2.7.1-Orders · Uncategorized

Peter Boettke On The Reveal: Partisan Cheerleaders Not Social Critics

 

—“Observation — journalists and other intellectuals freaking out over the outcome of the election reveal that they were never really “students” of society, or even “social critics”, but were instead partisan cheerleaders. Also, it appears that many are completely incapable of asking themselves whether it might be possible that the consensus of the progressive elite in public policy is perhaps neither as accurately descriptive of how the world works or as normatively appealing as they sincerely believe. Rather than critical self-reflection we see outrage, blame, and emotional expression of pain.

There are many reasons to be concerned, but the responsible response from intellectuals is to think through rationally, to ask what I was wrong about, try to force yourself to pass an ideological Turning Test, and to recognize that if there are institutional problems the answer requires institutional solutions.

Liberal democratic traditions do not work based on the “good” and the “wise” being in power, but were designed so that “bad men can do least harm”. Let’s hope those liberal democratic institutions are still in operation after so many years of sustained critique by progressive intellectuals.
Democratic governance (liberalism) is a different beast from bureaucratic governance (progressivism). Bureaucratic governance requires trained experts immune from democratic checks and balances, democratic governance requires responsible citizens and institutions that empower as well as constrain.”– Peter Boettke

(NOTE: I would say they are all engaged in customer seeking – a long form of rent seeking. The interesting question not discussed is that because we humans make use of law, religion, and market, but we choose a dominant bias with which to employ them in our social orders, yielding:

(1)kin/law,
(2)cult/religion, or
(3)state/corporatism;

Depending upon homogeneity or heterogeneity of the population; to overcome resistance to the creation and preservation of commons – so that why is it that one bias in the order is always better off than the others? And why does not social-criticism and intellectual-decidability limit itself to the order desired by the population? of course, we know the answer is genetic in both desire for construct, and in the expression of that desire for construct as a will to power.

I frequently ask the same question: why do economists vary in bias of decidability? for the same reason: austrian-social-science and rule of law preserving sovereignty, freshwater limits of rule of law as a commons against harm, and saltwater abandonment of rule of law in favor of preferential discretion in order to acquire customers for the state.

If it isn’t clear to you, then the answer is this: anything other than kin/law is nothing more than an act of war by slower means. – CD )

2.7.1-Orders · 4.3.9.7-Slavery · Uncategorized

The Evolution of Slaveries

THE EVOLUTION OF SLAVERY
Slavery exists wherever exit, and return to subsistence, is practically impossible.

Slavery: violence slave
Serfdom: land slave
Employee: wage slave
Consumer: credit slave
Citizen: tax slave

The only freedom is food, water, and shelter, self-sufficiency, with participation in the market purely voluntary.

And only commissions on transactions payment for the commons.

Yet all of us must be paid for policing of the commons if we police it – dividends.

With self-sufficiency and payment for commons we gain liberty. All else is slavery.

Roughly speaking each person could take 10k in dividends at present. Between self-sufficiency and 10k in dividends on our continuous investment in the commons, we would possess liberty.

Otherwise we’re just farmed.

2.7-Politics · 2.7.1-Orders

Kin, Class, Caste: Models And Functions

Nov 19, 2016 11:50am
KIN, CLASS, CASTE: MODELS AND FUNCTIONS

Kinship System (oligarchy)(small nation states),
Class System (informal institution – markets) or
Caste System (formal institution – religion and laws),

exist universally in all nations, states, and empires. Without exception. It’s arguable the entire world operates as a caste system with whites arguably the minority aristocracy, followed by east Asians, then Hindus, then steppes, then Arabs, then the darker races. The data in every walk of life agrees with it. Just how it is.

We see it in the patterns of relations in every walk of life. Why? because of (a) kin selection, (b) reproductive desirability, (c) commercial desirability (d) political desirability.

kinship systems show the least diversity, class the next most diverse.

Now, is a caste system superior or inferior to a class system? Well it depends upon the problems of managing the size of the underclass. The smaller the underclass the more useful kin and market orders. the larger the underclass the more useful the authoritarian and caste orders.

All the warm climate states have the problem of the inability to reduce the relative size of the underclass and therefore create a voluntary organization of production using the proceeds of whatever they can produce. This means that any warm climate people unable to cull the lower classes will have permanent favelas and slums, and northern climes that eliminate lower classes will continue to prosper.

There is a strange economics to the use of air conditioning.

The hindus are … unnecessarily limited by the cast system and will do much better with the class system in the market order. However, it will mean (likely) degeneration into more Muslim frameworks more tolerable by leadership from the underclasses.

Islam is suitable for rule of the ‘evil 80’s.’ Hinduism preserves the ability for a class to prevent expansion of rule by the evil 80’s.

2.4-Sociology · 2.7-Politics

The Three Orders: Kin, Cult, State

I would say that the Cathedral Complex (state, academy, media) are all engaged in customer seeking – an incrementalist form of rent seeking. They profit from the building of customers and rents.

The interesting question not discussed is that because we humans make use of law, religion, and market, but we choose a dominant bias with which to employ them in our social orders, yielding:

(1)kin/law,
(2)cult/religion, or
(3)state/corporatism;

depending upon homogeneity or heterogeneity of the population; to overcome resistance to the creation and preservation of commons – so that why is it that one bias in the order is always better off than the others?

And why does not social-criticism and intellectual-decidability limit itself to the order desired by the population? of course, we know the answer is genetic in both desire for construct, and in the expression of that desire for construct as a will to power.

I frequently ask the same question: why do economists vary in bias of decidability? for the same reason: austrian-social-science and rule of law preserving sovereignty, freshwater limits of rule of law as a commons against harm, and saltwater abandonment of rule of law in favor of preferential discretion in order to acquire customers for the state.

If it isn’t clear to you, then the answer is this: anything other than kin/law is nothing more than an act of war by slower means.

We have been at war. We are at war.

Time to win the war.

2.7-Politics

Non-Conflationary West

The west is deconflationary. We do not confuse methods of arguments, disciplines that make use of them, institutions that provide and manage them.

We maintain a competition, and circumvent any monopoly: *power*.

|— LIMITS ——- > UTILITY ——–> GOALS/IDEALS–>

  • LIMITS: Law, legal jurisdiction – secular jurisdiction – a discovered science of dispute resolution.
  • UTILITY: Trade – practical jurisdiction – a learned craft of pragmatism.
  • IDEALS: Matters spiritual – are literary – and an imagined art of aspiration.

Islam and Judaism are ‘simpler’ methods than western. simpler than Chinese. And suitable for a people less intelligent

—Curt

2.7-Politics

Strategies – Not Steady States

STRATEGIES NOT STEADY STATES

Communism
…. (lower class – short term – consumption – r-selection )
…. (mandatory consumption)
…. (reproductive offense – distribution of assets )
…. (strength in numbers)
Market Government
…. (middle class – medium term – production)
…. (mandatory exchange)
…. (productive offense – market exchange of assets)
…. (strength in adaptation/evolution)
Fascism
…. (upper class – long term – preservation – K-selection)
…. (mandatory production/contribution)
…. (organizational offense – concentration of assets)
…. (strength in ability[resources])

Innovative < —————- > Defensive
…. …. …. Communism (universalism) (impossible)
…. …. Socialism (competitively impossible)
…. Social Democracy (possible as long as competitive)
Market Government (Trade) …. Anarchism (impossible)
….Classical-Liberalism, (competitively possible)
…. ….Christian Monarchism (competitively possible)
…. …. ….Fascism (particularism)

We alter between these strategies as our prosperity allows.

—Curt

2.7-Politics · 3.6-Politics · 3.8-War

He Was Wrong: War Is Not An Extension Of Politics

 

Clausewitz was pretty much wrong about everything. War is not an extension of politics. Politics is a means by which we limit war. It is not politics that is the basis of human interaction, but the ever present rational choice between war, conflict, boycott, cooperation, insurance, and kin-sacrifice. Political organizations exist to defend the interests of the group from competitors, and if possible convert the group to the most successful competitor, and therefore the competitor with the greatest discounts on negotiations with other groups. Politics is the extension of cooperation, and when politics fails, we return to the prior state – whatever is in our rational self-interest. But, as we are strong when organized gainst competitors, and weak when disorganized in the face of competitors, when political solutions fail, we merely choose politically organized conflict of large numbers rather than otherwise organized conflict of smaller numbers – thus allowing us to concentrate our full resources on the conflict in question.