See: the South’s economic arguments regarding slavery for an obvious counter-example (then apply them before the industrial revolution).

Subjective theory of value and indeterminacy of plural satisfactory exchange criteria.

What is the link between these things and “capital optimized for more capital optimized for more capital…”

capital optimization necessarily entails the subordination of human values.

Is this distinction between voluntary and coerced, exactly that? Is this distinction between production-based-distribution and Cathedral-like-distribution, exactly that? Human value judgements? Why would capital optimization speak about the inputs being forced or willing? Why would capital optimization speak about “anthropocentric relational power.” (Again, It has been stated NRx totally understands social conflict better than the juvenile libertarians.)

“I am considering ‘capital optimized for other-than-capital’ costly and thus not credibly regarded as optimal.” High prices are anti-capital-optimization? “It’s not a leak if someone is (delete)voluntarily(/delete) paying for it.”

In discussing Darwinism (defined biological life optimized for more biological life optimized for more biological life…), is it not ridiculous for a human to speak of how biological life ought to be?

In discussing Capitalism (if defined as “capital optimized for more capital optimized for more capital…”) is it not ridiculous for a human to speak of how economic organization ought to be?

Any prohibition on exchange suffices as evidence of this insofar as such prohibitions are justified somehow. The justification implies the alternative organizing principle.

“Specifically what about capital efficiency binds iteration of exchange and production to an organizing principle of voluntarism? What empirical examples of this exist?”

Subjective theory of value and indeterminacy of plural satisfactory exchange criteria. Empirical examples include any case where comparative advantage obtains.

““Socialism is not in the same class of objects” is clearly incorrect, it was posited as exactly an “Economic Optimization system,” as improving “capital efficiency” by reducing the inefficiencies of private property.”

I’m uninterested in what was posited. What principle verifies inefficiencies of private property? I think you are importing obsolete normative anthropocentric criteria. In simplest form, “capital optimization” entails capital optimizing for the production of more capital agnostic of initial value conditions. Socialism configures capital for some other predetermined value, which may optimize something else- say distribution per some rule- but does not optimize for capital (otherwise why “socialism”?). The difference is that the former correctly assumes that human values are contingent and can operate indifferent to the future content of that variable. It also has no memory.

“To the point of the post, are you stating that a Status Optimization system exists outside of an Economic Optimization system? If so, how?”

Status optimization is parasitic on capital optimization by virtue of the fact that the highest value is not more total capital.

“Per the post, “It is capital optimization by any means” (including Cathedral-like distribution and coercion).”

Cathedral is not interested in capital *optimization* at all. Perhaps this miscommunication is my fault. When I say “capital optimization” I mean “capital optimized for more capital optimized for more capital…” because I am considering “capital optimized for other-than-capital” costly and thus not credibly regarded as optimal. Capital is a dirty fuel for “other-than-capital”.

I don’t want to speak for admin, but I gathered that “Capitalism has only one terminal law: anything that can feed itself gets to live,” means what I stated earlier here, namely, that capital optimization necessarily entails the subordination of human values. This is the anti-orthogonality thesis applied to economy. http://www.xenosystems.net/against-orthogonality/

Finally, Socialism is simply not a process but an anthro mechanism of the Cathedral (the process). If your point is that “Capitalism” is the mechanism, akin to socialism, and not the process- the reason I disagree is because unlike socialism, capitalism-as-mechanism is isomorphic to capitalism-as-process because it is agnostic with regard to any anthropological values, as evidenced by the fact that without prohibition, everything has a price, including the historically informed conditions you mention. Again, the difference here is that the price is determined by (value neutral) catallaxy itself and cannot reliably be determined a priori, as is the case with externally imposed exchange criteria.

“Socialism is not in the same class of objects” is clearly incorrect, it was posited as exactly an “Economic Optimization system,” as improving “capital efficiency” by reducing the inefficiencies of private property.

To the point of the post, are you stating that a Status Optimization system exists outside of an Economic Optimization system? If so, how?

To be more clear, the issue is not defining Capitalism as “Economic Optimization” completely apart from “an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth” (though decency may require you at least not speak in such terms).

But you cannot then state “Capitalism has only one terminal law: anything that can feed itself gets to live,” or state voluntarism is the only means. Per the post, “It is capital optimization by any means” (including Cathedral-like distribution and coercion).

There’s nothing about the Cathedral that optimizes for capital, rather it optimizes for anthropocentric relational power. Coercion is only interesting because it binds iteration of exchange and production to an organizing principle at cross purposes to capital efficiency. We’re talking about the systems themselves as systems, no? Darwinism, Cathedral, and Capitalism are commensurate. Biological Optimization, Status Optimization, and Economic Optimization systems. Socialism is not in the same class of objects.

There’s nothing about the Cathedral that optimizes for capital, rather it optimizes for anthropocentric relational power. Coercion is only interesting because it binds iteration of exchange and production to an organizing principle at cross purposes to capital efficiency. We’re talking about the systems themselves as systems, no? Darwinism, Cathedral, and Capitalism are commensurate- Biological Optimization, Status Optimization, and Economic Optimization systems. Socialism is not in the same class of objects.

However, if the concept is blown up from “an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth” to “It is capital optimization by any means,” how can this exclude, and be contrasted to “the Cathedral?”

As a crude example, consider very basic conceptions of ectomorph (shed energy easily) and endomorph (store energy easily). It would be like contrasting an ectomorph, not with an endomorph, but with Darwinism.

Again (regarding “Capitalism”), these distinctions (voluntary and reward/effort) are clearly what the authors intend to highlight as a means of contrasting capitalism with socialism/Cathedral/blah. But since there is nothing about “capital optimization by any means” which must exclude coercion or differing distributions, the author is clearly morphing the concept to suit purposes (A discourse of distribution resentments).

Social norms facilitate interaction by making it easier to model the other person. Thedes can arise out of social norms alone: ‘we’ are those who each of ‘us’ can easily interact with (because ‘we’ can easily model ‘ourselves’, because ‘we’ adhere to the same social norms), and ‘they’ are those who each of ‘us’ can’t.

The same process holds for common reference points. A thede may define itself also by its shared knowledge. Or shared rituals — golf, for example — which facilitate networking. Or shared historical/geographical/etc. experiences, as Benedict Anderson describes.

Or not. But that’s how I’ve been thinking of it.

AI has been predicted to come Real Soon Now ever since MIT got its hands on a computer. It’s not here yet.

Institutional intelligences are far more interesting to me than computer intelligences, because they’re already here, they’re already self-improving, and someday China will figure out intelligence augmentation. If intelligence augmentation leads to increased ability to produce intelligence augmentation, institutional singularity.