Eli Harman · Uncategorized · Violence

The Information Content of Violence

by Eli Harman

It’s an article of faith among many libertarians that violence, and particularly aggressive violence, is necessarily negative sum.

Prices contain information and markets broker them (in a subjective utility maximising way.) Violence only short circuits that, disrupts markets, destroy price signals, and makes everyone worse off.

But this is not correct.

In the first place, market transactions aren’t necessarily positive sum. If they are fraudulent or create negative externalities for those not party, they can be negative sum.
And in the second place, violence is itself a signal, and transmits information. A threat expresses a subjective evaluation just as an offer does in the marketplace. “Hey, don’t do that or we’re going to fight.”

And the initiation of hostilities demonstrates the authenticity of that information just as a payment does in the marketplace. One undertakes real cost, and real risk, in resorting to violence.

(In contrast, whining, and playing the victim DO NOT demonstrate the authenticity of grievances in the way that resorting to violence does, and so are liable and likely to prove negative sum, if indulged, just as theft is liable and likely to prove negative sum, in the marketplace, because it does not make a sufficient demonstration and exchange of value.)

Markets and prices on the one hand, and violence and threats on the other, are both necessary components to a stable, functional, and efficient society and economy. To suppress either wholly in favor of the other, would be to forego the benefits they offer, and to pervert incentives towards destructive outcomes.

No society which does either will be able to compete, long term, against one which makes a more sensible tradeoff between them, making best use of information supplied by both exchange and conflict.

Violence is the means of expressing the subjective evaluations not captured by price signals, which are as vast and varied as those which are.

Eli Harman · Joel Davis · Violence

The Economics and Ethics of Violence

by Joel Davis and Eli Harman 

(eds: this is an example of how propertarian argument is done.)

Joel Davis
So essentially, the maximum possible taxation that we can levy without diminishing the incentive to voluntarily organise production, we should levy, so that we may construct the most powerful military possible and to maximize the likelihood of supremacy?

Following on from this reasoning, shouldn’t we seek to utilize this military advantage to establish as large an empire as possible, so as we can expand taxation and further expand our military capability whilst neutralizing all threats further expanding our margin of supremacy?

Eli Harman
There are diminishing marginal economies of scale. At some point, they always become diseconomies.

Joel Davis
So, then the argument becomes, we must expand empire to the limit of profitability?

How may we determine when we have reached this limit?

Eli Harman
When the marginal cost exceeds the marginal benefit.

Joel Davis
So, we have to pass the limit to identify it?

Therefore, we must expand empire in all possible directions limited only by the observed limits of marginal profitability.

Potential marginal profitability rises with the efficiency of force expenditure. Therefore, surely the polity would seek to expand its’ efficiency in the application of violence, and in doing so, expand its’ capacity to extract marginal profitability from the application of violence?

Joel Davis
If we accept the rational incentive to utilize violence and exchange for maximum marginal profitability.

Why not gossip/rallying/shaming?

Eli Harman
Because the feminine means of coercion are not correlated to any productive measures, whereas the masculine means of coercion depend on economic production, truth, rule of law, etc… Weak and parasitic, vs. strong and productive.

Joel Davis
I was under the impression that feminine means of coercion correlate to reproductive measures.

Surely we could take this form of analysis to Reproductive Markets?

In a polity which prohibits rape, females regulate reproductive access.

Therefore, there must be marginal profitability in reproduction. I wouldn’t consider this parasitic.

How else can the establishment of monogamous sexual morality occur but by gossip?

Eli Harman
In a polity which prohibits rape, males can still regulate reproductive access by controlling property. And monogamy can be enforced by law (violence) among men to facilitate assortative mating according to, on the male side, relative wealth and status, and on the female side, relative youth, beauty and fertility. Gossip is not strictly necessary.

Joel Davis
Hmm interesting.

So, it seems we have Three interrelated markets of exchange.

Three Markets:

  1. Market for Violence,
  2. Market for Production and the
  3. Market for Reproduction.

Reasoning:

  • The rational incentive to engage in violence exists where the potential marginal profitability of violence exists.
  • As the capacity for violence increases so does the capacity to generate profit. The Market for Violence (Conflict) establishes the appropriation of energy (profits).
  • This incentivizes individuals to confederate for the purposes of mutually expanding their capacity for violence up to the limit of the marginal profitability of confederacy.
  • This also incentivizes cooperation for the production of resources and technology which expand the capacity for violence up to the limit of the marginal profitability of production.
  • These observations incentivize the formation by the violent confederacy of a realm in which to establish a Market for Production (a Polity), so they may extract the maximum increase in the capacity for violence from its’ production.
  • In order for the Polity to maintain maximum productivity and violent capacity (and therefore the maximum potential marginal profitability on violence) long-term, it requires as much reproduction as possible, which functions as eugenically as possible, to the limit of marginal profitability.
  • Therefore, the polity establishes a Market for Reproduction (Marriage), so they may extract the maximum increase in the capacity for production and violence.
  • The violent confederacy must prohibit all actions by individuals within the polity which diminish the capacity for these markets to function to their maximum efficiency to maintain maximum profitability on their investment in establishing the polity.
  • Therefore, the violent confederacy must limit action to perfect recipriocity of marginal costs and benefits between members of the polity, so as to incentivize productive actions which contribute to the competitiveness of the polity.

(Therefore a prohibition of any form of gossip which diminishes the capacity for these markets to function to maximum efficiency must exist… Thus a requirement for what Curt’s proposed limits to lawful speech)

Aphorisms · Violence

Politics is a Proxy for Violence

Politics is a proxy for violence between men. A market for trades to avoid violence.

Women have permission to use this proxy -within limits. But risking life and limb is not substitutable. They risk men, not themselves.

So, women: be very careful what you do with that violence. Because men are very aware that the proxy is revokable, and we can return to violence.

We always, like children, test one another. Sometimes we find the limits .Unfortunately, the limit in politics is the restoration of violence.

5.7.1-The Reformation of Mythology · 5.7.2-The Reformation of Religion · Violence

We Will End History As We Started It: With Violence.

(by James Augustus Berens)
We Will Bring About The End Of History.
Not through submission but through sovereignty.
Not through permission but through demand.
Not through falsehoods but through truth.
Not through discretionary rule but through rule of natural law.
Not through majority monopoly ascent but through minority market consent and dissent.
Not through supernatural monotheism but through historical polytheism
Not through indulging the meek, feeble minded and vulgar but through the promotion of the strong, wise and beautiful.
The Hebrews had it backward: man has not fallen from God’s grace; he has transcended the primitive through domestication of his underclasses and his alpha males.
Man wasn’t cast from the Garden for eating from the tree of knowledge; we built the garden through the inter-generational accumulation of informational capital.
We had the prefect government, but we failed to anticipate and protect ourselves from the industrialization of misinformation, deceit and pseudoscience.
History ends with the completion of the western project: The Truthful Society.
We must demand truth by leaving our enemies no alternative but to compete in the market for association, cooperation, production, information, reproduction, commons, dispute resolution, and rule.
The alternative is to fall into another dark age from which we may never recover: to submit once again to the dark forces of mysticism, ignorance, deceit, and dysgenia.
–James Augustus Berens

Uncategorized · Violence

Absent Juridical Defense, We Must Return To Violence.

As Sovereign men we create juridical defense to keep peace among equals. We appeal to the MARKET OF PEERS (JURY) FOR resolution of the disputes. Thus submitting to the peers, and asking for equal treatment as is due all peers: insurance against the imposition of costs.

But if we lack juridical defense, or are prevented from juridical defense, then there is no reason by which we can seek insurance by the group, and instead, must self-insure, by restitution, punishment, and if necessary death, of those who impose upon us.

As far as I know we can kill Soros.

Uncategorized · Violence

Violence Is The Most Truthful Form of Argument

VIOLENCE IS THE MOST TRUTHFUL FORM OF ARGUMENT AND THE NECESSARY RESPONSE TO DECEIT

It took a long time for the right to slowly abandon our Victorian taboos and to stoop to the vaudevillian farce and ridicule of the left.

But we are better at it than they are. Just as we were better at the Victorian good manners that they rebelled against.

If we had not abandoned our ancient ways of the duel, libel and slander we could have maintained argumentative taboos and punished the left for their avoidance if truth and use of gossip and ridicule and lies.

But even so, how would we have constrained their innovation upon lying by mysticism, by the invention of pseudoscience, relativistic law, cultural criticism, false promise of Utopianism?

To do that we must create a test of truth.

Now that we have a test if truth we can return to the full set of prohibitions that require truthfulness – or resort to the only logical response to gossip, critique, pseudo-rationalism, relativistic legalism, pseudoscience, and deceit: Violence.

Comments
–“Dawid Wella : Shorter, violence is the ultimate insurance and it forces you to have skin in the game”––“Con Eli Khan: Violence ensures that imposed costs are answered with reciprocal costs.”–