To the ashes of my fathers and the temples of my gods,
At the age of 12, sitting in church, I made an oath to god: that should I become wealthy I would build him a church.
I had no idea that while I meant money and a building, he meant a philosophy and a polity.
A pity I do not know his name.
Source date (UTC): 2014-07-13 03:47:00 UTC
If I am correct, then dialectical materialism is (as Kant earlier suggested of dialectic), merely a deceptive obscurantism.
But it serves as confirmation of cosmopolitan low trust ethics: fidelity (search for consent); and unlike aristocratic (empirical) ethics, it has nothing to do with the discovery of truth.
In the European anglo empirical model, we seek the truth and commit fidelity to it. In the cosmopolitan model we seek consent and fidelity regardless if truth.
Warriors can die. Traders merely bear losses.
Source date (UTC): 2014-07-13 03:41:00 UTC
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/07/12/opinion/the-trouble-with-brain-science.html?referrer
Source date (UTC): 2014-07-13 01:13:00 UTC
http://www.stephenhicks.org/#article/26345Why are philosophers stupid about politics?
Source date (UTC): 2014-07-13 01:02:00 UTC
I grew up surrounded by women, married young and perpetuated it.
I didnt realize it was a luxury.
🙂
Source date (UTC): 2014-07-13 00:20:00 UTC
SCIENCE AND SOCIALISM
Unfortunately for Socialists and Feminists (socialism in skirts) science has been a losing proposition. While pseudoscience from Marx to the postmodernists active today, was successful in the era of ignorance, the inability to control information via the media, and the explosion in economic, cognitive, psychological, genetic and anthropological sciences has largely been destructive to their ideology. Which is why while they started out with the fallacy of scientific socialism they have ended up with the fallacy of political correctness.
The game is done.
Source date (UTC): 2014-07-12 13:46:00 UTC
THE ODDS THAT LOIS IS LYING
Source date (UTC): 2014-07-12 08:44:00 UTC
THEY MUST SUE OBAMA OR THE PRESIDENCY HAS BECOME DESPOTIC
(Reposted from comment on National review:)
They either must sue or impeach or they risk the de facto destruction of the balance of powers.
I prefer that he be struck by lightening from the hand of god (or a lucky lunatic foreign or domestic), but otherwise impeachment is political, impossible and leaves us with an imbecile in the presidency, while the courts construct prescedent and effectively reconstruct the laws that he has broken. I would much prefer a body of law to constrain the administration than I would the political process.
Once he is guilty he is defacto guilty of high crimes, so impeachment is either easier or unnecessary. In either case his presidency is done.
We will eventually have to separate state (ritual and veto) from government (administration). The presidency is, empirically a failed institution, both domestically and internationally. A monarchy with veto power and a parliamentary system have proven superior. But since we have no monarchy, a president unbound by term limits whose only power was the podium and veto would better fulfill the demands of the balance of powers.
Source date (UTC): 2014-07-12 08:41:00 UTC
My Glossary alone is over 100 pages. So I will have to label necessary terms. And see what can be cut. But not much can be. Why? Because of you cleanse terms of the various fallacies endemic to democracy and the legitimacy of the state, as well as various philosophical fallacies, then the set of terms that does not need restatement is small.
Our language is polluted.
Source date (UTC): 2014-07-12 08:00:00 UTC
—“The percentage of time devoted in contribution to the production of the commons shall be equal to the percentage of income provided to the commons by results of trade. This places reciprocal limits on the producers of goods within the voluntary organization of production, and the producers of the commons that enable the voluntary organization of production.”—
Source date (UTC): 2014-07-12 04:50:00 UTC