Joel Davis · Uncategorized

Joel Davis on Deflationary Government

By Joel Davis

The enforcers (sovereigns) produce law, and as a consequence, markets. The taxpayers (subjects) use the markets, under the law, as consumers of market goods, services, and information.

I would advocate a constitution as a contract of mutually enforced recipriocity (justice) between enforcers.

I would advocate the enforcers appoint a supreme justice (or supreme court of justices) as supreme authorities on the application of the constitution.

I would advocate the enforcers appoint a governor-general (president) as supreme commander (chief executive) of the enforcers.

And, I would advocate a senate to represent them in negotiations with other sovereigns (foreign policy), and with their customers (taxpayers) who I would advocate have their own house of representatives they elect to negotiate on their behalf with the enforcer elected senate (economic policy).

Matej Lovrić · Uncategorized

Gender Opportunity Costs

—“As opportunity costs for women to enter in monogamous relations rises, men must pay more premium for exclusivity of monogamic relations in a world where there is mens value of labor in massive deflation and women’s reproductive labor on inflation. And that premium is payed with power because, women don’t need any more comfort.”–Matej Lovrić

James Augustus · Uncategorized

Economics of Abandoning Reason

—“I am unwilling and/or unable to pay the cognitive cost of acquiring and producing a rational means of decidability, whereby I enumerate the existentially possible options available to me, the corresponding cost and yield (and therefor profit) of acting acting upon those options, and whereby I identify any externality (cost) that I may impose on man if I so chose to act upon those options in accordance with natural law—and in the absence of the calculable (decidable), rely on intuition instead.”—James Augustus

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.

Joel Davis

Rational Self Interest

Apr 09, 2017 6:01am
by Joel Davis
Assuming self-interest is rational, by punishing all non-reciprocating choices via law, acting in group interest becomes rational.

I don’t care if you reciprocate by rational self-interest or as a result of high prosociality, as long as you reciprocate.

Assuming the maximization of group fitness has higher potential yields to individual fitness than any other factor, and assuming the maximization of individual fitness is desired, this is rational self-interest.

Moritz Bierling · Uncategorized

Free Will


—“Up until now everybody has gotten it completely backwards: free will is not rebelling against nature and escaping natural cause-and-effect, but it is exactly the opposite. By becoming part of the cause-and-effect chains and inserting ourselves into them, we gain agency.”—Moritz Bierling

James Augustus · Uncategorized

Via Negativa (Evolutionary Argument) in Historial Explanation

by James Augustus

My central argument is that Europe benefited by having an evolutionary environment that allowed for a high frequency of cultural, institutional and intellectual iterations, and that truth, sovereignty and natural law produce an existential advantage, so that what survived is what we call Western Civilization and its peoples.

It is easy to look back at what survived and construct a rational narrative, but by doing so we are being fooled by randomness as Taleb is so succinct at pointing out.

Evolutionary arguments are superior inasmuch as they point to what didn’t survive (via negativa) deterministically due to selection pressures.