Uncategorized

What Would You Learn From A Lifetime Of Studying Politics And Economics?

Fundamentally, assuming you were intellectually honest, if you were to spend the next twenty years of your life studying political science, with the goal of long term stability and prosperity, then you would come to these conclusions:

    0) The Problem

      a) Time:
      b) Space (distribution):
      d) Acting:
      c) Choosing an Action:
      d) Memory:
      e) Limited Knowledge:
      f) Planning:
      g) Opportunity Costs:
      h) Learning (imitation):
      i) Choosing What To Learn (Alphas)

      a) The Necessity Of Resources
      b) the Plasticity Of Resources
      c) Uniqueness of Objects:
      d) Competition:
      e) Cooperation:
      f) Property

      a) Subjective Value
      b) Marginal Value

      a) Life Curve: air, water, food.
      b) Learning Curve:
      c) Forgetting Curve:

    1) Mankind:

      a) Acquisitiveness
      b) Social Status / Hierarchy / Value to others:
      c) Inequality/Diversity:
      d) Tribalism:
      e) Sentiments:
      f) Mating:
      g) The Genders:

        a) Men
        b) Women
        c) The Rest – homosexual and androgynous

    2) Society

      a) A Society is it’s Market. A market is not part of society. Markets are constructed by elites in each culture. And the success of each culture economically is a function of it’s market.

      b) Productivity: Economic Productivity over the long term, and a stable predictable and empirical system or cooperation are the sources of prosperity for a people, a nation, and a government. ((Productivity means the amount of profit created per hour of effort. It is measurable. ))

      c) Division Of Labor and Knowledge:

      d) Generations:

      e) Quaternum (last living memory)

      f) Charity in group and out group:

      g)

    3) Institutions: There are a number of necessary properties of a society that is highly competitive – regardless of it’s territorial resources. A Social Order can be territorial and dependent upon fixed and built capital, or it can be Diasporic/Nomadic and dependent upon human, relationship, and liquid capital. :

      Cultural-Forgone Opportunities: The first group is incorrectly referred to as psychological, and is instead a system of values that consist of “forgone opportunity costs” that must be paid by citizens in order to create the network of habits that humans can identify as their social order by conforming or non conforming to them. These principles effectively form the basis of manners, ethics and morals. (( There are plenty of other manners: such as cleanliness.))

      a) Time Preference: The first most complex problem in any society is to extend the time preference of it’s members, such that they increasingly prefer longer, more complex, and consequently, more productive outcomes.

      b) Suppression Of Corruption: Corruption is privatization of opportunities using one’s role in political organizations. The use of information to redirect opportunities or property from the citizen’s desired end, to that of the bureaucrat.

      c) A System Of Property Definitions: while we tend to think of property as a western concept, all societies have property definitions. However, the more complex a set of property definitions and the more ‘liquid’ they are without ‘exporting’ assets or privatizing profits from collective efforts, the more productive will be the society. All societies have some set of property definitions and some set of shareholders in each category of property. The question is whether the system consists of corruption or not. In the west, our unstated view, is that one can only profit by serving others, so if someone profits by the use of property he is rewarded for the service of others.

      c) Metaphysical Objectives: subvert the market, avoid the market, tolerate the market, or compete in the market. Our religious traditions hold the same principles in different logical structure: anarchic, magical, communal, cooperative, and competitive. The east and west are rational, the rest are not. The east avoids conflict because it is potentially destabilizing, and the west sees it has socially constructive and exploratory. These are complimentary social orders, although a competitive order invents market solutions faster and more frequently.

      Administrative and Procedural: The second group consists of processes:

      d) Cooperative Institutions: The outcome of this complexity however, is that humans increasingly need means of coordinating their activities. Their activities can be coordinated by prices, organizations

      e) Meritocratic Rotation of Elites / Denial Of Non Meritocratic Access: To remain competitive, the leadership in society must rotate by meritocratic means. Just as important is the fact that non-meritocratic access to power must be denied. A point not considered, is that most societies prosper when there are vast private property rights, but few political rights, because group-competitions must be conducted in the marketplace and are to the advantage of citizens, whereas political competition occurs outside the marketplace and is universally at the expense of citizens. For this reason, as long as all members of a society have property rights, there is very little value in their possessing political rights. Therefore it is often better in a homogenous society to possess some democratic institutions, but in a heterogenous society, to limit access to politics, so that the commercial market serves as an outlet for group competition with the government only playing referee.

      f) Recognizing New Rules (ethics, morals, manners, and property definitions)

      g) Coordinating Of Group Investments:

      h) Means Of Resolving Differences:

      i) Limits On Power : Religious, Philosophical, such as Natural Law, Or Constitutional.

    4) Government: That a class-based division of government with a hereditary monarch (with veto power), a ‘Lottocratic’ ((Lottocracy: where citizens are chosen by lot. )) aristocracy (responsibility for commerce and trade), and a democratically elected common house (responsible for redistribution of benefits), with some minimum criteria of conformity in order for a citizen to vote, is probably the most effective form of government that man has yet invented – because self-interest, desires and skills are aligned with delegated powers. The world was clearly a better place under the monarchs – even Russia under the Czars had political parties and trade unions. The unexpected rapidity of the impact of the industrial revolution, and the social dislocation it created, created opportunities for our ancestors to undermine our nearly ideal governments.

      a) Monarchy: Monarchs have a very long “time preference”. That means, that they tend to prefer ‘the long term outcome’ rather than short sighted ends. (This is the opposite of the ‘tragedy of the commons’ wherein people have incentives that are entirely short term.) You can look up both of those terms. Monarchs also support tribal and nationalist concepts. They also prohibit access to power – and in particular, access to power by non-economic means.

      b) Military:

      c) Judiciary:

      d) Senate:

      e) House:

      f) Bank:

    5) Rule Of Law:

      a) That a written constitution with specifically enumerated limits on the government is the source of freedom from oppression by government. Most importantly, constitutions are empirical. They are calculable. All human life in society is calculation. It must be. Because it is too complex to evaluate by the use of our senses alone.

      b) Than at independent judiciary, dependent upon “The Common Law”, and fully adherent to the constitution, in whatever its form, is the only necessary and safe body of lawmaking.

      c) And that men – and that means government – cannot make laws, only regulations, or loans, or appropriations. But not laws. Laws are discovered, not made:

        a) “There is only one law and that is property.”
        b) “We have laws because we have property. We do not have property because we have laws.”

    6) Redistribution: That a society enumerates property rights so that it is possible for people to divide the labor of production, service and invention, does not mean that society may not appropriate taxes and fees on property transactions as a ‘commission’ for administering the marketplace, and to redistribute to the society’s ‘shareholders’ – shareholders who have invested in the system of property definitions by adherence to the ‘rules’, consisting of:

      a) Property Definitions
      b) Manners, Ethics and Morals

    which we call our society, or social order.

7) Failure: Governments and empires fail for these reasons:

    a) Debasement: because of the corruption of their currency, almost exclusively due to debasement,

    b) Overextension: the overextension of their obligations, largely through the pursuit of wars of expansion, or the pursuit of symbolic monuments such as the parthenon, but also including subsidies of the proletariat such as rome or contemporary western europe.

    c) Birth Rates: insufficient or excess birth rates – excess men creating revolution, insufficient men creating economic and military weakness.

    d) Money: shortage of money and credit,

    e) Trade Routes: changes in trade routes,

    f) Calculative Institutions: size in excess of their system of incentives and calculation for determining the use of resources – insufficient calculating technology such as accounting, property rights, and individual accountability.

    g) Irrationalism: the degradation of political debate from the practical and empirical, first to rational then to moral – as the system of calculation breaks down.

    h) Cultural Habits/Opportunity Costs: the dissolution of the system of opportunity costs that are codified in property definitions, manners, ethics and morals – due to largely to immigration, or religious or ideological revolution – in other words, an ideological conversion of the system of property rights and it’s consequential impact on production and trade.

    i) Externalities: external military shocks and invasions,

    j) Disasters: losses to the capital structure from natural disasters.

8) Three Types Of Coercion

    a) Physical
    b) Moral
    c) Remunerative

9) Social and Economic Classes

10) Human Failure:

    a) Violence
    b) Theft
    c) Fraud
    d) Corruption

11) Failures Of Political Discourse
a) the multitude of transfers

12) The Hierarchy Of Argument

    a) sentiments
    b) analogy
    c) history
    d) reason
    e) science
    f) economics

13) Personal Ethics
a) Speak The Truth, and at worst say nothing
b) Do Nothing To Others You Would Not Want Done Unto You
c) Engage in no exchange wherein the other party will ever regret his purchase.

15) Social Problems In Advanced Society
a) The Loneliness and Anonymity Of The Division Of Labor and The Affect On Society
b) The Difference Between The Urban And The Rural
c) The Status Competition Between Groups who will seek political power to alter their condition.

The utility of different governments can be determined by historical analogy, by articulated reason, by empirical study of economic performance, and by demonstrated stability against revolution, adaptability to external shocks, and the temporal duration of the system of rules itself. Under those criteria, only the class-tiered system of government survives scrutiny. In particular, democratic governments are temporary, and the result of extraordinary wealth created by conquest of new territory or trade routes. And totalitarian governments are impoverishing, regardless of circumstances. It is the combination of all forms of government so that the different social classes have institutions wich allow them to achieve their ends without detriment to the institutions of the society that is superior to forms of government that reflect the desires ONLY of certain classes of society. Our western error has been that we feel we must enfranchise everyone into the same structure without accounting for differences in our knowledge, skill, ability and preferences.

Unfortunately, the horrors of the world wars caused westerners to question their civilization’s principles, rather than the rate of technological evolution and the rate of population growth, and our inability to EXTEND our system of western government fast enough to accomodate them, and instead we have, quite wrongly, thrown out the entire system rather than improving it by ADDING to our rather empirical system of government. The consequences of marxian collectivism, coinciding with feminism, the debate over slavery, and the immigration of non-western people’s, was far greater than our system could tolerate. And the reason our system could not tolerate it, was because we were still relying too much on moral religious doctrine rather than fully articulated reason: we simply did not understand the reasons our western form of government was superior.

Uncategorized

No Whoopie, It’s Not About Race.

Over on Real Clear Politics, Whoopie Goldberg says she’s Playing The Race Card.
To which I reply:

It’s not about race. It’s about the welfare state’s collectivism vs classical liberalism’s individualism.

Three Rules of Politics:

  • RULE 1: “People will not tolerate rulership by someone who despises them and their values.”
  • RULE 2:“People will not tolerate taxation when the proceeds are used for purposes with which they disagree.”
  • RULE 3: “Everyone reverts to group persistence under duress. EVERYONE. So people have racial, cultural, class, and genration biases. They are biased for their group under duress, and egalitarian under prosperity. This is basic behavioral economics. There is no data, anywhere, that supports an alternative view.

If someone despises you, and uses your taxes for purposes that you disagree with, and you’re under economic duress, then that’s all that’s required to understanding their political position. People despised, and continue to despise Jimmy Carter for the same reasons as they do Obama.

FACT 1: Whites pay the vast majority of taxes. While the government does everything it can to obscure the fact that taxes are primarily a white burden, the fact remains, that taxes are almost entirely a white burden. This violates Rule 2 above. And under economic duress it invokes Rule 3 above.

If anything is racially loaded, it’s that whites are unique in the world, and in world history, in preferring classical liberalism’s individual freedom and responsibility over the alternatives offered by other, less successful cultures.

If race is involved, it’s because Obama demonstrably disdains white people. I didn’t use the word ‘hate’. That’s a loaded word for silly people. But, why else would he call a meeting with a board of six like minded economic advisors this spring without a single white person among them?

If race was involved why would whites try to draft Colin Powell, and why would whites be such avid supporters of black conservatives?

So, it’s not about race. It’s about being anti-American. American being defined as a class of rights that white, anglo-germanic people invented, and codified in a constitution, and who have consistently extended those rights to other peoples. And have fought wars to extend to other peoples. And born sacrifices to carry to other peoples.

So if you want to make it about race, and we actually get the data out during the election cycle, it will have quite the opposite effect that advocates of ‘playing the race card’ will intend. That’s because white people are beginning to act like the minority that they are becoming. And in that process, they have, and will continue to cease feeling guilt over slavery, or their dominance over the expansion of the institutions of prosperity that we call capitalism, and will increasingly act as does the Jewish lobby: in self interest. And for African Americans, if whites lose their guilt and become a minority, and act as diasporic capitalists like the Jews, how is the rest of the world going to treat Africans and African Americans?

Playing the race card is a losing proposition.

So lets just stick with having the argument over the welfare state and collectivism versus classical liberalism and individualism.

Uncategorized

The Questionable Ethics Of Climate Scientists And Economists

Karl Popper (who wrote the Logic of Scientific Discovery) and Thomas Kuhn (who wrote the structure of scientific revolutions) approached the problem of knowledge in the domain of DISCOVERY, which we call the physical sciences. At the same time, the CLOSE FRIEND of Karl Popper, Friedrich Hayek, worked on the problem of hubris in the social sciences. Hayek ended up combating Keynes over the frailty of models and reason. Keynes wrote ‘A Treatise On Probability” and then the “General Theory” which led to the governmental use of economic calculation that all of us live under, by trying to solve for unemployment – something Hayek (correctly) stated was not possible in the long run and would lead (as it has) to our bankruptcy. Hayek stated that traditional knowledge that was handed down, and perpetuated by trial and error, was ‘true’ even if we did not understand it rationally as yet. And that our record of rational judgment was exceedingly frail, and that history was filled with examples (past and present) of ridiculous scientific error. Keynes won in the short term however, because his theory solved the problem of socialism by replacing a false pretense of REASON (a managed economy), with the false pretense of PROBABILITY ( a monetarist economy) in the field of national economics. In other words, Keynes gave politicians power over our economies. The power that has led us to our financial crisis.

BOTH Popper and Hayek were countering two problems. A) the use of the fairly new field of statistical analysis and it’s limitations at prediction due to what Nassim Taleb calls the LUDIC FALLACY. And B) the rise of Socialism, and the socialist hubris of central planning . These men, plus Hayek’s mentor Ludwig von Mises, effectively undermined and predicted the impossibility of a socialist economy. Both men stated that human minds are frail and capable of very limited reason and prediction. More importantly, that the Anglo RECORD OF WHAT WORKS, or EMPIRICISM, is a superior form of KNOWLEDGE to the French (and then Marxian) fantasy of RATIONALISM. The fact that the average american does not understand this by doctrinare education difference is probably equal to the use of today’s mysticism in Islam or medieval christianity. It is a means of keeping people ignorant. We have attempted to replace mysticism with science without also teaching history (mythology) which teaches us the error of hubris. We do not teach history because in a pluralistic society, history includes value judgments and value judgements are class, race, and culture judgements. However, aside from class, race and culture, we are taught only the error of the churches, without the errors of silly scientists who were little better than shaman. We did not teach our children HUBRIS. Greek mythology teaches one lesson above all others: Hubris.

[callout]We have attempted to replace mysticism with science without also teaching history (mythology) which teaches us the error of hubris. We do not teach history because in a pluralistic society, history includes value judgments and value judgements are class, race, and culture judgements.[/callout]

To the physical sciences, which is the process of DISCOVERY of what EXISTS already, is the objective of study. The holy grail is to discover the first-causal properties of the physical universe. To economists, the problem is one of INVENTION. This is called Hume’s problem, or the problem of induction. That is, what can humans INVENT given their current state of knowledge. THe problem of economic science, which is the ONLY social science we yet possess, is similar to climate science in complexity, yet additionally more complicated because there is no process of EQUILIBRATION in the intellectual world. (there is no human equivalent to the law of thermodynamics – there is in fact, energy added to the system. We call it ‘increases in production’.) Nor is time constant. In fact, that’s what productivity does: it creates more ‘time’ by using less of it to produce more calories. Instead, of an equilibrium as in nature, the mind of man invents new ideas all the time from permutations of existing patterns and disrupts all attempts at equilibria.

Both forms of our theories, whether physical science or economic science, can only be tested by FALSIFICATION. Unless you can stipulate ACTIONS by which we can prove climate hypothesis false, they are not in fact, scientific. For example, Einstein said that the absence of red shift would falsify one of his theories.

The first principle of Greek Rationalism is SKEPTICISM as a warning against HUBRIS. Hubris is a danger because of the cognitive biases humans of necessity possess because we attribute higher value to that which we study most.

TRUTH IN SCIENCE IS PREDICTION AND FALSIFICATION. Models are not truth. They are tools for rationalizing data. The carpenter may not understand the metallurgy of his chisel. He may not understand the distribution channel for his wood. The scientist is often using chisels and wood that he or she does not understand. If he or she understood, then he or she would understand that the peer review process CANNOT WORK. DOES NOT WORK, and QUANTIFIABLY, given the record, DOES NOT WORK. Furthermore, he or she would understand that only FALSIFICATION, not correspondence with a model, is the means of proving a theory.

Since these two problems DISCOVERY (Physical Science) and INVENTION (induction) are the two fundamental problems of the universe, it is not surprising that we are still incompetent at both.

What is surprising is that in both PHYSICAL SCIENCE and in ECONOMIC SCIENCE, the cognitive bias we bring to our studies, in which we confuse the practical utility of the limited tools and methods of our craft, consistently overwhelms and suppresses the knowledge that in fact, out tools are rough approximations with very poor records of prediction. And that only a combination of prediction and falsification demonstrate the veracity of any theory in either domain.

[callout]A financier who violates one of these principles, or a lawyer, or a craftsman, is held accountable for violating the ethics of his craft. With free speech, comes the same ethical constraint on Physical and Economic scientists. That is because there is HARM put upon populations whenever our work products are put into the public domain such that they may be used for the purpose of policy. The reason is, that all public policy is the application of VIOLENCE[/callout]

A financier who violates one of these principles, or a lawyer, or a craftsman, is held accountable for violating the ethics of his craft. With free speech, comes the same ethical constraint on Physical and Economic scientists. That is because there is HARM put upon populations whenever our work products are put into the public domain such that they may be used for the purpose of policy. The reason is, that all public policy is the application of VIOLENCE: the forcible taking of resources and the coercion of individual behavior under the treat of violence. The scientist or the economists is appealing for the application of violence to his purposes.

Therefore, a scientist is operating ethically by publishing FACTS. He or she is NOT operating ethically when he publishes theories or predictions unless the theory is accompanied by falsification. Failure to include how to falsify one’s theories is by definition a form of deception.

If we made it possible to sue scientists the way we can sue doctors and CEO’s then no doubt the quality of work would increase dramatically. And the fact that we cannot sue scientists for the harm that they cause, puts them in the realm with fortune tellers and astrologists.

Uncategorized

Camus Didn’t Take It Far Enough

Camus starts The Myth of Sisyphus with this insight.

“There is but one truly serious philosophical problem and that is suicide.”

To which I’ll add:

“There is but one truly serious problem of political philosophy, and that is, why not kill others and take their property?”

We always assume common interest, and that politics starts with debate. Debate is a proxy for violence. But we too often assume that a proxy is equally advantageous. It isn’t. Debate arose uniquely in the west as a means of enfranchising fellow warriors who must pay the high cost of equipping themselves for battle, so that they can participate in the fraternal defense of market centers – what we call towns, or cities, or the polis. It was a transfer of social status and power from the strong to the weak, so that together they might be stronger. The assumed equality in debate is for the purpose of the debate itself. Equality does not exist outside of that venue. There are the weak, and the strong. Violence is still the choice of the strong. And debate is a trade off for them. They hope to be stronger by it. But if debate becomes a means of making them weaker, they have the choice to return to violence.

The only serious question of politics is why the strong do not kill or enslave the weak. From that question all others follow.

If instead, we start with any other assumption, there is already a transfer of wealth going on, from the strong to the weak.

Uncategorized

Correcting Our Uses Of Taxes, Law, Money And Credit

There is a natural conflict between the need to avoid a scarcity of cash and credit, such that all opportunities for increases in productivity within the economy can be exploited, and the fact that fiat money and fiat credit tend to mask, obscure and distort the information that would come from climbing interest rates.

The general strategy has been to monitor the interest rate. However, the interest rate alone is not a sufficient barometer because a) people ‘flock’ or ‘school’ to over exploit opportunities — and b) unfortunately, (and this is becoming a topic of interest by the serious mathematicians in the field due to the plethora of data collected from the boom) it appears the entire economy is becoming governed, not by opportunities and not by productivity, but by nothing more than *responses to the discount rate.* Which means, (as the austrians have said for a century), the distortion caused by fiat money is cumulatively, and recursively the source of booms and busts.

Of course, the fact that those of us say it is logically obvious is countered by the short term quants who fall into the ludic fallacy of probabilism.

[callout]There is a natural conflict between the need to avoid a scarcity of cash and credit, such that all opportunities for increases in productivity within the economy can be exploited, and the fact that fiat money and fiat credit tend to mask, obscure and distort the information that would come from climbing interest rates.[/callout]

There is a way out of this problem. But we would need a long and deep discussion about the nature of government to fix it. We are using a system of lawmaking and taxation that was invented for an agrarian era when the unit of work was at best a season, but accounts were settled annually. We live today in a world where the month is a meaningless topic, and only weeks and quarters are of informational value.

Instead, by the combination of pooling accounts (the error of aggregation of plastic categories under quantitative analysis), taxes (which are disconnected from the causal actions that produce profits), and fiat money and fiat credit (which obscure information signals) we effectively launder causality from the pricing system which is the entire purpose of HAVING a pricing system.

If we issued loans rather than collected taxes, this problem would right itself quite quickly, and both our political rhetoric, and abuses by the government would be much more rational and tangible if we did. Or rather we taxed what we should (income against an averaged three year balance sheet) and we gave loans rather than provided general liquidity, we would allow private money to pursue it’s ends and public money it’s ends.

[callout]There is a way out of this problem. But we would need a long and deep discussion about the nature of government to fix it. [/callout]

Furthermore, tagging all financial transactions, then treating the internet, and the financial network as a utility that can tolerate failure through multiple layers of redundancy wouldn’t hurt either. There is nothing magic about this series of prescriptions. They simply prevent the laundering of causal information from the pricing system by the error of aggregation.

In the simplest terms, tax pooling and general funds are money laundering. Loans are causally transparent. Taxes are causally opaque. We cannot have a RATIONAL government if the data that they rely upon is by DEFINITION, IRRATIONAL, null, and void of rational content.

THE DISCOUNT RATE IS, FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES, AN ERROR OF AGGREGATION.

THIS ERROR THEN “FINACIAL-IZES” THE ECONOMY OUT OF THE PURSUIT OF PRODUCTIVITY.

(Of course, under that scenario the profits of the big banks would be captured by the public sector.)

Uncategorized

Fiat And Private Money From Both Sides Of The Coin

The first reason that the USA wanted it’s own money is so that it did not export profits to England or France in the form of currency appreciation. The second reason was to reduce trade friction between the colonies. The third was because private money is a riskier proposition, and trade was artificially limited by the instability and problems that came from runs and scares. The reasons that the USA developed the banking system and fiat money was because there was a shortage of money to lend in order to finance the westward expansion of the country.

[callout]Since only the government, which consists of citizens who spend their time on geographic protection, protects the geographic territory, and since the citizens are shareholders in the government, then to expect the government to conduct territorial wars, yet to allow private profiteering of the windfall opportunity of geographic expansion because the state is unable to create money to provide the credit, is for individuals to PRIVATIZE WINS AND SOCIALIZE LOSSES. [/callout]

Credit money is useful to all societies and it DOES cause inflation, because there is no way for people to KNOW when and when not to lend. As long as there is credit money there will be booms and busts. Paper money is necessary for the same reasons – there are artificial limits to competitive productivity without paper money, and without fiat money. Furthermore, as we have seen in the PIGS countries, fiat money tends to decrease corruption. Early in US history, when they tried a multiplicity of monies it created financial instability and trade friction. It was only after taking the dollar off the gold standard that we saw the abuse of it. The question is, if there is a geographic opportunity, should private investors profit from that or should the government profit from it? That is not the same type of investment as the use of private personal knowledge for the purpose of increasing production. Since only the government, which consists of citizens who spend their time on geographic protection, protects the geographic territory, and since the citizens are shareholders in the government, then to expect the government to conduct territorial wars, yet to allow private profiteering of the windfall opportunity of geographic expansion because the state is unable to create money to provide the credit, is for individuals to PRIVATIZE WINS AND SOCIALIZE LOSSES. This may take a few readings to understand. But this is the entire point.

Christian Classical liberalism and it’s restatement as Hayekian libertarianism differs from jewish anarchism and it’s restatement as Hothbardian libertarianism almost entirely because christians are philosophically fraternal land holders, and their metaphysics assumes the necessity of land holding, while jews assume land is magically held by someone else because they are metaphysically nomadic and have been diasporic since being conquered by Rome. These assumptions have been part of both groups’ tribal sentiments, philosophy and cultural ethics for thousands of years. Judaism is an arrested civilization. Christianity is an overextended civilization. But you will have a hard time pointing to the success of non-landed civilizations.

So, in the end, private money is as often a means of privatizing wins and socializing losses as is fiat money a means of destroying productivity and socializing profits that were made by individuals taking personal risks. The problem with money is that it serves to coordinate diverse and dispersed and fragmentary human KNOWLEDGE, and that gold, or hard money, or private money, because it is scarce, serves better to make use of that dispersed knowledge by capturing willingness to put it behind any initiative or investment that might be poorly considered. While soft money helps to solve the problem that occurs when people have a willingness because they agree on an opportunity for investment, yet they cannot obtain the scarce money to do so. Our problem is not necessarily fiat money. It is that the state can use ‘pooling’ of funds to mask transfers. That is a deeper conversation. But hopefully I have given you some food for thought.

Uncategorized

Governments Should Be Empirical Not Moral

All societies in history, without exception, appear to have a ‘referee’ or ‘judge’ — usually an elder male. This topic has been researched to death: Egalitarian tribal warfare societies have some elder male. Chieftain societies tend to concentrate decision making power. Urban societies develop specialists. Advanced civilizations have micro-specialists (judges). Likewise, as they grow, societies also develop specialists for extra-group conflict resolution (warriors), and specialists for in-group conflict resolution (politicians). It is impossible to have a peaceful and prosperous society without conflict resolution because planning and risk taking necessary for production become impossible.

If we continue our evolution into industrialization, market economies become so much more productive than any other in history, that shareholders (people who pay the cost of adhering to norms and rules) desire returns on their investment in that society via conformity.

[callout] If instead, our government operated as a bank and insurance company, it would be empirical, calculative and specific rather than rational and deliberative, and general. As such, it would be far less easy to rely upon supposedly moral arguments, that are in effect, universally, without exception, forms of deception or convenient rationalizations and justifications for either theft, class warfare, or corruption.[/callout]

The problem for social scientists, and the citizenry, is not the rational constitution of, and methods used by these different specialists in conflict resolution. The problems are the coordination of their activities, the setting of priorities, and the limits on their privatization of opportunities (corruption), as roles filled by individuals evolve into institutions and then into methodological, self interested bureaucracies.

In the private sector we use prices, money and accounting and contracts to coordinate our activities – they are empirical. Instead, the bureaucracies coordinate their activities using laws, regulations and rules – and laws and rules are insufficiently granular and empirical for the size and complexity of our current population sizes and the resulting complexity of our devision of knowledge and labor (instead their moderately rational, which is less precise, and more reliant on interpretation).

This is the problem with the rule of law – the formal principle for any law is that it must apply to all people equally in order to protect the citizenry from overreach. It is by definition and necessity a GENERAL rather than SPECIFIC tool. If instead, our government operated as a bank and insurance company, it would be empirical, calculative and specific rather than rational and deliberative, and general.

As such, it would be far less easy to rely upon supposedly moral arguments, that are in effect, universally, without exception, forms of deception or convenient rationalizations and justifications for either theft, class warfare, or corruption. This is the hole in our philosophy of government. (It is the hole some of us are trying desperately to fill with a solution.)