terrible method of transferring meaning, but it is the means by which we have been defeated in the ancient world, and nearly defeated in the present?

How is fictionalism only not an answer, but demonstrably the reason for the failure of the west to complete the enlightenment by its extension to the economic, legal, social, and political disciplines?

Hasn’t psychology largely rescued itself from fictionalism and justifiable criticism as a pseudoscience precisely by abandoning fictionalism and adopting the ‘operationalism’ (in psychology, ‘operationism’, and mathematics ‘intuitionism’)?

How can one deflate the Fertile Crescent fictionalisms (‘lies’) and still convey them without at the same time merely perpetuating the crime?

Why is there not enough non-false, non fictionalist, non omnipotent and omniscient mythos, history of heroes, saints, scientists?  Why do we have to appeal to that which has harmed us so deeply?

Why can’t we teach people meaning through the lenses of hyperbole of myth, the hyperbole of heroes, the hyperbole of history, the empirical evidence of our history,  and our truthful speech? Is that not the reason for the west’s continued outperformance of other peoples? Is truth not how we dragged mankind out of superstition, ignorance, poverty, disease and tyranny?

If conflationary literature is the vehicle by which we have been lied to and the vehicle for deceit, the why teach it? Why do we not want to teach people how to identify the differences?  To negatively value such conflationary literature? And is there any value in the conflationary that cannot be obtained from the deflationary?

I know that in the spectrum of methods by which we can convey meaning that the dream state is the most subjective, the rational less so, the calculative much less so. And I understand that creativity requires that we enable free association by the construction of habits that allow us to easily enter the waking dream state most creative people call ‘the zone’.

But what evidence suggests that we need to do so by the very means of exploiting it: suggestion. Deceit by suggestion. Deceit by loading, framing, overloading such that the suggestion is created by statement or by inference or by inference from absence?

What is the difference between the transfer of meaning, the transfer of truth, and the transfer of deception?

In other words, Why do we need to teach people to lie?

—SERIES—

A few series that suggest we have far and above the necessary deflationary content available to teach every necessary scale of comprehension and decision.

I. DIMENSIONS OF REALITY: THE DUE DILIGENCE NECESSARY FOR WARRANTY OF TESTIMONY (TRUTH CLAIM)
Any truth proposition must survive those tests that are applicable.
1) categorical consistency (identity)
2) internal consistency (logical)
3) external consistency (empirical)
4) existential consistency (operational language and grammar)
5) rational consistency (rational choice of the actor)
6) moral consistency (reciprocity – at least intertemporal)
7) scope consistency (full accounting and limits [no cherry picking, no unlimited theories])
8) cognitive consistency (test by jury: theory)
9) survival consistency (test by market: law)
10) exhaustive consistency (Parsimony / tautology)

II. RULE OF INCOMPLETENESS
1) “No truth proposition can be tested without appeal to the subsequent dimension”.
III. FROM LOW PRECISION HIGH CONTEXT TO HIGH PRECISION LOW CONTEXT.

What existing sets of categories and values do we have to work from in the spectrum of problems of decidability?

5) History.

4) Wisdom: Greek/Roman/Germanic/Slavic Paganism (archetypes) (categories and measures)

3) Morals: Roman Stoicism (virtues) (via positiva) (subcategories and measures)

2) Ethics: Roman Law (limits) (via negativa) (further subcategories and measures) (Natural Law of Reciprocity)

1) Psychology: Acquisitions or stoic ‘pursuits’ rather than ‘psychology’ (all moral intuitions and all emotions can be expressed as reactions to change in state of acquisitions).

0) Existence: The Laws of Nature (science) further subcategories and measures)

IV. THE HIERARCHY OF MEASUREMENTS :

What methods of measurements do we have to work with?

7) THE MONOMYTH – Transcendence (Transformation)
6) THE ARCHETYPES – Characters (Categories)
5) THE VIRTUES – Comparison Operators (Values)
4) THE ORDERS – Axioms (Relations: sets of conditions – social orders)
3) THE NARRATIVES – Operations (Methods of change in state)
2) THE DISCIPLINES – Mindfulness/Stoicism ( Noise Reduction)
1) THE SCIENCES – Measurement (reduction of ignorance, error, bias, deception reduction)
0) THE TRUTH – Parsimony (Most Parsimonious Operational Name of a Recipe of Transformation.)

Assertions:
There exists only one objective – transcendence – ‘Agency’.
There exists only one narrative – personal transcendence
There exist only a few sub-narratives – methods of transcendence (the N-number of plots)
There exist only so many non-false virtues – variables of transcendence (stoic virtues?)
There exist only so many portfolios of virtues – transcendent characters. (Archetypes)
There exist only so many methods of non-false noise reduction – transcendent mind. ( physical rituals, stoic disciplines, discursive prayer, recitative prayer, buddhist contemplation – and some combination)
There exist only so many methods of non-false elimination of falsehoods – reason.
There exists only so many sets of primary operations – transcendent truths.

Via-Positiva:
A myth can employ animism and anthropomorphism in an act of transcendence.
A myth can employ hyperbole (super-normalism) in an act of transcendence.
A myth can employ any technique to create an immoral condition against which one employs virtues to transcend.
A myth can employ virtues in an act of transcendence.

Via Negativa:
A myth cannot contradict the virtue of transcendence.
A myth cannot contradict of a virtue of transcendence in an act of transcendence.
A myth cannot employ a falsehood in an act of transcendence
A myth cannot employ luck or miracles in an act of transcendence.
A myth cannot employ fictionalism (idealism, supernaturalism, pseudoscience/pseudo-rationalism) in an act of transcendence.

If a myth can survive these tests then it is true, and good.
If a myth cannot survives these tests then it is false, and evil.

SUMMARY
I can find no reason to perpetuate the use of fictionalism in pedagogy or even in public speech.  I can find every reason to treat it as the most malicious form of deception ever invented by man, and the principle target of ethical and moral criticism.

I see every reason to complete the enlightenment, not leave the door open for yet another conquest of the west – or by mankind – through the use of suggestion by the process of  loading, framing, conflation, fictionalism, and overloading,  by the use of that which cannot be tested, because it either cannot be deflated, or because the act of deflation is far beyond the abilities of those most susceptible to suggestions.

Just because the mind ‘want’s, does not mean we should feed it. There are many wants. Many impulses. And civilization was constructed by the suppression of those impulses and the direction of them to constructive ends – what we would call somewhere between delayed gratification, and longer production cycles, producing higher multiples than could be obtained by discounted means.

So why perpetuate the lie?  ( Nietzsche was right. As right as a literary philosopher can be.)

Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev Ukraine

WHAT ARE THE SHORTCOMINGS OF THE AUSTRIAN SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS?

I’ve written extensively on this and I’ll make a few (possibly unpleasant) but clarifying points to explain why Today’s “Austrian School” is to the original “Mengerianism”, what Today’s “Liberalism” is to the original “Classical Liberalism”: an ‘appropriated term’. And Misesianism has little if anything to do with Mengerianism other than the most trivial inclusion of marginalism.

THE SHORT VERSION
If we are talking about the Mengerian revolution, there are no shortcomings, and those insights as of 2008 appear to have been fully incorporated into mainstream economics.

If we are talking about how mainstream Austrians practice economics today, by the successors to both the Mengerian and Misesian ‘branches’ of the Mengerian revolution, we have one insight that is not incorporated into mainstream economics: the test of the ethics and morality of economic statements by construction a ‘proof of possibility’: that any such proposition can be demonstrated by a series of both rational choices and tests of reciprocity. Mainstream Economists rely on Rawlsian (left) ethics and Pareto optimums, where Austrian Economists would rely on Classical Liberal ethics, and each solve for solutions under those ethical constraints.

If we are talking about the propaganda put out by the Rothbardians then that’s something altogether different, and has nothing to do with either of the above.

But let’s go into some detail.

THE SCHOOLS
The Mengerian school applied the insights of calculus to economics, producing marginalism, and as a consequence, subjective value, and as a consequence overthrew the historical error of the labor theory of value.
The mengerian school attempted to construct a DESCRIPTIVE social and political science from economic evidence. In contrast to the Chicago school which attempts to produce policy under rule of law – meaning ‘without human discretion’; and in contrast with the Saltwater School (new york), attempting to maximize consumption by policy – meaning ‘arbitrary rule’.
So the Austrian, Chicago, and New York schools of economics pursued very different ‘limits’ and ‘methods of decidability’ (categories and values) in their investigation of economic phenomenon, and for very different reasons. Instead of all of these schools pursuing ‘economic science’ it is more accurate to say that they each practice the application of economics to politics in three different ways.

Austrian (Virginia/GMU):
The production of institutions that eliminate frictions, allowing the greatest cooperation among peoples in a market economy. This, under the assumption that interferences in the economy were unwise, and would merely increase the severity of future corrections. (The Conservative Position)

Freshwater (Chicago):
The use of monetary policy to insure the economy and the polity against the unavoidable corrections that occur whenever certain combinations of opportunities, organizations, talents, and resources are disrupted either incrementally or by shocks, by the discovery of formulae that allowed rule of law to persist, yet insure people against harm. This, under the assumption that while interference in the economy was a moral hazard, a violation of rule of law, and would spiral into increasingly worse forms of harm, that the value of limiting shortages, insuring against shocks, was better than the consequences of not doing so. (The Classical Liberal Position)

Saltwater (New York):
The use of fiscal (spending) policy (debt) for the purpose of maximizing consumption and therefore overall wealth – under the assumption that any harms caused by the misallocation of organizations, talents, and resources to exhausted opportunities, would provide greater interim benefit that would compensate for any future harms. (The Leftist Position) (Krugman, Delong et al)

This spectrum: Austrian (Social Science/conservative), Chicago (Rule of Law/classical), New York (Arbitrary Rule/progressive) also reflects Time Preference: Long, Medium, and Short term. Which in turn reflects class and gender moral biases (Mature Male, Maturing Male, and Female). Which in turn reflects institutional emphasis: i) Austrian: Demographics, educational policy, formal and informal institutional policy. ii) Industrial policy, Trade Policy, Monetary Policy, iii) Monetary, fiscal policy, and redistributive policy.
At this point in time, Mengerian insights are fully incorporated into mainstream economics – although until 2008, the mainstream resisted the hypothesis that all attempts to correct the economy through monetary policy produced cumulative distortions of increasing duration. At this point that matter is settled, and the Mengerian insights have been incorporated into Mainstream thought.

UNSOLVED QUESTIONS IN ECONOMICS AND POLITICS

-Full Accounting (Ending Economic Cherry-Picking)-
At present, we measure economic velocity (relative change) in may different ways but we do not measure absolute change: the change in state of the total set of capital. In other words, the economic profession produces Income Statements but never Balance Sheets. So in the very broad set of capital that constitutes a polity and its economy we actually measure almost nothing: genetic, cultural, normative, scope-knowledge (what), technical knowledge (how), legal, institutional, territorial, resource, monumental, built, physical, and private.

The measurement of relative change (velocity) rather than changes in capital stocks, is the reason why economics consists very largely of cherry picking in order to justify our different gender, class, cultural, and civilizational biases.

So, this is why the Krugman/Delong and the French, The Chicago and mainstream american, and the ‘old fashioned’ Austrians all make different claims about economics: None of them practices full accounting, and therefore engages in cherry-picking. (They will all give you similar excuses. Which I ought to start collecting for the sake of posterity and future laughter.) The reason is simple: (a) we lack sufficient data because of our accounting methods and the financial use of ‘pooling’ to provide sufficient data. (b) we willfully do not measure changes in capital. (c) the people who best understand this problem are in the financial sector and profit from it. (d) the people who are in government lack the knowledge (and usually the intellectual capacity) to understand it. (e) because it is difficult to understand it is (fairly) difficult to legislate changes to the status quo. (f) if the people did understand what is done to them (they intuit it’s wrong but can’t explain it) they would make the french revolution look like church service.

-Economics (Money)-
There is clear benefit to recording, analyzing and publishing economic information that prevents malinvestment (or misuse of investment funds). There is clear benefit to managing the money supply as long as it does not create malinvestment. It is not clear that savings should be conducted with the same currency as the commercial currency. It is not clear that savers have a right to appreciation of a commercial currency at the expense of others any more than they have an obligation to absorb losses. And given that the value of insuring the money supply against shortages that might minimize consumption and investment, How do we manage the money supply? What basket of targets do we use? Is it moral (or wise) to allow interest on consumer credit issued from the Treasury when it is not any longer de facto insured by banks? (My answer is ‘no’ – it’s predatory on a scale that the most extractive of despots could not dream of). Is any of our policy or economics meaningful in an era where liquidity can be provided directly to consumers via debit cards from the treasury and the consequences immediately measured regardless of financial sector and entrepreneurial sector estimates of the future ending the zero interest rate problem, and ending the problem of cheaper money reinforcing and expanding patterns of malinvestment.

-Government (Production of Commons)-
It is increasingly clear that the silicon valley model of investment is indistinguishable from the christian monarchies under the combination of local rule of law and federal church sanction, in the same way the chinese model of government is indistinguishable from the management of a fortune 50 conglomerate. And it is increasingly clear that both of these models are superior to the results of 20th century democracy. The difference is that the Han are a single sub-race (extended family), as Europeans were until the present. While the silicon valley model is closer to the Cosmopolitan, for the same reason: silicon valley does not have to insure itself, it’s territory, or its currency So we can see three future political models: the homogenous kin-corporate (chinese), the homogenous kin-private, and the ‘borderland’ diverse non-kin private (silicon valley).

THE MISESIAN INSIGHT – AND DOWNFALL

Mises was creative, and had read a great deal of the work of contemporaries – which is why his ideas are not his but others (Weber, Simmel). He had a very clear if not the clearest – understanding of money. But had a very poor understanding of mathematics and science. And was not very clear on the broader intellectual movements that had preceded him, or were current.
So while Mises discovered and articulated “economic operationalism”, he conflated mathematics (axiomatic declarations, and proofs of possibility) with science (theoretical observations, and survival from criticism) into a pseudoscience of Praxeology – in which he claimed all economic research should be performed operationally.

He confused the Moral and Legal (justificationary), with the True and Scientific (survival from criticism).

Praxeology – Economic Operationalism – is a method of testing rational choice and moral reciprocity in economic propositions when people are possessed of information heavily weighted by prices, and when they are rational actors, working from simple stacks of priorities. Just as is Intuitionistic Mathematics, Operational Language in the Sciences, and Operationism (the newest application of operationalism) in Psychology.

But this is logically and empirically false.

People act irrationally because of a set of cognitive biases and fragmentary information;

People decide preferences on networks not stacks – meaning Mises did NOT – like Menger – rely on the calculus, and worse, he used a very narrow interpretation of marginal utility – that humans decided by a stack of values, rather than the sum of the weights of a set of values.

Prices are but one factor of economics and prices decline rapidly in interest after commodities. People purchase heavily on signal value, not investment or commodity value.

Empirical measurements can in fact identify economic phenomenon not rationally identifiable by rational construction (ie: sticky prices).

What appear to be cumulatively immoral actions by the state can (in some circumstances) produce superior returns that do not violate the material interests of risk takers dependent upon intertemporal calculation.

So it’s somewhat tragic, that in the science in which Operationalism is most important, and Mises’ discovery of Economic Operationalism, approximately coincided with Popper’s invention of Falsification, Poincare’s Criticism of Cantor, Brouwer’s Intuitionism (mathematics), Bridgman’s Operationalism (physics), and Hayek’s later discovery that the empirical common law is both the origin of the empirical method, and the only scientific means of governance: Nomocracy – Rule of Law.

And that because all these thinkers failed to grasp that they had formed a movement, and that this movement’s value culminated, not in mathematics – but in economics. Because Science is but a moral discipline by which together we seek to remove ignorance, error, bias, and deceit. And that economics is the discipline in which pseudoscience is most harmful to us and mankind, if for no other reason than the consequences of our folly and deceit are both profound, and distant.

THE CULTURAL ARTIFACTS OF THE COUNTER-ENLIGHTENMENTS

We all bring our culture’s methodologies to the intellectual table, and Mises brought conflationary jewish law to the table. All the enlightenment era thinkers have done so – and still do. We tend to use the names of philosophers rather than the Operational names of their methodologies but we can illustrate the drag of intellectual traditions on the enlightenment by stating the method: The anglo empirical-legal-protestant, the french moral-catholic, the german rationalist-prostestant, the russian literary-orthodox, and the jewish-conflationary-legal.

The only deflationary method was the original: the anglo empirical-legal. ‘Science’ in the ancient world, like science in the later medieval and early modern, evolved out of the practice of competitive, testimonial, evidentiary, empirical, common Law.

The problem for the anglos has been that contracts presume equality under the law, and this assumption led to the utopianism of ‘an Aristocracy of Everyone’. Just as the French a ‘Family of Everyone (dressed up in aristocratic clothing)’, Just as the German ‘An Army of Pious Duty of Everyone’, Just as the Jewish led to a ‘Wandering Separatism of Everyone’.

The ‘Vienna’ intellectual group – “Austrians” housed two very different sets of thinkers: The Christians who were German and Polish: the Mengerians, and the Misesian, who was Jewish and from L’viv Ukraine.

Both regions were in then ‘Galacia’ under the control of the Austrian Empire. At that point in time L’viv was one of the most populous jewish cities in europe as well as the ‘borderlands’ (where russians allowed jews to settle).

The categorization of Mises as a member of Menger’s Austrian school has been the subject of disagreement and still is – in the past, justifiably criticized as ‘jewish economics’.

Methodologically, Misesian thought relies upon jewish thought, just as much as Mengerian thought relies upon Germanic.

-Deflation vs Conflation-

Western Deflation (Competition:Institutions) vs Semitic Conflation (Monopoly:Religion)

While one of the hallmarks of western civilization is deflationary truth, and as a consequence, deflationary disciplines (mathematics, science, law, morality, literature, religion), deflationary institutions (divided govt), Mises, in the Jewish tradition, ( in the Abrahamic tradition in general) conflated morality, law, mathematics and science into ‘praxeology’ and his arrogance ( not unlike Marx) prevented him from acknowledging his failure until late in life, when he acquiesced to economics being a mixture of empirical and operational but he still did not draw the conclusion that had been made by Weber, Brower, Bridgman, if not Popper: that the ‘truth’ is discovered by the market competition between the scientific method’s attempt to deflate reality down into operations (laws), and the test of whether an intermediate theory survives construction from laws (axioms).

Given that we know the first principles of social science: rationality and reciprocity we can test all economic propositions even though due to categorical plasticity due to substitution effects.

Given that we do not know (yet) outside of perhaps chemistry, the first principles (operations) of the physical universe – because the universe cannot ‘choose’ it is fully deterministic (even if so casually dense it is not predictable through measurement) and we must be able to describe the physical universe in mathematics as proof of construction instead.

This is only possible because mathematics is correlatively descriptive of external phenomenon, even if it is internally fully operational (real).
So mathematics provides a good substitute for the operations of the universe – until we know the first principles of the universe.

Which is what our friend Mr Wolfram’s (ack) ‘new science’ (confusing a logic and a science again) is: the study of the consequences of operations, INSTEAD of the DESCRIPTION of the consequences of operations using mathematics.

CLOSING

So it is better to say that Mises created a ‘jewish heresy’ or branch of the Vienna school, and that followers have used the marxist strategy of a) ‘appropriating terms’ (austrian school), b) ‘heaping of undue praise’, c) ‘straw man criticism as a vehicle for pseudoscientific propaganda’, d) ‘pseudoscientific or pseudo-rational argument (justificationary apriorism, praxeology as a science exclusive of empirical science rather than that scientific propositions require survival of the tests of both empirical consistency and operational consistency), d) vociferous evangelism, and voluminous propagandizing (‘gossip’).

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine.

*I know this might be heavy reading but it’s very important, and profound.*

—-
NOTE: This facebook Page contains a series of articles that cover his position in intellectual history in detail. (See Facebook Page for Scientific Praxeology-Economic Operationalism)

(https://www.facebook.com/groups/scientific.praxeology/permalink/750994611656577/)

A PAGAN, A CHRISTIAN, AN ARYAN, A WARRIOR, A MAN TRANSCENDENT

I am a pagan if 1) I accept the laws of nature as binding on all of existence; and 2) if I treat nature as sacred and to be contemplated, protected and improved; and 3) I treat the world as something to transform closer to an Eden in whatever ways I can before I die; and 4) if I deny the existence of a supreme being with dominion over the physical laws, and treat all gods, demigods, heroes, saints, figures of history, and ancestors as characters with whom I may speak to in private contemplation in the hope of gaining wisdom and synchronicity from having done so. And 5) if I participate with others of my society in repetition of oaths, repetition of myths, repetition of festivals, repetition of holidays, and the perpetuation of all of the above to my offspring. And 6) if I leave open that synchronicity appears to exist now and then, and that it may be possible that there is a scientific explanation for it, other than just humans subject to similar stimuli producing similar intuitions and therefore similar ends.

As far as I know this is all that is required of me to be a Pagan.

I am a christian if I have adopted the teaching of christianity: 1) the eradication of hatred from the human heart. 2) the extension of kinship love to non-kin. 3) the extension of exhaustive forgiveness before punishment, enserfment, enslavement, death, or war.

As far as I know, this is all that is required of me to be a Christian.

I am an Aryan if 1) I proudly display my excellences so that others seek to achieve or exceed them; 2) I seek competition to constantly test and improve myself so I do not weaken; 3) I swear to speak no insult and demand it; 4) I speak the truth and demand it; 5) I take nothing not paid for and demand it; 6) I grant sovereignty to my kin and demand it; 7) I insure my people regardless of condition, and demand it; and in doing so leave nothing but voluntary markets of cooperation between sovereign men; and to discipline, enserf, enslave, ostracize or kill those who do otherwise; 8) to not show fear or cowardice, abandon my brothers, or retreat, and 9) to die a good death in the service of my kin, my clan, my tribe and my people.

As far as I know, this is all that is required of me to be an Aryan.

I am a warrior in that 1) we will prepare for war so perfectly that none dare enter it against us. 2) Once we go to war, we do so with *joy*, with eagerness, and with passion, and without mercy, without constraint, and without remorse; And 3) before ending war, we shall defeat an enemy completely such that no other dares a condition of our enemy, and the memory of the slaughter lives a hundred generations.

As far as I know, this is all that is required of me to be a Warrior.

As far as I know, if I succeed as a Pagan, as a Christian, as an Aryan, as a Warrior, then I have transcended the animal man, and earned my place among the saints, heroes, demigods, gods, in the memories, histories, and legends of man.

And that is the objective of heroes. We leave the rest for ordinary men.

Curt Doolittle
The Cult of Sovereignty
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Natural Law of Reciprocity
The Propertarian Institute,
Kiev, Ukraine