Proximately your woke videos happened because it was unthinkable to curse out a yale professor when you went.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/hk_yhi3-prw
If university isn't supposed to be safe, then the profs can curse out the students. If the students can't cuss out the professors in return, then they will poolitically agitate to reverse that situation. "Let the low places be raised, and the hills brought down." And lo, it was so. Revolution, one pi, 180 degrees! Now students can refer to professors, to their faces, as coarsely as they like, while the profs have to walk on eggshells.
Kto kogo. Who, whom.
There was always a whom. The question is merely who shall have the [doing unto].
Being explicit: if nobody can curse anyone out, or everyone can curse everyone out, like they're all adults or something outrageous like that, it's stable. You don't get this oscillating pendulum.
Aside: I would also like to surface the idea of strangers vs. friendlies. If the students are guests of the university then they need to have guest rights and guest obligations. If they are not guests then they can't be strangers. They should live at the university, not for 4 years, but for the foreseeable future. This bizarre play-pretend hybrid is illness.
Likewise, marriage was outlawed because fornication was outlawed. The way to legalize fornication was to destroy the legality of the family. Drugs get outlawed to get around the inability to prosecute drug addicts for crime.
Ultimately, fornication was outlawed in the first place precisely because such a law is unjust. Students were forbidden from cussing out their profs precisely because unearned respect is unjust.
The purpose of these institutions is to farm injustice. They are merely changing the colours of the injustice. Who, whom.
Ultimately, Karma has some words to say about this. Which is why universities are failling. Which is why !!america!! is failing.
Ascended aside: p.history draws the connection between bureaucracy and anarcho-tyranny. They attack the law-abiding because criminals are scawwy but attacking either seemingly justify their fake jobs.
Doesn't draw the connection with irresponsibility and lack of discipline, however. Bureaucracies don't go like this when they have to spend their own money.
If the market didn't demand injustice, injustice would not be supplied. E.g. students would stop attending bureaucratized universities. I would personally start a [consumer reports]-style magazine to let students know how badly the universities were corrupting themselves, and I would make bank letting them avoid the bad ones.
Instead, working as intended. The magazine is redundant; the students already know. They merely like the corruption.
In a sense, it is true: Revolution is the result of injustice. Except the point isn't to correct the injustice, it's about having a turn, pun intended. "You got to oppress last time! It's my go!"
In a society, as opposed to a soyciety, you don't get Revolution. That's the purpose of lionizing property rights. No kto, no kogo, no Revolution. If it were legal to try Capitalism for the first time, I would do that instead of the magazine. Or rather, it would be redundant, because personnel is policy. If there were non-negligible demand for justice, it would already be legal, and Capitalism already tried. I would already be living there.
Anyone who desires justice doesn't need to convince the mortals to permit it. They only need to convince Karma that they truly desire justice. Rather than doing dumb things like blogging, you should exploit the mortals. They like being exploited anyway. Trade tips on how to hack their intentionally broken systems for your own personal enrichment; either without being caught or without the mortals noticing anything wrong at all.
17 comments:
Re:Lionizing property rights; absent the state, most people cannot secure their property. And given that property comes from security, that means even absent injustice as terminal value, they would be not likely to support stateless society. And buying security in absence of the state is unlikely to work, since your security company can form an extortion cartel with all the other such companies in town and than they straight up own the town and racket the residents just enough for them not to prefer fleeing. And if you can win a fight with your security Provider, you didn't need him at all. And if he wins a fights, he gets to extort you unless you choose to move. So even if people followed their non-masochistic self interest they would still not want to lionize property rights and form a stateless society, because most people think they are better off not being feudal peasants.They have a chance of being wrong about not better off given tech wouldn't evaporate, but I do not see how eliminating the state would not just let various armed groups Control land, feudally.
What I am getting at is that somebody who reliably wins a fight with you, such as a group of 100 bandits, might not be able to take all your income because you will stop creating the income, or wealth since you might flee with it, but they can sure make you flee and take your house, and if you band together with 100 neighbours, you might win but that will still prove that land ownership comes from winning fights, unlike with all other goods whose supply decreases due to robbery, because land supply is perfectly inelastic. Being able to buy land without being a warrior is something that appears alongside the state, as tribal societies only let their own men, or rarely also those that married in, own land, all of which fight in wars for the tribe to keep or gain land.
Even if as you say most people would be better off admitting to being a peasant and needing a lord, they might not know it. Quite likely.
That's why we set up Exit as the criterion of legitimacy.
Your definition of [state] is strange. It's one of the reasons I rarely use the term. Is a white government a [state] or not? Yes it's very true that peasants either can't or won't defend themselves, and need someone to energetically induce them to defend themselves on their behalf. The criterion of legitimacy is still Exit. Some peasants will be so pathetic they can't even take responsibility for the responsibility it is logically impossible to divest yourself of; the responsibility of choosing who to give all your responsibilities away to. They will be parasitized and die. Maybe I'll conquer their village myself, exploiting their impoverished security firm. They won't get to stay of course. Too disgusting. If there are no outlaws I can transport them to, I will mercifully execute them.
If a white government has all the capabilities needed to become a black one, it would count as a state.
"Your definition of state is strange" "Is white government a state" Armed Control of territory= can implement black government, is a state. If a bunch of Private Protection Agencies from ancap theory have armed control of territory, there seems to be no incentive to tax less or differently than current governments, or to provide inhabitants anything more than being allowed to stay in the territory in exchange for their taxes, or to limit ones options with a contract. Therefore white government is a state if it controls territory . "Exit as the criterion of legitimacy" people moving to lower tax jurisdictions would not prevent income tax from existing, or being irreciprocal, (just the way ability to change landlords doesn't prevent the rent from being raised when the tenant gets a pay raise. This is a thing I know happens in real life, and it would be easier to do if you own a territory through armed control ). Exit could maybe lower the rate of income tax and make it flat not progressive if the governments were rational. So if income tax is treason, and exit doesn't seem likely to prevent it, given it already exists and hadn't, than what? "property lionization" If property comes from security, than medieval kingdoms were lionizing the kings ownership of all the land in his country, which was secured by them and thus theirs, which did not prevent taxes on sales, trade, and eventually income, not to mention monopoly rights sold by the king. So it seems like exit and property rights don't stop any kind of taxation, instead creating feudalism, which we have already tried. This is true as long as land ownership comes from right of conquest, which seems difficult or impossible to avoid. If the king doesn't own the country, democratic left party does, or the nazis, any of those will tax same based on having military power!
You can do it that way if you like, yeah.
For me, it's why I don't normally use the term anymore.
Depends on what you mean by "know"
The simple thing is to have two agencies, one for personal security and one for the bank. If they seize your person they no longer get paid.
The just price of any good is the cost of production plus the risk premium. Security inherently involves some rents, because Exit is never free.
Although, come to think, a virtuous leader would avoid the rent, due to the karmic consequences. However, one does have to design policy based on the assumption of vicious and barbaric leaders. Or, worse, civilized leaders. Women with tackle. Mapatriarchy. MAPatriarchy...
Exit makes it easier for virtuous leaders to be virtuous. They don't have to pervert the system to decline the rents. They can also spend them on extra features rather than keeping them.
Not that karma lets the vicious keep the rents anyway. On the contrary, their attempt to keep the rents doubles the karmic cost. Evil destroys itself.
Yes it absolutely would prevent income tax. Property taxes only, or rather, the security firm would be a real estate company charging normal real estate rents. Plus a capital estate company charging rents for folk who want to own capital goods.
Due to the similarities with insurance, you could get your rate lowered by adopting some self-defence. Or accept a deductible; that would be interesting.
Your idea of two-agency security where money is stored abroad is great! And simple, yet no ancap that I know of invented it, looks like we all aren't that smart. Or do I not know about the right ancaps? Also thanks!
Meta-rothbardianism. Basically rothbardianism is squatter's rights plus "I had it first!!1!"
Has the problem all forms of mortal justice have. The folk you need to restrain are the ones who don't respect the rules, so it doesn't matter how just or unjust your rules are. Your working options are force or violent force.
Often they don't even understand the rules, and the rest of the time they're breaking them on purpose. Rulebreaking is their telos. Putting up rules for 'valid' behaviour and 'invalid' behaviour is little more than bait for folks yearning to be invalid. Often the rules are intended to bait; literally, consciously made to be broken.
Meta-rothbardianism: property is defined by security. Secure your shit, or it ain't your shit.
Re:just prices-where does your just price idea come from? Is it just logical reasoning, or not just it, perhaps a message in enochian? if the just price is lower than one determined by supply and demand, than while applying it there will be a shortage which necessarily results in arbitrary decisions who gets the item, queueing lines and some persons who values the item more not getting it, while some that don't, succeeding to acquire the thing. And if someone can charge rents, this means that supply and demand let him! Your cost+risk formula is just supply function (if opportunity cost of capital expense that could have been lend to others at the prevailing rate is included in cost), and demand can change way faster than supply! This is a serious shocker given that prices outside of supply-demand equilibrium are literally half of efficiency disadvantage of communism.
And on top of the above costs of labour and capital depend on higher demand for laborers and loans by those who charge unjust rents, such that if you decide on selling for just prices with your wage determined by opportunity cost of your time as you said on twitter, than the wage will either be Higher due to including unjust opportunities in the opportunity cost such as being a self employed "unjust price" rentier, or/and impossible to determine due to your wage should be same as next best "just price" opportunity, which should be the same as the next one and so on, since somebody who takes the job with tbe highest offered salary always is paid more than opportunity cost, while following supply-demand equilibrium and efficiency.
Likewise your formula leads to either interest on debt greater than risk premium being illegitimate or everybody with capital becoming a lender rather than an entrepreneur so they can include the opportunity cost of capital investment in prices without incurring karmic debt. Either happens Unless karma permits including time preference in the interest rate and the opportunity cost of not being a lender as part of the prices of an owner-funded-investment company.
Also not selling to the highest bidder, whom the customer willing to pay unjust prices to get the thing always is if there is such customer (so auctions unjust?), is inefficient in terms of creating value, such as when whom ever pays most for production input, must be using it most efficiently, and for consumer good, must want it most and have contributed to what others wanted the most. And the highest bidder pays the price determined by supply-demand equilibrium regardless of if it is just! How come there are just prices!!!
The original just price is a peasant idea. It's the price they paid in their childhood. I don't really need to explain further, do I? I slightly will: specifically the lowest price they paid in childhood. Price shocks don't count.
Secondarily prices don't change in real terms. The price of a warhorse was $100,000 then and it's $100,000 now. A bushel of wheat is 4.5 grams of silver, somewhat dependent on proximity to egypt. When prices don't change even in nominal terms for 400 years it's easy to see that it's just the cost of production. The peasants still don't see this, they think the price is ordained by god (their dad). But nevertheless.
You can always sell more and profit more by lowering the price, until you can't lower the price any further without costing more to produce than you sell it for.
Supply and demand is basically just supply. What restricts the supply determines the price. The fun part is that even if supply is immutably restricted, it just means the cost of production goes up. Typically due to security - everyone else wants those rents too, and you have to fight them off until you've spent all the rent and they disperse of their own accord.
There can be other reasons too though. Pandering to the customer, that sort of thing.
For e.g. gems, if low supply means high prices, it means mining companies start spending boatloads on prospecting until the price of the gems intersect the price of prospecting.
With personal and house security, the price of security lowers until it's below the cost of moving. The virtuous man then refuses the rents, in part, for his own security. If they all see you blinging out and riding around in your own personal gold-plated tank, they know who they need to shake down. You attract parasites.
If you accept rent it has to be used at least in part to fend off the parasites. If you inevitably fail it's a temporary non-equilibrium. They will collect rents briefly between achieving victory over the security firm and the firm imploding from it's own cancer. It will get evened out in the end but in the middle it's rather unpleasant for everyone.
Ok, so just price is just because everything charged above costs is insecure to hold, basically requires an army that eats the whole rent to defend the rent source. This means taking the highest paying job offer or auctioning unique items of the sort that get auctioned should not be a karmic cost, and same with interest based on risk and time preference?
On the other hand 2/4 of the standard list of market failures seem to be cases when charging rents is easy (information assymmetry and natural monopoly). Also usury, seems to be a real thing using the cost+risk=just price formula, which is lenders in an a place colluding , to fix interest rates way higher than not only risk levels, but also loan supply and demand would give absent them having met in a dark room to eliminate competition between themselves as a price-reducing force.
Yeah, auctions are fine. The cost comes out of the fact you're getting the wrong price. Either overpaid or underpaid 100% of the time.
E.g. if you can do bidding wars the price is about soycial jockeying, not the artifact. If you can't do bidding wars (e.g. single-bid, dutch) the seller gets jacked because buyers are haggling but the seller can't haggle back.
Bro just sell at the price of production...
The just price, ultimately, is due to double-entry accounting and karmic caps. If you sell something for more than it is worth (i.e. the production cost) then where does the additional value come from? It comes out of your hide. The precise manifestation of the hide-ripping varies almost endlessly, but it always comes out of your hide. Net worth is a fixed genetic trait.
Basically you get a wage included in the cost of production because you spent time = your youth to get your hands on the good in question. Trade always results in no gains or losses for anyone. Merely a rearrangement of goods for hopefully a more preferable arrangement. Keeping in mind that karma charges interest. You can get a momentary gain but it will cost you more than it is worth.
You also get charged for deliberately inflicting debts on someone else. I don't know 100% of the details but just trade at production cost, bro.
Exception: you can scam someone who is trying to scam you. E.g. take out a 50 year mortgage then pay it off in 10 years. Save $20,000 or so.
Usury is lending to commoners. They can neither understand the future nor are numerate enough to haggle properly. Also lending to warriors. Deadly fighters can understand the future but choose not to. Their solution to debt is [battle loot or die trying], typically the latter.
You're either scamming them or they're defaulting.
If you ask for [usurious] rates from me I simply say no. They can collude all they want but ultimately they have to ask for what the money is worth or I won't buy it.
Thus usury only [works] on someone who can't say no due to some cognitive deficiency. I.e. they are not an independent adult.
That's $20,000 over doing the same for a 30-year mortgage. You save much more than that over, for example, paying off the 30-year mortgage in 30 years.
Post a Comment