Reclaiming Conservatism from Libertarians
Source date (UTC): 2014-09-16 19:37:00 UTC
Reclaiming Conservatism from Libertarians
Source date (UTC): 2014-09-16 19:37:00 UTC
http://www.aei-ideas.org/2014/09/more-on-the-imaginary-hobgoblin-of-rising-income-inequality-with-data-from-todays-census-report/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+aei-ideas%2Fcarpe-diem+%28AEIdeas+%C2%BB+Carpe+Diem%29#mblCensus data: the imaginary hobgoblin of rising income inequality.
Isn’t happening.
Source date (UTC): 2014-09-16 19:35:00 UTC
http://new.livestream.com/RethinkNY/reny2014/videos/62102827VERY MUCH WORTH VIEWING
( I really appreciate Peter’s work in keeping the Austrian approach alive given the absurdity of the Misesian-Rothbardian abuse of it – even if he remains a universalist. lol)
Source date (UTC): 2014-09-16 16:31:00 UTC
MORE ON HUMAN SCALE
You know, empiricism (observation) and instrumentalism (instrumental observation) are demarcated by the limits of our sense perception. But the process is essentially the same.
I would prefer to get the point across that the reason we require instrumentalism is that once we pass beyond our sense perception, we also pass beyond human scale.
I consider economics to be instrumental : a discipline for measuring that which is directly unobservable, and therefore only indirectly observable.
Just as I consider all logics to be instruments, and any human action that does not require such instruments within human scale.
This distinction turns out to be terribly important once we realize just WHY Bridgman was so concerned about operationalism, why Poincare so concerned about mathematical platonism, why Brouwer was so concerned about mathematical operationalism and intuitionism, and why **I** am so concerned about both verbal operationalism and testimonial truth, and it’s opposite: the use of verbalisms (obscurant analogies), loading and framing.
Because we have been systematically applying the methods, including mathematical methods, but more importantly, the philosophical methods, that we developed during the era of human scale where we could reason without instruments, to the era of post-human scale where we cannot sense perceive without instruments. And there is a vast difference in the properties of human scale and post-human scale measurements.
Most important of these, at least in economics, is morality. Morality is a local phenomenon and macro economics is NOT. Just as we cannot apply the morals of the famly to the extended order, we cannot likewise apply the rules of the extended order to the family.
Now, if we apply the rules of the family to the extended order our efforts will be non-predictive. That is merely an empirical or perhaps epistemological criticism. But when we apply the rules of the extended order (non-moral) to the rules of the family and tribal (moral) then we commit suicide.
Macroeconomics as I understand it is merely a secular christian crusade against aristocracy by the Cathedral. It is not we who are conquering the cathedral. But the out-group nations who understand that the cathedral’s immorality is socially destructive religion, both for it’s hosts (us) and everyone touched by it.
Source date (UTC): 2014-09-16 13:04:00 UTC
http://nationalreview.com/%2Farticles%2F269428%2Fpaul-krugman-prophet-socialism-donald-luskin
Source date (UTC): 2014-09-16 11:48:00 UTC
I took me a long time to understand how he could construct such complex fallacies, but once I understood that he substitutes accusations of stupidity for all moral resistance it was clear that he is merely an immoral man attempting to apply aggregate inter-state morality to particular intra-state (tribal) groups. He is calling morality and moral man stupid. His argument is that we should prefer wealth over morality.
Think about that for a minute. **We should prefer wealth over morality.**
Source date (UTC): 2014-09-16 11:16:00 UTC
http://euromaidanpress.com/2014/09/15/russia-concerned-about-rights-of-russian-speakers-in-the-baltics/Russia just replays hitlers strategy. Media makes opinion. Any justification they want to. If you can find a moral story and stay on message it will win.
If Russia is right then Hitler was right and Mexicans invading america are right.
For my part, I am not sure I disagree with tribalism. I agree with it. However, in the choice between corruption, or against corruption, in favor of pervasive lying and against pervasive lying, in favor of prosperity or in favor of poverty, in favor of high trust or in favor of low trust, I choose to be against corruption and against pervasive lying, in favor of prosperity, in favor of high trust, and against everything that Russia stands for and does.
This is just how it is. Bring your invading conquering, corrupt, low-trust, lie-believing, pseudoscientific Russian speakers home to the poverty of your militarism.
Source date (UTC): 2014-09-16 10:57:00 UTC
(While I am thinking about fashion)
A friend asked me today to write about buying and wearing suits.
As I said in my last post, I realized that NY had lost touch and become an insular and irrelevant microcosm.
So since most fashion literature comes from NY, I have been working on a long article of corrected do’s and dont’s that launder NY’s anti masculinism (effeminacy) from fashion advice.
To do this requires that I make general statements about formal, business, smart casual as well as casual, working class and proletarian wear. Thus takes some effort.
The reason being that our physical interaction with the physical world is dependent upon our class. Or more simply stated our clothes reflect our needs for physical movement.
If you drive a jaguar from you attached garage to an underground office park, and walk fifty feet on washed pavement, enter an elevator and exit into a carpeted floor walked upon by identical people then italian shoes and fine woolen slacks carry no wear. Someone who walks five blocks to a bus, five more to work at home depot has different needs.
Most of us are in the middle if that spectrum and increasingly that arena of wool slacks is dying off.
Clothes are class uniforms.
They can help or hurt you.
And the days if easy employment and dressing to rebel are over outside of the proletarians.
Rebellion is a luxury of wealth. The century of “easy” is over I think.
Source date (UTC): 2014-09-16 10:51:00 UTC
I am not sure that I understand what has happened but Fashion just changed in response to status signals worldwide.
I can see it in the economy – which drives fashion. I can see it in fashion this fall. I can feel my own taste shift. I can feel what my intuition is rejecting. I can see designers are confused as well.
It feels like a search for a less flamboyant conservatism. And thats harder than the experimentalism thats been universal for so long.
I sensed german influence was ascendant, and that new york had lost touch, but not that Californian influence was in decline. It is partly generational as well as economic as the boomers and their hedonistic proletarianism wane in influence.
I wish I had contacts at the fashion editorial level.
This will drive me nuts until I figure it out.
Source date (UTC): 2014-09-16 10:31:00 UTC
http://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=675084119021001008101031118117078122024006056079005030120082092022112104009097075123124060121106033007109027006122102017066114107006090023002099028120107100103016118063082019110105095016126091122090116000&EXT=pdfRole of government in currency.
Under Propertarianism, government’s (insurer of last resort) role is limited to weights and measures. This was, as I understand it, the value of early currency, at a time when weights and measures were suspect. Once most currencies were no longer suspect, and therefore, no profit was possible from selling a medium of exchange in and of itself, states attempted to profit from degrading the standard they had developed.
We should not forget that aristocrats built markets as private enterprises, and that under those circumstances neither the market nor money is a commons.
Source date (UTC): 2014-09-16 09:36:00 UTC