Here you go. Just so I don’t forget. 🙂
Source date (UTC): 2015-01-08 13:13:00 UTC
Here you go. Just so I don’t forget. 🙂
Source date (UTC): 2015-01-08 13:13:00 UTC
Curt Doolittle shared a post.
Source date (UTC): 2015-01-08 10:55:00 UTC
Yes.
Source date (UTC): 2015-01-08 10:54:00 UTC
Those who do not understand the reasons for their success will fail to repeat it.
Source date (UTC): 2015-01-08 10:52:00 UTC
Curt Doolittle shared a post.
Source date (UTC): 2015-01-08 10:51:00 UTC
RESCUING MISES FROM OSTRACIZATION
We know why incentivized leftists do what they do now, and mises was wrong. Its status seeking, not guilt. Guilt is interestingly more powerful in the jewish construct of man where status seeking is more powerful in western heroic vision. We know that most leftists are genetically determined, and environmentally reinforced. So if one is to deduce human behavior and incentive, one must correction understand the hierarchy of those incentives and he was incorrect.
My goal isn’t to discredit Mises, it is to eliminate postmodern deceptions and pseudosciences. And to rescue Austrian economics from the damage done, so that I can reintroduce morality into empirical economics, requires that I demonstrate how and why mises was mistaken. The problem is that mises, like many cosmopolitans, argued pseudoscientifically. I understand now why this was done by both germans and jews of their era. But the net is that it is pseudoscientific and must be corrected or be thrown out along with every other pseudoscience. To correct it requires only that correction I have made: mises was mistaken. He had discovered operationalism (intuitionism) in economics as a test of existential possibility. But it is beyond question at this point that economic phenomenon are not deducible from has nonsense ‘axiom’. Instead, we can create theories however we wish, we can test them through criticism. Once we possess them we can create models from them. Models help us investigate the possibility of new theories. However, we must criticize (falsify) our theories to determine if they survive scrutiny. Included in these tests are internal consistency (logic) external correspondence (empirical testing), operational definition (existential possibility), parsimony (falsifiication), as well as morality (voluntary exchange/transfer). These tests warranty that we relay what exists not what we imagine, by laundering imaginary content from our imagined theories, leaving the most accurate description of phenomenon that we can measure.
From this perspective, Misies is correct: he sought to practice moral economics (exchanges), and the mainstream adopted immoral economics(deceptions). Unfortunately he tried, as germans and jews are want to do, to conflate axiomatic truth and morality, instead of theoretical truth being necessary for the conduct of moral economics.
This is, I think, how we rescue mises from his ostracized position in history, and restore morality to economics.
Source date (UTC): 2015-01-08 03:30:00 UTC
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2qHQudLwJQBTW: I CRITICIZE ANGLOS, GERMANS AND JEWS EQUALLY.
The fact that the jews were more effective in propaganda and politics than the germans, and the germans more effective in philosophy than the anglos, and the anglos more effective than both at law, commerce and war because of their territory and navy, says nothing, does not leave any group innocent.
We all advance our group’s evolutionary strategies. It is a child’s whining to criticize others for exercising their evolutionary strategy. Instead, we must look at what we did wrong – why their strategy defeated us.
Everyone got the enlightenment wrong somehow. The anglos used the right argument an false assumptions of man. The puritans and neo-puritans are more damaging than the jews have been. The germans the wrong argument and the right assumptions of man. But the neo-puritans and jews have run with their ideas. The jews the wrong argument, and the wrong assumptions of man. But their work is confined to pseudosicence that has been rapidly reversed since 1990 by scientists.
My job is to state all three positions correctly, and to construct institutions that will defend the west – truth tellers – from pseudoscience, falsehoods and lies.
And to construct institutions that require truth.
Source date (UTC): 2015-01-07 16:56:00 UTC
http://www.eurocanadian.ca/2014/10/hegel-and-progression-of-western-spirit.htmlIS HEGEL RIGHT, OR IS THE ANSWER MUCH MORE SIMPLE?
Source date (UTC): 2015-01-07 12:44:00 UTC
Information is the correct metaphor. I am not certain we can improve upon our current understanding of knowledge as information – meaning necessary to change state – and I am not certain that we can improve upon what is currently called the scientific method – except that if we introduce costs and objective morality into the set of warranties, it would serve as the universal method for warrantied theories. I am more concerned now that we have largely managed to eliminate bias and error, that we eliminate bias, deception, fraud and theft from theories – at which point all human knowledge can be judged by the same means regardless of discipline.
Source date (UTC): 2015-01-07 09:30:00 UTC
BUT SINCE YOU GAVE ME AN EXCUSE TO RIDICULE ARGUMENTATION ETHICS I HAVE TO SEIZE IT.
Argumentation ethics relies on the weapon of contradiction. This mighty weapon works precisely nowhere except in a court where property is based upon high trust moral constraint that is itself impossible under rothbardian ethics. (That is a lovely contradiction.)
Argumentation ethics are nonsense. Property rights exist as a property of contractual relations. In the absence of contractual relations, violence is our greatest competitive asset. Libertarians (Libertines) attempt to escape the high cost of using violence. They do this for a variety of reasons. FOr self congratualtory imaginary status. To escape their powerless inferiority. To avoid the cost of policing using violence. To avoid the risk of applying violence. In other words, libertines conduct a fraud – free riding by fraud.
Certainly progressives don’t care about argumentation. Certainly conservatives advance and use violence. But just like libertines, progressives attempt to free ride. TO gain status over their superiors who make their privileges possible by the organized use of violence.
Under Propertarian ethics and Aristocratic Egalitarianism, the use of violence to actively suppress, institute property rights throughout the scale, and demand truth-speaking, is a defensive, moral and wise, activity.
And right now, WE NEED TO START USING ORGANIZED VIOLENCE TO SAVE OUR PEOPLE
Source date (UTC): 2015-01-07 08:27:00 UTC