—“Conservatism since Burke has been defined (in part) by the principle that was must first understand and deal with reality as it exists before we can create the reality that we want.”—Eric Field
Perfect. Going to use that often.
Hence my argument that libertarianism is rationalist and justificationary, and conservatism scientific and explanatory, and socialism pseudoscientific and deceptive.
Source date (UTC): 2015-05-04 08:36:00 UTC
As my friends list has expanded beyond the libertarians and into the conservatives, it’s been interesting to observe how frequently I am misunderstood, but how less ideological conservatives are, and how better informed in general, if not as informed about economics. Libertarians understand and counter with fallacies endemic to libertinism. Conservatives respond without fallacy, but presume the wrong argument.
There is something interesting to be learned there if I think about it a bit.
I need to understand it.
Source date (UTC): 2015-05-04 04:08:00 UTC
Curt Doolittle shared a post.
Source date (UTC): 2015-05-03 23:42:00 UTC
[T]he only way to obtain liberty is to raise the cost of tyranny, just as the only means of constructing property is to raise the cost of parasitism. We can raise costs by a) gossip – meaning shaming, b) economic ostracization – meaning boycott, and c) violence. a) does not work for obvious reasons – the incentives to act as a parasite are superior under redistributive government. b) does not work, since we are actively prohibited by law from ostracization and separatism. Therefore (c) violence, is our only choice. Since even with small numbers we can dramatically raise the cost of parasitism upon us, and the destruction of our family and civilization. Thankfully, at no time in human history, save perhaps during the sea people’s period, has civilizatino been so fragile. It is the easiest period in which we can restore our liberty. Or lose it forever.
[T]he only way to obtain liberty is to raise the cost of tyranny, just as the only means of constructing property is to raise the cost of parasitism. We can raise costs by a) gossip – meaning shaming, b) economic ostracization – meaning boycott, and c) violence. a) does not work for obvious reasons – the incentives to act as a parasite are superior under redistributive government. b) does not work, since we are actively prohibited by law from ostracization and separatism. Therefore (c) violence, is our only choice. Since even with small numbers we can dramatically raise the cost of parasitism upon us, and the destruction of our family and civilization. Thankfully, at no time in human history, save perhaps during the sea people’s period, has civilizatino been so fragile. It is the easiest period in which we can restore our liberty. Or lose it forever.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-05-02/major-us-retailers-are-closing-more-6000-storesThe american retail apocalypse.
Coming to a store near you.
(good data)
Source date (UTC): 2015-05-03 09:12:00 UTC
http://captaincapitalism.blogspot.com/2015/04/we-need-nationwide-st-scholastica-day.htmlAcademic Distributors of Deceit: Kill them.
Source date (UTC): 2015-05-03 09:08:00 UTC
http://alphagameplan.blogspot.com/2015/05/the-end-of-marriage-is-end-of.htmlFeminists destroy marriage and with it all incentives to produce civilization
Source date (UTC): 2015-05-03 09:05:00 UTC
[T]he first question of ethics is why do I not kill you and take your stuff.
The ritual of setting aside this question in order to enter into debate has been lost through the ages. And common interest conveniently assumed as the starting point, rather than the necessity of choice between cooperation, parasitism, and predation. If we assume cooperation this is a fallacy. Cooperation itself must be valued higher than non-cooperation.
Instead, why do I not kill you? What are the minimum criterion for cooperation under which not-killing you is advantageous?
Certainly it is not rational to permit violence or theft. Certainly not deceit. Certainly not the imposition of costs. Certainly not danger to my kith and kin.
Certainly not at an expense to my kith and kin (( Literally, albeit archaically, friends (“kith”) and family (“kin”). )).
[T]he first question of ethics is why do I not kill you and take your stuff.
The ritual of setting aside this question in order to enter into debate has been lost through the ages. And common interest conveniently assumed as the starting point, rather than the necessity of choice between cooperation, parasitism, and predation. If we assume cooperation this is a fallacy. Cooperation itself must be valued higher than non-cooperation.
Instead, why do I not kill you? What are the minimum criterion for cooperation under which not-killing you is advantageous?
Certainly it is not rational to permit violence or theft. Certainly not deceit. Certainly not the imposition of costs. Certainly not danger to my kith and kin.
Certainly not at an expense to my kith and kin (( Literally, albeit archaically, friends (“kith”) and family (“kin”). )).