Uncategorized

Philosophy is the Doctrine of the Middle Class

Leading an organization of human beings of any size, is a complex and difficult task.

Human events are kaleidic. The common people have complex and conflicting motivations and incentives.

Leaders must convey near omniscience because their followers are moved at the lowest cost in the shortest time under the assumption of near omniscience.

Power is obtained by a mixture of discipline, cunning, compromise, threats, perseverance, demographics and luck.

Power is held by a mixture of habituation and limited, tacit consent – almost entirely because the alternatives are uncertain and therefore more risky, costly and frightening.

THE UPPER CLASSES, HISTORY, INSTITUTIONS AND LAW

Those who are the victors, and those who create the rules rules, do not write philosophy — they take actions, make decisions, speeches, art, and policy.

They create institutions: The administrative tools of human cooperation.

Their followers write history.

History is the only form of philosophy with any substantive truth content.

There are very few books of Aristocratic philosophy: Aristotle, Machiavelli, Pareto, Weber. Perhaps some of the scholastics.

In the west, administrative philosophy of the church is divided from the military and commercial philosophy of the Manor-Kings.

The writers of the church are members of the middle class or the aristocracy.

But history and the record of history is the writing of the nobility.

THE MIDDLE CLASSES AND PHILOSOPHY

The vast number of works of political philosophy have been written by the upper middle and middle classes.

Nearly all political philosophy is by definition revolutionary – there is no need to use verbal coercion when one has the means by which to enact ones will without verbal coercion.

Western philosophy is an advisory program. It counsels. It suggests. It persuades.

Western philosophy is utilitarian. It is moral and most importantly it is both technical and commercial.

Western philosophy establishes the contract terms of the middle class, by which they are willing to be administered by the aristocracy.

THE LOWER CLASSES AND RELIGION

All religion is political philosophy. It is the philosophy of resistance.

Religion establishes the contract with the peasantry. It sets the terms by which they are willing to be administered by the aristocracy.

The power to resist. To refuse to act. Is a power. It is the power of the weak. But in vast numbers. It is a vast power.

Religious symbols are resistance movement symbols. Whether dress, or icon, mythical figure or scripture. Religious movements are resistance movements. Resistance through unity.

VIOLENCE RULES
But we must be cautious when consuming philosophical writing. It is largely acts of justification. To defend ourselves against it, we must ensure that we study our history as well, because philosophy influences and justifies —- but violence and law rules.

All legal products, all philosophical products, all religious products – all political products of all kinds, are an effort to rotate elites for the purpose of class benefit.

Marx was right that there exists a class struggle. He was wrong that it will end.

He was wrong that the proletariat would ever win.

The fact is, that there are vast differences in ability between individuals. That these differences are genetic. That our classes are a genetic hierarchy. And that genes regress toward the mean.

For these reasons, we will always have class rotation.

And law, philosophy and religion will be the means by which each group seeks to hold or obtain power.

Uncategorized

The Hierarchy Of Human Cognitive Biases

I am not really sure that I should talk about theses biases as a hierarchy, because I think that the different cognitive biases we rely upon to make our multitudinous decisions every day is actually a map: an unordered but weighted network of relations. But if we express them as a spectrum from the most fundamental and physical, to the most social, to the most abstract, we end up with a hierarchy of increasing complexity.

The HIERARCHY OF COGNITIVE BIASES :

    1) COGNITIVE BIASES (biological)

    2) TIME PREFERENCES and TIME BIASES (consequences of biology and experience or learning)

    3) SENTIMENTS (or RESIDUES) ( biological ) and their numerous DERIVATIONS (irrational justifications of biology)

    5) NARRATIVE / RELIGIOUS / MYTHICAL / MORAL, ETHICAL, and MANNER BIASES (institutional social behaviors)

    4) CULTURAL BIASES (and CLASS BIASES within each culture) (accidental metaphysical biases)

    6) METHODOLOGICAL BIASES (or CALCULATIVE BIASES) (the result of categorical problem solving)

All these cognitive functions work with us every day, and the only tools that we have to manage them with are LAW, CREDIT POLICY, and PUBLIC RHETORIC. All of which are weak pressures against the cognitive tidal wave of cognitive biases.

If I were not such a busy man I would hire a dozen grad students to put some math together on this for me.

I hope this is useful to someone other than me. It is the catalog of expressions of the fractal mathematics of human behavior.

Curt Doolittle.

Uncategorized

Spectrum Blindness: The Frequency Of Concepts, And Conceptual Networks As Production Cycles

Time Preferences form a spectrum, from the very short (high), to the very long (low) — just as do frequencies of light.

As one’s [glossary:time preference] increases in length (lowers), and the ability to perceive abstracts must necessarily increase.

As one’s ability to perceive abstracts decreases, time preference also must necessarily decrease (lower).

On average we all see a similar portion of the spectrum. Some the shorter and lower, some the longer and higher.

Concepts are the equivalent of production cycles. And concepts of different lengths are incommensurable.

Therefore human beings habituate and reinforce their time preferences, until they can no longer recognize or attribute value to concepts in the other portions of the spectrum.

At that point of habituation, [glossary:Time Preference] becomes [glossary:Time Bias].

So for genetic, environmental, cultural, pedagogical, and habitual reasons, people are effectively ‘color blind’ to different areas of the conceptual spectrum.

We cannot value each other’s time preferences because of our Time Biases. We are unable to. It is impossible to.

[glossary:Time Bias] is the great unspoken problem with cognitive biases.

Because cognitive biases are largely universal – equal among all people.

But time bias creates social classes, and creates economic classes.

This is one of the reasons that people cannot come to consensus in large numbers.

There is no harmony on means even if there is some harmony on ends.

—-
NOTE: Perhaps I should separate out the different properties of Time Preference (high/low- emotive) from Time Preference Capacity (iq), and Realized or Habituated Time Preference ( the result). I will have to ask David for advice on whose writings to approach other than Banfield’s.

Uncategorized

It’s Not Colonization, It’s Containment

Obama was warned by Bush, along with the other democratic candidates, that once he gained office he would not be able to exit either country. The one who paid attention to that warning was Clinton. Obama softened slightly but was more reliant on the radical left. So he wasn’t as careful. Now that he’s in office he can’t fulfill his promises to his radical left supporters.

Contrary to some of the nonsense I’ve been reading from the left lately, we aren’t colonizing the muslim world. We wouldn’t want to. It’s thankless work. It’s expensive. And they’re too primitive to be of value to us as colonies. The labor is too ignorant and uneducated to function as laborers. The people are too poor to function as consumers for advanced goods. The institutions and infrastructure are too corrupt and unreliable to assist in production and distribution.

So, It isn’t colonialization. It’s containment. Americans spent the last century containing communism, and the result was a conversion of the marxist economies to totalitarian capitalism, and perhaps the greatest shift in human standard of living since the invention of farming. While communism was a religion masquerading as a political movement, Islam is a political movement masquerading as a religion, and is the current replacement for marxism – a means of the world underclass to counteract the effect of modernization on their primitive social orders. Like marxism, islam is a primitivist and economically destructive political movement – perhaps more destructive than was it’s prior instantiation, which we call Roman era christianity.

The underlying military and political problem is that Islamic Civilization does not have a core state, and that of the core state candidates (iran, pakistan, saudi arabia and turkey) three choices are corrupt, despotic and terrible, and the fourth is unlikely. The impact of the schism is still with the civilization. From a strategic geopolitical position, Core states can be pressured to keep fringe states in line and out of military action. Islam (magian or perhaps magical civilization is a better term) cannot be contained without a core state. Therefore Islam is the new communism until there is enough of a reformation in one of the states that a reliable core state can be formed. THE STRATEGY IS TO DESTABILIZE UNTIL A CORE STATE CAN FORM DUE TO INTERNAL PRESSURE.

This is probably too grown-up an analysis for people who think that people who have grown up, real jobs, and real responsibilities, are not acting on emotional or antiquated mystical fantasies like ‘colonialization’ rather than pragmatic economic and security concerns. But that doesn’t mean that the truth shouldn’t be told to those who actually have the capacity for such understanding.

The best answer is for us to build 200 nuclear power plants and to get off of oil, and let the middle east fall back into barbarism until they are ready to abandon their magianism and join the modern world.

CURT

Uncategorized

Is There A War On Police?

There have been a large number of police deaths lately.

“It’s not a fluke,” Richard Roberts, a spokesman for the International Union of Police Associations, told MSNBC.com. “There’s a perception among officers in the field that there’s a war on cops going on.”

This is not rocket science, but it cannot be attributed to one thing alone. Instead:

    1) Prolonged economic duress due to the shift in economic power to the east.
    2) Prolonged (and likely permanent) political discord
    3) Natural Class, Race and Cultural conflict as well as “White Flight”
    4) Underclass reaction to the militarization of domestic police forces
    5) Imitation of the success of violence in the third world as a political movement.

It is not one issue on it’s own. It is the cumulative effect of the changes in american society due to a century and a half of policy. That policy was enacted during a period in which the USA had a strategic economic advantage. Because of that advantage, the class, race and cultural factors were suppressed by a period of extraordinary temporary wealth. But now that the circumstances have been reversed, and the consequential renormalization of human behavior has emerged as that economic advantage has been removed by the spread of capitalism’s economic institutions – particularly to Asia. The result is that the west is being destabilized again, just as it was when the american west opened up to development and caused shocks and price recessions in Europe.

Add to that, that white folks are now starting to act like a diasporic minority, and less willing to support their system politically or fund it economically.

In western literature, holding together a stable political system is an advantage. But it is also a high cost to the holders and comes at great sacrifice and discipline. The west (england and germany) has the most stable political system ever developed by man. But it comes at high cost. And people are no longer willing to pay that cost.

Thorsten Veblen and Joseph Schumpater were correct. The political class will inevitably destroy the civilization under democracy.

Uncategorized

Capitalism Is A Political Concept

THIS IS FALSE: “capitalism is not a political concept” – Andrew J Galambos.

THIS IS TRUE: Capitalism is not a *rhetorical* concept that relies upon the process of debate for the purpose of decision-making about the use of resources within a geography. However, capitalism is a political concept, because it relies upon the **absence** of rhetorical debate for the purpose of decision-making about the use of resources in a geography. And it requires agreement upon the *absence* of authoritarian property definitions, and managerial administration of property and transactions. Any principle that requires unanimity of compliance in a population is by definition political.

Property rights require unanimity of compliance in a population. And creating those rights (albeit expressed differently in different cultures) is the purpose of government. Some governments create horrid property rights, others egalitarian. All nations have property rights of some sort. But few have individual property rights. And it’s individual property rights that permit economic calculation and incentives in a vast division of knowledge and labor.

Therefore Capitalism is a political concept even if it does not include a dependence upon the process of debate for the purpose of allocating resources. Capitalism is a process of utilizing and allocating resources and providing incentives to serve one another. It is a political concept. It simply does not depend upon the decision-making of politicians – managers. Even totalitarianism is a political process because some number of people must be incentivized to comply with the totalitarian edicts for the purpose of compelling those people who are non-compliant.

The capitalist system simply acknowledges that the market is superior to both managerial socialism, authoritarianism, and classical republican rhetorical debate. Because the purpose of the market is to allow us to cooperate in large numbers WITHOUT debate when our minds are incapable of possessing sufficient knowledge, and we are not capable of coordinating actions in a vast division of knowledge and labor.

Nor is debate capable of providing the individual incentives needed for peaceful cooperation, since there is no ordered agreement on the use of resources in a population, nor can there be agreement on the use of resources other than under market prices.

This is the fundamental criticism of socialism that brought about its end. it is not that socialism is immoral. It is that it is IMPOSSIBLE for people to cooperate, to calculate, and to possess incentives for increasing production that then causes decreases in prices by any other means, whether rhetorical or dictatorial. – CD.

We have given up on socialism, which means the destruction of private property. We have instead, adopted redistributive socialism, which treats all property as collective, and where individual property is a temporary right for the purpose of cooperating and coordinating, and where rights to commissions on the use of property are determined by the state.

This democratic socialism is simply a slower way of destroying a civilization than individual property rights.

That there may be limits on the concentration of capital is not unreasonable. If money and property can be used to distort the market, or for political ends, then this is the exercise of power that is not in the interest of citizens. Therefore there must be limits on the use of capital. Especially under fiat money, where all money is effectively borrowed from average citizens.

Uncategorized

Mario Rizzo: Hobbesian War (First Great Thought Of 2011).

I captured this post in it’s near-entirety from Think Markets. It’s the first succinct and meaningful post of the year that I’ve come across. And I captured it for my own reference, for posterity.

Of course, my answer to this problem is the calculative rather than political society. Unfortunately, unless I devote full time to this solution to the Hobbesian problem from within an institution I will never turn Hayek’s analysis into a sufficiently and articulated solution to be meaningfully employed by others.

But at least Mario has correctly and simply stated the issue, if not the solution to it. It is not that we need a minimal state. It’s that there is a maximum number of people wherein political discourse is a logical means of achieving ends. Beyond that limited number, like all other aspects of human behavior, we need tools to calculate that which we cannot perceive.

… There are some simple facts the commentators cannot or will not face. The reason we cannot have a coherent, comprehensive plan to solve the political and economic difficulties of the federal government (and of the state governments) is that people do not have a coherent, comprehensive hierarchy of values beyond the basics of social order. Hayek made this argument in The Road to Serfdom with regard to the problems of comprehensive economic planning.

To a large extent, we are now facing this problem in reverse. We have attained the current level and extent of the welfare state as an accretion of special interest legislation and short-sighted but popular redistribution programs. All of this took place over a long period of time with little or no thought to the overall effects, to what kind of society we have been building.

But now the threatened fiscal messes at both the federal and state level are requiring some form of “orderly” reduction in the size and scope of government. But, as I opined here in the final days of the Bush Administration, the “reform” of the welfare state will not be orderly. It will be driven by a war among the various interests groups who, as is their habit, do not see the other person’s point of view. But why should they? They got their largesse from the government by being single-minded and self-interested. Bad habits (from the social perspective) are hard to break.

The “unreasonableness” of the discussion stems from the fact that there is no underlying objective code of values (or at least not one that can be accessed by the political system). Most players are guilty of avidity and partiality. We all have hard-luck stories to portray to the media. Most people’s minds are too concrete-bound to see the larger, somewhat abstract, picture.

The unreasonableness, or so it seems, of our political culture is, to a large extent, a product of the kind of special interest redistributionist society we have built. Some commentators have rationalized the welfare state in terms of notions of distributive justice. But these are the mental spinnings of academics. These ideas have not been the driving political and economic forces that have created our culture. Those forces are derived from an abandonment of the traditional concept of the “common good,” that is, the good of each and all.

There is very little beyond the minimal state that is truly in the interests of all of us. Every movement beyond that takes us into the unreasonable territory of the exploitation of one group by another. No wonder discussion is not civil.

Whatever a man sows, this he will also reap.