If I’m not one of yours, then I can’t possibly accept you as one of mine. Universalism can only be a two-way street. I’m wary of the progression of rhetoric in S Africa: Liberty->Equality->Reparations->Kill the Boer
We could be building institutions that help heterogeneous people with different reproductive strategies cooperate (probably by pushing everything into the marketplace of voluntary interaction).
Instead, the cultural marxists are hell bent on creating a new religion that infatilizes black people (by robbing them of all responsibility for their own success), and destroying/degrading/humiliating white people where ever possible
An ideology is a philosophy boiled down to simple, actionable points.
We have a heterogeneous polity and disproportionate crime rates.
I cannot think of a more destructive ideology than the one being
promoted. The ideology of the struggle of cultural classes gives people an excuse and an enemy. Like economic Marxism, Cultural Marxism undermines people’s feeling that they are responsible for their future. It gives them an excuse and an enemy.
I recently listened to a long interview with a prison psychologist who
talked about many black criminals have been “infantilized”. No sense whatsoever that they are responsible for their own actions, that they must control their impulses, that anyone has the right to tell them to not walk in the middle of the street.
We need an ideology that promotes cooperation between groups. I know what wrong looks like — I complain about it frequently of FB. I can guess what right might look like. Three separate ideas:
-Historically the more universalist (western) forms of Christianity have been great at getting people to cooperate. I have a Ghanian friend who has talked about large African tribes half of whom adopt Christianity, and half Islam. The latter become more peaceful and rich, the former more militant and poor.
-Relegating as much as possible to voluntary exchange might be a good philosophy too in which to try to develop an ideology. I don’t think there would be so much racial tension in a monarchy. I’m not suggesting one, but access to political power seems to be a leading cause of interracial violence. If you look at a person’s race, sex, and marital status, you can tell with about 70-80% accuracy how they’ll vote. Married whites & single white men vs everyone else.
The more we do voluntarily and not through political power they less there will be to fight over.
-Voluntary segregation. Everyone can have their own police, their own schools, etc. I think this would be most effective not between groups, but within the black community. They need an aristocracy to emerge. I think of the writing my teacher James McPherson did about the pullman porters. Europeans had the benefits of the Bubonic Plague which wiped out 30-60% of Europe’s population, mostly the underclasses. This, plus other things (the manorial system, the ban on cousin marriage — which was done for entirely Machiavelian reasons but had good consequences) gave Europe a big boost.
1. The Enlightenment’s great error was the assumption of universalism. We still suffer from it. Profoundly.
2. The ISIS situation is exacerbated by the brain drain of Arab professionals into the western world. They left behind a critical mass of mouth-breathing knuckle draggers. If you want to spread western values, do it by example, not by opening the borders.
3. Jews have and continue to aggressively advocate open European borders, plus cultural relativism because they themselves have needed to infiltrate European cultures. They’ve gone too far in lowering the ramparts and upending the culture of their warriors with post-modernism. If Europe is colonized and its culture diluted beyond recognition, they will all be killed, and their killers won’t feel bad about it either. They won’t build monuments and museums as Europeans do.
What do I mean by universalism?
Much of the world neither wants nor is capable of individualism, logic, reason, I would also add “high trust” which is a European phenomenon though probably not an Enlightenment discovery.
The west, both in Britain’s colonialism and today in its open-border policy, continues to act as if everybody is a member of the family (high trust society), continues to act as if peoples living mysticism and superstition can be governed by our greater reliance on logic and reason.
This is a mistake. Many (most) people want collectivism, mysticism, superstition. The Enlightenment will reassert itself by nationalizing it’s values. A fence will be put around it. I hope this happens before a bloody clash of civilizations, and not after, thought it may already be too late.
Much of the rest of the world has been unwillingly and ungratefully dragged out of ignorance poverty and disease by the fruits of the Enlightenment. Their best chance at continuing civilizational progress would be if their intellectuals remained there, instead of joining the western civilization, and voluntarily became a sort of aristocracy.
Trusting outsiders and using ethical code with them. Expecting them to do the same. Only Northern Europeans do so.
^^ as exemplified by the idiotic statement of some Swedish politicians “we have to be nice to the Muslims now so that they’ll be nice to us when we are the minority.”
Am I anti-semitic?
First of all, let’s discuss whether something is TRUE. Not if it’s racist or anti-semitic, or mysoginist. Truth has been lost in the era of post-modernism. It’s Foucault’s vision — language is devoid of meaning, it’s just a struggle for power. As a writer, you should not accept this.
Secondly, the first paragraph above described an error of Christians, the second an error of Muslims and the third an error of Jews.
No more empty accusations, please.
Cultures vary and I won’t be intimidated into silence.
1) Christian Europe universalized familial trust — especially protestant Europe, less so Catholic Europe, and I’m not sure but I think Orthodox Europe (my ancestors) are just a border-land civilization. Especially in protestant Europe, every person was considered a relative. This is the high trust society. It’s the only part of the world in which tribalism was defeated. This became the foundation for modern civilization.
But Christian Europe also has a psychopathic altruism which led them to incorrectly attempt to universalize its norms.
They opening Europe’s borders to millions of tribal people and expecting them to reciprocate European universalism. Expecting them to contribute the commons (social norms) by forgoing the opportunity cost of good behavior.
They expecting universalism to spread, along with the Enlightenment triumphs of logic and reason over mysticism, pseudo-science. They take truth for granted. They didn’t guard truth as it needs to be guarded.
They’re making a mistake. Western values will neither be adopted or preserved under these assumptions.
2) Arab Muslims, like everybody else in the world, wanted to live among the riches of modern civilization, under rule of law and private property rights. There has been an enormous brain drain from the Muslim world into Europe. The very people who were most likely to champion logic, reason, universalism, exactly what the hugely tribal, superstitious Muslim world needs, have abandoned their civilization. You’re left with people finding virtue in the beheading of small children, in the destruction of millenia-old monuments, in the genocide of Christians, Yazidis.
The aristocracy of the Muslim world who has fled to Europe is making a mistake, assuming its goal is to improve the prosperity of their own civilization. If their goal is abandoment of their civilization, or worse, destruction of the European civilization, then they’re probably proceeding correctly.
3) For millenia, Jews have been out numbered and far from home, relying on their intelligence for survival. To maintain their place among the warrior cultures of Europe, they’ve promoted, especially in the past 150 years, open borders and cultural relativism (we all bleed red, what’s the difference who your neighbors are?). Because they’re the smartest people in the world, they’ve been very successful. But the Frankfurt School ideas of multiculturalism, relativism have taken on the fervor of a secular religion. Heretics (like me) are mercilessly denounced.
They are also making a mistake. This strategy has not and will not keep them safe. The more they tear down the gates and the social norms of Western civilization, the less safe they will be.
That’s my hypothesis. The obvious omission is the political turmoil the west and Israel has created in the Muslim world which has created a vacuum being filled by ISIS.
Orthodox Christianity — I don’t know. They haven’t really exported any cultural norms as Protestant Europe has. They’ve sort of learned some rationalism from the Enlightenment, but are still very superstitious. I see them as middle shade in the cultural gradient. What are their defining characteristics?
1. Keeping the Mongols / Ottomans away?
2. Being a cultural buffer?
Incidentally, I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the enormous contributions of Jewish thinkers all came from individuals at least two generations out of the insular ghettos and into the Western, Aristotelian paradigm.
We should all concern ourselves with how to spread good ideas. I think you’ve answered it with “giving people responsibility before they prove capability is asking for trouble.”
I think Europeans fail to recognize the fragility of their civilization. They assume that everybody universalizes trust. They don’t regard this as a norm that needs to be defended with violence. Enforced.
This is the “European miracle” that dragged the whole rest of the world out of poverty, ignorance and disease. It’s an anomaly. It didn’t happen anywhere else in the world.
Hell, it’s not even a European norm, but a Northern/Western European norm.
Only the nuclear family cultures achieved this. The extended family cultures of southern and eastern Europe remained more tribal. They have a dual loyalty — one to your kin and one to society. It’s no coincidence that the extended family cultures of southern and eastern Europe are much more corrupt than the nuclear family cultures of northern and western Europe.
Southern and Eastern Europe just had an excellent, nearby example to follow.
I’m rambling. The point is:
1. Recognize norms as something special and defend them — with violence.
2. Doing so — protecting your culture — will serve as an example for surrounding culture.
I have no ego tied up with being right on this. I’d rather be successful than right.
But I do think Gary North gets a few things wrong:
– “Nobody is going to be getting rid of an asset that has moved from $2 to $1,000 in one year in order to buy pizzas. People want to hang onto it, refusing to sell, in the hopes that it will go to $2,000.”
According to the data reported by merchant processor Bitpay, they see an INCREASE in commercial transactions when the price rises. Not a decrease.
– “In order for Bitcoins to become an alternative currency, there will have to be millions of users of the currency. There will have to be tens of millions of users of the currency. They will have to develop in a market on their merit as money, not as an investment of dollars in order to get more dollars back.”
There are currently hundreds of thousands, and I think that’s enough. It’s often easier to spend bitcoins than dollars. The albeit small market during the libertarian conference “Porkfest” has changed from using silver coins to bitcoins. That’s the free market choosing, though admittedly, it’s a small example.
– People are not buying it to serve as money; they are buying it because they are in the midst of a mania,
I’m sure this is true for the latest rally, but if you look back a year at what the bitcoin community thought the price would be, their predictions are actually pretty modest. It seems clear to me that they prefer bitcoin for its properties as a unit of account/medium of exchange. Not as an investment.
– “Bitcoins are not increasing the division of labor.”
I issued stock in a book. I did it without an army of lawyers and a small fortune. Bitcoins hugely increase the division of labor. You don’t need a paypal or western union in between you and the recipient of your payment.
It is time for my totalitarian humanist friends to find a different imminent catastrophe for which I need to surrender treasure and liberty. How about the catastrophe of privilege? I recommend throwing your energies behind the condemnation of all straight white males as not only undeserving of their own accomplishments, but guilty for the failures of everybody else. It should take a good decade or two for that one to run its course, and by that time the slogans for the next bit of populist, neo-Marxist propaganda should be ready for you to shout at the tops of your lungs, providing you with the status of moral superiority that you seem to desperately desire.
A spreadsheet containing this analysis is available here.
So what do the numbers reveal and how do crypto currencies compare?
MOST VALUABLE M2 MONETARY SUPPLIES (in trillions of dollars)
1. All Euros
3. United States
7. United Kingdom
10. Canada (2008 data)
12. Korea, Rep.
17. Russian Fed.
18. Hong Kong SAR
MOST VALUABLE M1 MONETARY SUPPLES
1. Euro Total
4. United States
5. United Kingdom
13. Korea, Rep.
14. Russian Fed.
16. Saudi Arabia
20. Hong Kong SAR
One surprise (for my American mentality) is that dollars are not the biggest, nor second biggest monetary supply in terms of value. They are third or fourth biggest depending on whether one considers M2 or M1.
Please note, the data is imperfect: the M1 data is newer than the M2 data, but the difference in M2 versus M1 ranking also speaks to great differences in banking structure and practices in various countries.
The main difference between M2 and M1 is that M2 includes savings and money market accounts. The proportion of M2 to M1 varies widely between countries. Though the ratios may be off because some data is older than other data, in the United States, M2 is more than five times bigger than M1. In Luxembourg, it’s only 1.3 times bigger. In Saudi Arabia, it’s 1.5 times bigger.
COMPARING M2 WITH CYPTO CURRENCIES
As of the time of this writing (September 7th, 2013), all the Bitcoins in the world are worth about $1.39 Billion. That makes their supply slightly less valuable than the M2 monetary supplies of Chad, Guyana, Montenegro, but slightly more valuable than the M2 monetary supplies of Mauritania, the Maldives, Belize, El Salvador, Malawi and Tajikistan. Bitcoins are on the map!
All the Litecoins in the world are worth about $59 million dollars, which is a little better than half the value of the smallest M2 monetary supply reported by the World Bank, that of Sao Tome and Principe.
MEASURING VALUE PER NOTE
The methodology behind this last analysis is speculative, but interesting nonetheless. What if we measured the value-per-note of all mediums of exchange? What if we counted all the notes in the world (Dollars, Euros, Litecoins, Vietnamese Dongs, Yen, Rubles, Lira, etc), and then counted the value of all the notes. For any currency, we could then compare their percentage of world-wide notes to their percentage of value of all the monies.
For example, imagine a world in which only two mediums of exchange were used: Roman’s Rubles and Mises’s Marks. Imagine that a million of each circulated, but Mises’s Marks were three times as valuable as the Rubles.
It’s easy to quantify the difference. Mises’s Marks represent three quarters of the value and only half of the notes. This can be described by a factor of 1.5. Roman’s Rubles also represent half the notes, but only one quarter of the value. They can be given a factor of 0.5.
A real-world example would be comparing Vietnam’s money, the Dong to the Euro. Taken note for note, the Dong represents a quarter of all the money in circulation, but only 0.15% of the value (when considering M2). The Euro is almost the exact converse. Euros represent 0.15% of the notes, but a quarter of value of all mediums of exchange in this analysis.
What conclusions be gleaned from this data? Most interestingly, is this factor (percent of value divided by percent of notes) in any way measure trust?
Several methodological concerns come to mind:
1) Aggregating all mediums of exchange, including Tide, gold and pig tusks (used as a medium of exchange on Pentecost Island in Vanuatu) seems like the best approach. In this analysis, only M2 data and the two most valuable crypto currencies, Bitcoin and Litecoin, are considered.
2) How would gold be incorporated into this analysis, since there is no single obvious unit to represent a note? People trade in grams, ounces, bars, tonnes.
3) Should crypto currencies be compared with M2, M1, or not at all? The ranking of trust factors was similar for M2 data and M1 data.
4) Can value per note be a meaningful measure of trust or anything else? Perhaps monetary discipline? What correlations can be found with this ratio?
With these concerns in mind, here is a list of the most and least trust monies using M2 data:
2. Kuwaiti Dinar
4. Bahraini Dinar
5. Oman Rial
6. Latvian Lats
7. U.K. Pound
8. Jordanian Dinar
10. Azerbaijan Manat
11. Swiss Franc
12. US Dollar/Bahamian Dollar/Panama Balboa
13. Australian Dollar
14. New Zealand Dollar
15. Singapore/Brunei Dollar/Libyan Dinar
China’s Renminbi: 21.2
Japanese Yen: 1.3
CLOSEST TO PROPORTIONAL TRUST
(% money supply = % value of money supply)
Sri Lankan Rupee 0.987
Icelandic Krona 1.090
3. Sao Tome Principe
8. Sierra Leone
Though the Bitcoin economy may still be small, the fact of it being larger than many national monetary supplies — after only five years, no less — makes its dismissal by lingering critics downright silly. (Not that the “honey badger of money” cares much about its critics.) The value-per-note analysis is even more surprising. If indeed the relative trust of various currencies can be measured by comparing value-per-note, then Bitcoin is already the champion (precious metals not considered), and Litecoin is threatening to take second place.
Every once in a while, I peek over the parapet of my smart, sentient, reasoning friends to see what the rest of the world is talking about. Usually, I get hit in the eyes and ears with bewildering, invincible stupidity.
In the words of Murray Rothbard: “It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a ‘dismal science.’ But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.”
1) “The Boom Bust period of 1797 to 1933.” It’s very important to understand that booms and busts are caused by artificial increases in the monetary supply (Austrian Business Cycle Theory). She doesn’t seem to have a grasp on this. http://mises.org/daily/672 Business cycles are not caused by a lack of regulation.
3) Pre-1914 booms and busts. If you don’t criminalize fractional reserve banking, then bank-runs should be regarded as a GOOD thing. Bad banks went bankrupt. Good ones remained. Customers were careful. Responsible people succeeded. Irresponsible people found other work. The 1914 creation of the Federal Reserve was a government take-over of the money-printing process.
4) If you want to get rid of booms and busts, you must firstly understand understand ABCT, and secondly you must get rid of fractional reserve banking which is inherently fraudulent. We don’t even need more laws to accomplish this. They just need to stop putting people in jail who trade in silver or gold (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/25/us/liberty-dollar-creator-awaits-his-fate-behind-bars.html) and the market will, all by itself, move from fractional reserve money to sound money.
4) FDIC insurance. Banks used to advertise their liquidity to customers because it matters. Now that everyone is insured by the US taxpayers, it no longer makes any difference where you bank. Since the government has put all the RISK on the taxpayers, let’s not be surprised that the bankers act more recklessly.
5) “We had to bail them out” WHY?????? Why isn’t letting irresponsible banks go bankrupt ever on the table? I had an internet business that didn’t do so well. Why didn’t I get bailed out?
6) The S&L crisis was caused by deregulation. No it wasn’t. It was caused by government removing risk from the banks and them (very predictably) acting irresponsibly. Instead of letting them go bankrupt, the taxpayer was forced to bail them out further promoting risky behaviour.
7) The crisis with the hedge fund Longterm Capital Management was caused by deregulation. No it wasn’t. It was caused by government removing resk from the banks and them (very predictably) acting irresponsibly. Instead of letting them go bankrupt, the taxpayer for forced to bail them out further promoting risky behaviour.
8) There is even more centralization in the banking industry since 2008-2013. If you stop fucking bailing out the Big 4, then smaller, more responsible banks would have taken over their assets long ago.
9) Regulation works. No it doesn’t. The Bernie Madoff Ponzi scheme was handed to the SEC on a silver platter by a PRIVATE investor looking out for his investment. They SEC ignored it while the Ponzi scheme grew from 4 billion to 50 billion. Bernie Madoff bragged about his close relationship with the SEC. The only regulation that works is letting irresponsible people go bankrupt.
I was once at a small Tea Party rally in Iowa. A guy came up to me and commented on my 82nd Airborne Division baseball cap. He’d been in the military too, he said. Then he made it absolutely clear to me that he was “ready to start blowing up gas stations.” I’m pretty sure he was an agent trying to create a terrorist insident to the Bureau could heroically prevent it at the last minute.
I’m confident that they’re playing a fool’s game. We have the truth of culture and economics on our side, not to mention the Consitution. They’ll ruin a few lives here and there, but in the end, the government will still bankrupt itself. They can’t resort to the type of oppression they need to stay in power without fully revealing their true malevolent selves. That would be the end of their power, at least in first world countries.
People want to trade with one another. They want to communicate. In the end, they will.
I’m actually responding to a friend who cited the article and says that he’s visited “libertarian” countries in Africa and SW Asia. I think it may be beyond the ability of these people to understand, but I wrote back anyway:
Afghanistan and Congo are not libertarian. Look for private justice and private security. Medieval Iceland is an oft cited example, albeit an imperfect one – people voluntarily chose clans for their protection.
Another is the Not-so-wild West which had a lower murder rate than most modern American cities. Wagon trains had private constitution. The original meaning of the term “outlaw” was someone declared to be outside the protection of private law. Meaning, private security would not protect him. This seems like a much more sensible means of punishment then *Forcing* victims to pay for the food, lodging and entertainment of their aggressors.
In the not-so-wild west civilization grew faster than the state, but unfortunately, the state and its many psychopaths caught up. So if you want honest example looks there, or to Medieval Iceland, the clan structure of Ireland, the thousands of kingdoms of Germany prior to Bismark and unification.
If you just want to call libertarians childish, as the article does, I would say: fuck you. What’s childish is thinking that a man with a gun can solve all the world’s problems. Health? The government will do it. Education? The government will do it. Consumer protection? Government. Raising children? Restricting commerce? Delivering little pieces of paper back and forth? Deciding whether I can put raw milk in my own body? Government. Government. Government. Government. That’s a very mature and nuanced perspective.