3.6-Politics · Uncategorized

¿Es la democracia el problema?

El problema no es la democracia (entendida como la elección para el liderazgo), el problema recae en una combinación de factores.

  1. EL GOBIERNO DISCRECIONAL, en donde los líderes pueden legislar, girar instrucciones y dar órdenes al público que se los permita- Es por ello que existe el imperio de le ley, bajo un conjunto de leyes naturales, son capaces de construir contratos legales entre miembros de una sociedad. La legislación excesiva no es objetivamente legal en su sentido estricto porque viola las leyes naturales: La conservación de los incentivos para cooperar por requerimiento de los intercambios productivos, debidamente informados, garantizados, voluntarios y limitados.
  2. EL APODERAMIENTO UNIVERSAL: El apoderamiento universal es la consecuencia de preferir la democracia, en nuestra filosofía, el apoderamiento debe ser ganado, obtenido. Pero a diferencia de Platón y Sócrates que recomiendan la educación como forma de apoderamiento, nosotros pensamos que no es a por medio de la educación que se demuestra la sabiduría sino por los logros que se alcanzan en la vida. ¿Por que? Pues porque en democracia el imperio de la ley pasa a ser inexistente, y somos víctimas del gobierno discrecional, como consecuencia de la falla terrible que la (((academia))) ha llevado adelante al enseñar métodos y teorías pseudocientíticas durante 140 años.
    Asi que, ¿Cómo haríamos para poder discernir si estamos siendo educados en vez de engañados?
    No soy el primer filósofo que sugiere que el siglo XX será recordado como una era de pseudociencias y de refutación de la democracia como sistema, gracias a los fracasos de la academia. Asi que la razón por la cual nuestros ancestros requirieron de tener probidad (entendida esta como habilidades demostrables) y servicio miliar (entendido este como garantía de valía), fue que juntos demostraron conocimiento y capacidad de inversión, algo que no imagniarían que fuese posible, porque tenían educación o se “imaginaron” que los individuos eran capaces de poder ser morales. – Para ello querían evidencia empírica demostrable. Para revisar una crítica del sistema universitario sugerimos leer la obra de Sowell sobre la educación y los intelectuales. O revisar los trabajos de Kaplan sobre la falacia del votante racional, y sus escritos sobre las universidades: Allí hay muy poca evidencia de que las universidades hacen algo más que filtrar la sobrecarga de trabajo.
  3. Bienes monopólicos: Todos los monopolios son “malos2 porque prohiben la innovación, y permiten la violación de las leyes naturales de la cooperación entre los hombres. Aunque las democracias mayoritarias producen monopolios, no hay razón alguna por la que Seattle deba elegir entre tener un Monoriel o un Tren cuando pueden elegir tener los dos y que la mejor solución sea la que triunfe. La excusa es la “eficiencia”. Pero esto es un engaño. En vez de ello, la competencia forzaráa los votantes a pagar por aquello que es más proclive a tener éxito, algo que no siempre es lo que los votantes quieren, saben o desean y que generalmente, es solicitado a expensas de otra persona.
    El propósito de una democracia mayoritaria es legitimar la autoridad. Ponerle un sello de aprobación a las decisiones de las oligarquías.
    La democracia mayoritaria es útil para seleccionar prioridades entre personas con intereses comunes (granjeros, por ejemplo), donde los recursos son escasos.

    Pero en los mercados amplios, como las sociedades mercantiles, los contratos son la solucion para que las partes que conforman una sociedad puedan resolver sus diferencias y llegar a acuerdos en los cuales sus intereses compiten, en donde los gastos de los recursos son amplios, los contratos le ponen un coto a la expansión de la deuda. Así que en vez dxe tener una democracia mayoritaria de una sóla camara, nuestros ancestros crearon cámaras de representantes para cada clase, para que las clases pudieran crear intercambios en vez de gobernar una encima de la otra. Las castas y clases crearon mercados para la construcción de bienes entre las calses, de la misma manera que crearon un mercado para el consumo de bienes y servicios: Las Ciudaddes.
    De la misma manera crearon un mercado para el liderazgo al idear el voto. De igual forma crearon un mercado para resolver las disputas, y a eso le pusieron el nombre de sistema judicial o imperio de la ley.

    Como podrán ver, la democracia sólo puede funcionar como un mercado y sólo si restauramos las instituciones de los mercados, en vez de crear instituciones que destruyen a los mercados.
    Casas de gobierno múltiples (familias, negocios, territorios, monarquías con poder de veto sobre las leyes) pueden crear y sostenter una democracia, de otra forma, la democracia es un medio por el cual fraudulentamente podemos legitimizar la formación de tiranías monopólicas.

¿Por que es tan difícil de entender? Porque las (((academias))) han enseñado pseudociencias en vez de ciencias sociales.

Curt Doolitlle
La Filosofía de la Aristocracia.
El Instituto Propietarista.
Kiev, Ucrania.

Traducido al Castellano por Alberto R. Zambrano U.

 

1.7-The Solution (Promise) · 3.6-Politics · Core

Is The Problem Really Democracy? Here Is Your Answer.

The problem is not DEMOCRACY (the choice of leadership) but the combination of:

1) DISCRETIONARY RULE, where leaders can legislate (issue commands) anything that the public will allow them to, rather than RULE OF LAW, under NATURAL LAW, where (like our trial-run original constitution) they can only construct otherwise legal contracts between members of the polity on their behalf. Much legislation is not (objectively) LEGAL in the sense that it violates NATURAL LAW: the preservation of the incentive to cooperate by the requirement for productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchanges, limited to productive externalities.

And 2) UNIVERSAL ENFRANCHISEMENT rather than demonstrated ability earning enfranchisement. But unlike Plato and Socrates, recommend, it’s not EDUCATION that demonstrates wisdom, but ACHIEVEMENT in life. Why? Because the reason we no longer possess RULE OF LAW, and are the victims of DISCRETIONARY RULE is the fault of the academy’s teaching of social pseudoscience for 140 years. So conversely, how do we know we are in fact ‘educating’ rather than ‘deceiving’? I am not the first philosophy to suggest that the 20th century will be remembered as an era of pseudoscience and the refutation of democracy – because of the failure of the academy. So the reason our ancestors required PROPERTY(demonstrated ability) and military service (warranty or ‘skin in the game’) was that together they DEMONSTRATED knowledge and investment, they didn’t ‘imagine’ that they were knowledgeable, because they had an education, or ‘imagine’ people were moral – they wanted empirical EVIDENCE OF IT. For a criticism of the university systems see either Sowell’s work on education and intellectuals, or See Kaplan’s work on the fallacy of the rational voter, and his work on Universities: there is very little evidence that universities do anything more than filter by workload. They teach almost nothing that produces outcomes other than fitness for workloads.

3) MONOPOLY COMMONS. All MONOPOLIES are ‘bad’ because they prohibit innovation, and they allow us to violate the Natural Law of Cooperation. Yet majoritarian democracy produces a monopoly. There is no reason why Seattle must choose between a Monorail and a Train, when they can choose both and let the best solution win. The excuse is efficiency. But this is a deception. Instead, the competition will force voters to pay for that which is most likely to succeed not what they themselves want at the expense of others – and that is more efficient. The purpose of majoritarian democracy is to legitimize authority – to rubber stamp the oligarchy’s choices. Majoritarian democracy is possible for the selection of priorities among people with common interests (farmers), where resources are scarce.

But markets (contracts) are the solution to heterogeneous polities with disparate or competing interests (like ours today), where expenditures of resources are plentiful (surpluses are possible) must be constrained in order to prevent expansion of debt. So instead of single house majoritarian democracy, our ancestors created houses for each class, so that classes could construct exchanges, rather than rule over one another. They created a MARKET for the construction of COMMONS between the classes, just as they had created a market for the consumption of goods and services: cities. Just as they had created a market for leadership by voting. Just as they had created a market for dispute resolution that we call the ‘independent judiciary’ under ‘rule of law’.

So you see, democracy can function as a market if and only if we restore market institutions, instead of market-violating institutions: multiple houses of government (families, businesses, territories, monarchy-as-vote-of-last-resort-by-veto, and then we can have democracy. Otherwise democracy is just a means by which to fraudulently legitimize the formation of tyranny by monopoly.

Why this is so difficult? Because the academy teaches pseudoscience, not social science.

Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine

3.6-Politics · 4.3.9.8-Equality and Inequality · P04-Law

None Of Us Is Equal

We are unequal. We grant each other the pretense of equality in order to discover the truth, through discourse and debate, that is free of error, bias, suggestion, obscurantism, and deceit. We grant each other equality under the law to assist one another in cooperating productively and without conflict and retaliation across our various stations and abilities. We grant each other equal access to the market, by the equality of money and prices, because we all buy entry into the market by forgoing opportunities for violence, theft, and fraud, despite our differences in wealth. It is through these three equalities of opportunity that we cooperate despite our inequalities of interest, ability, value to one another, and wealth. But we are in no way equal.

3.6-Politics · 5.1.2-Markets in Everything (and Market 'fascism') · Uncategorized

More on Market Fascism

What’s the difference between MARKET FASCISM and the Status Quo?

There are two differences:

1) Since markets regulated by natural law are the only POSSIBLE means of preserving sovereignty, and voluntary cooperation free of parasitism, then any attempt to perpetuate an alternative is an act of attempted fraud.

So the difference is that under Market Fascism, there is no tolerance for criticism of the sovereign market order just as no tolerance for cannibalism, murder, theft, fraud, and conspiracy. Becuase tolerance for such crimes itself a crime. You may only propose exchanges.

You can use the court to pursue an involuntary imposition of costs that violates natural law. But you may not propose an imposition of costs that violates natural law.

In other words, you must constrain yourself to function within the markets in word and deed.

2) Since you must fully account for the consequences of any action, the externalities produced by your action must not privatize the commons or socialize your losses. This means that you must be more careful in profiting from the ignorance of your fellow citizen shareholders.

In other words your opportunity to profit from arbitrage is limited.

These are simple, but far reaching demands.

3.3-Epistemology · 3.6-Politics

Decreasing The Error, Bias, And Deceit, To Identify Cheaply Opportunities To Seize

The political questions we face are very different if we seek to eliminate error, bias, and deceit, rather than if we seek to identify optimums by which to obtain discounts. People will seize the discounts no matter what. the problem is in decreasing the error, bias, and deceit, so that those opportunities are more readily visible. It’s not that we should ignore error bias and deceit so we must constantly thrash through them to find the opportunities amidst the clutter.

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.