[C]aplan’s argument does not account for costs. He’s wrong. Always has been. This argument is just an extension of Cosmopolitan justification for identitarian incorporation of subgroups into host countries. It is simple literary and economic obscurantism that seeks to ignore the costs of heterogeneity on a population. In an homogenous population under universal absolute nuclear families, we still see high costs of relocation of individuals to changes in capital centers that doe NOT offset the increases in productivity – which are merely artifacts of the change in prices as demand increases in geographies. In homogenous populations containing ANF families, it takes time for the introduction of heterogeneous forces to play out, but temporary increases do simply to increases in demand for consumption due to relocation are not increases in production, and those costs have to measured against the long term decline of the trust as well as socialistic costs of incorporating lower trust groups into the society. Trust and homogeneity of high trust, is the most expensive capital to create. And heterogeneity consumes that capital asset – rapidly. The fallacy of the economic benefit of immigration is that there is no cost to norms. If high trust ethics were fully codified in law, then we could enforce high trust ethics at low cost. However, the immigration of low trust peoples has produced precisely the erosion of our constitution and our liberties that the protestants predicted would happen. The majority does not desire liberty. The minority desires liberty. And the aristocratic (noble) minority imposed high trust ethics upon the northern european peoples by force. It was that forcible imposition that caused the high trust society, plus the restoration of science, that resulted in european miracle – the only people to possess liberty. I don’t want to say Caplan is a LIAR, so much as engaged in intentional deception, but he’s no better than the progressives who abuse statistics to tout changes family incomes instead of individual incomes. Its sort of like his arguments as to why he’s not an austrian. They’re just word games. (There is no difference between the argument for prices and incentives. Obverse and Reverse of the same concept.) My purpose is to promote my genes, even at the expense of others genes. If we can cooperate while I do that then that’s fine. But if we cannot cooperate while I do that, then there is no point in cooperation. We all demonstrate our time preference. That’s mine. That’s everyone other than W.E.I.R.D’s – who are demonstrably suicidal. You don’t get to determine what my preference is. Thats totalitarian. If you dictate my preferences that is by definition not a state of liberty. I agree to cooperate if it’s beneficial to my ends, but not if it is not. That is all that can be said. I don’t subscribe to the leftist proposal of Rawls, nor the left libertarian position of open borders. I subscribe to the aristocratic proposal that if cooperation is beneficial to me and mine then we should cooperate, but if it’s not then no. I don’t know what’s libertarian about favoring dysgenics. I mean, why should I squander my earnings through redistribution? Why should I squander my culture’s high trust norms through redistribution? And why should I squander my genes through dysgenic redistribution? I mean, if you’re a libertarian and you claim to have rights to your earnings, then why do you only have rights to your earnings and not the right to your other forms of capital? I can spend my inheritance too. That isn’t an increase in production, that’s just rapid destruction of accumulated capital.
Author: Curt Doolittle
-
Caplan's Dishonest Redistributive Argument In Favor Of Open Immigration
[C]aplan’s argument does not account for costs. He’s wrong. Always has been. This argument is just an extension of Cosmopolitan justification for identitarian incorporation of subgroups into host countries. It is simple literary and economic obscurantism that seeks to ignore the costs of heterogeneity on a population. In an homogenous population under universal absolute nuclear families, we still see high costs of relocation of individuals to changes in capital centers that doe NOT offset the increases in productivity – which are merely artifacts of the change in prices as demand increases in geographies. In homogenous populations containing ANF families, it takes time for the introduction of heterogeneous forces to play out, but temporary increases do simply to increases in demand for consumption due to relocation are not increases in production, and those costs have to measured against the long term decline of the trust as well as socialistic costs of incorporating lower trust groups into the society. Trust and homogeneity of high trust, is the most expensive capital to create. And heterogeneity consumes that capital asset – rapidly. The fallacy of the economic benefit of immigration is that there is no cost to norms. If high trust ethics were fully codified in law, then we could enforce high trust ethics at low cost. However, the immigration of low trust peoples has produced precisely the erosion of our constitution and our liberties that the protestants predicted would happen. The majority does not desire liberty. The minority desires liberty. And the aristocratic (noble) minority imposed high trust ethics upon the northern european peoples by force. It was that forcible imposition that caused the high trust society, plus the restoration of science, that resulted in european miracle – the only people to possess liberty. I don’t want to say Caplan is a LIAR, so much as engaged in intentional deception, but he’s no better than the progressives who abuse statistics to tout changes family incomes instead of individual incomes. Its sort of like his arguments as to why he’s not an austrian. They’re just word games. (There is no difference between the argument for prices and incentives. Obverse and Reverse of the same concept.) My purpose is to promote my genes, even at the expense of others genes. If we can cooperate while I do that then that’s fine. But if we cannot cooperate while I do that, then there is no point in cooperation. We all demonstrate our time preference. That’s mine. That’s everyone other than W.E.I.R.D’s – who are demonstrably suicidal. You don’t get to determine what my preference is. Thats totalitarian. If you dictate my preferences that is by definition not a state of liberty. I agree to cooperate if it’s beneficial to my ends, but not if it is not. That is all that can be said. I don’t subscribe to the leftist proposal of Rawls, nor the left libertarian position of open borders. I subscribe to the aristocratic proposal that if cooperation is beneficial to me and mine then we should cooperate, but if it’s not then no. I don’t know what’s libertarian about favoring dysgenics. I mean, why should I squander my earnings through redistribution? Why should I squander my culture’s high trust norms through redistribution? And why should I squander my genes through dysgenic redistribution? I mean, if you’re a libertarian and you claim to have rights to your earnings, then why do you only have rights to your earnings and not the right to your other forms of capital? I can spend my inheritance too. That isn’t an increase in production, that’s just rapid destruction of accumulated capital.
-
Caplan’s Dishonest Redistributive Argument In Favor Of Open Immigration
[C]aplan’s argument does not account for costs. He’s wrong. Always has been. This argument is just an extension of Cosmopolitan justification for identitarian incorporation of subgroups into host countries. It is simple literary and economic obscurantism that seeks to ignore the costs of heterogeneity on a population. In an homogenous population under universal absolute nuclear families, we still see high costs of relocation of individuals to changes in capital centers that doe NOT offset the increases in productivity – which are merely artifacts of the change in prices as demand increases in geographies. In homogenous populations containing ANF families, it takes time for the introduction of heterogeneous forces to play out, but temporary increases do simply to increases in demand for consumption due to relocation are not increases in production, and those costs have to measured against the long term decline of the trust as well as socialistic costs of incorporating lower trust groups into the society. Trust and homogeneity of high trust, is the most expensive capital to create. And heterogeneity consumes that capital asset – rapidly. The fallacy of the economic benefit of immigration is that there is no cost to norms. If high trust ethics were fully codified in law, then we could enforce high trust ethics at low cost. However, the immigration of low trust peoples has produced precisely the erosion of our constitution and our liberties that the protestants predicted would happen. The majority does not desire liberty. The minority desires liberty. And the aristocratic (noble) minority imposed high trust ethics upon the northern european peoples by force. It was that forcible imposition that caused the high trust society, plus the restoration of science, that resulted in european miracle – the only people to possess liberty. I don’t want to say Caplan is a LIAR, so much as engaged in intentional deception, but he’s no better than the progressives who abuse statistics to tout changes family incomes instead of individual incomes. Its sort of like his arguments as to why he’s not an austrian. They’re just word games. (There is no difference between the argument for prices and incentives. Obverse and Reverse of the same concept.) My purpose is to promote my genes, even at the expense of others genes. If we can cooperate while I do that then that’s fine. But if we cannot cooperate while I do that, then there is no point in cooperation. We all demonstrate our time preference. That’s mine. That’s everyone other than W.E.I.R.D’s – who are demonstrably suicidal. You don’t get to determine what my preference is. Thats totalitarian. If you dictate my preferences that is by definition not a state of liberty. I agree to cooperate if it’s beneficial to my ends, but not if it is not. That is all that can be said. I don’t subscribe to the leftist proposal of Rawls, nor the left libertarian position of open borders. I subscribe to the aristocratic proposal that if cooperation is beneficial to me and mine then we should cooperate, but if it’s not then no. I don’t know what’s libertarian about favoring dysgenics. I mean, why should I squander my earnings through redistribution? Why should I squander my culture’s high trust norms through redistribution? And why should I squander my genes through dysgenic redistribution? I mean, if you’re a libertarian and you claim to have rights to your earnings, then why do you only have rights to your earnings and not the right to your other forms of capital? I can spend my inheritance too. That isn’t an increase in production, that’s just rapid destruction of accumulated capital.
-
Truth Vs Promise : Some Examples
—“It is worthy of notice that the sentence “I smell the scent of violets” has the same content as the sentence “It is true that I smell the scent of violets.” So it seems, then, that nothing is added to the thought by my ascribing to it the property of truth. “—(Frege?) I disagree. “I smell the scent of violets” has the same content as “I attest that I smell the scent of violets”or “I promise to you that I smell the scent of violets.” Whether it is true or not has nothing to do with your utterance. –“The snow is white, if and only if the snow is white”– The snow can’t ‘be’ anything. It cannot act, nor perceive the passage of time, which gives rise to the ability to determine changes in state. Instead the operationally correct statement is “I observe that the snow appears white in color. I promise that if you observe the snow, that you will also agree that it appears white in color. If both of us observe that it appears white in color, then we can agree that all observers of the snow will also observe that appears white in color.” [N]ow, this is extremely burdensome language. That’s why we don’t use it. But it is a mistake to take an aggregate “the snow is white in color” and attribute the same logical meaning to it as “I observe that the snow appears to be white in color, and I promise that if you observe the snow that you will also agree that it appears white in color.” All aggregates launder (lose) information. That’s the problem with aggregates. It’s not only a problem when we create a category, or when we add numbers together to create a sum, or call the square root of two a ‘number’ when it is a function, but it’s also a problem when we summarize informationally dense statements for the sake of brevity. Operational language is burdensome. But it prevents the evolution of what appear to be complex problems, from that which is merely a byproduct of aggregation (laundering). MORE ON PROMISES AND TRUTH –“Other philosophers believe it’s a mistake to say the researchers’ goal is to achieve truth. … When they aren’t overtly identifying truth with usefulness, the instrumentalists Peirce, James and Schlick take this anti-realist route, as does Kuhn. They would say atomic theory isn’t true or false but rather is useful for predicting outcomes of experiments and for explaining current data. Giere recommends saying science aims for the best available “representation”, in the same sense that maps are representations of the landscape. Maps aren’t true; rather, they fit to a better or worse degree. Similarly, scientific theories are designed to fit the world. Scientists should not aim to create true theories; they should aim to construct theories whose models are representations of the world.”– [T]his is a wordy paragraph that simply states that better theories correspond to and explain reality, than less good theories. But theories can never be identical to reality, since they are always representations (I would call them ‘aggregates that exclude information’). I can promise you that I followed the scientific method, and that my theory is internally consistent, externally correspondent and falsifiable (and perhaps a few other things). If you agree that my theory is useful, internally consistent, externally correspondent, and falsifiable, (and perhaps a few other things) then you can say that I spoke the truth. You may, for sake of manners and brevity say that the theory is then true. But that is merely an abbreviation for the fact that the theory is true, and useful. As far as I know this is the limit of our ability without entering the fantasy world of platonism.
-
Truth Vs Promise : Some Examples
—“It is worthy of notice that the sentence “I smell the scent of violets” has the same content as the sentence “It is true that I smell the scent of violets.” So it seems, then, that nothing is added to the thought by my ascribing to it the property of truth. “—(Frege?) I disagree. “I smell the scent of violets” has the same content as “I attest that I smell the scent of violets”or “I promise to you that I smell the scent of violets.” Whether it is true or not has nothing to do with your utterance. –“The snow is white, if and only if the snow is white”– The snow can’t ‘be’ anything. It cannot act, nor perceive the passage of time, which gives rise to the ability to determine changes in state. Instead the operationally correct statement is “I observe that the snow appears white in color. I promise that if you observe the snow, that you will also agree that it appears white in color. If both of us observe that it appears white in color, then we can agree that all observers of the snow will also observe that appears white in color.” [N]ow, this is extremely burdensome language. That’s why we don’t use it. But it is a mistake to take an aggregate “the snow is white in color” and attribute the same logical meaning to it as “I observe that the snow appears to be white in color, and I promise that if you observe the snow that you will also agree that it appears white in color.” All aggregates launder (lose) information. That’s the problem with aggregates. It’s not only a problem when we create a category, or when we add numbers together to create a sum, or call the square root of two a ‘number’ when it is a function, but it’s also a problem when we summarize informationally dense statements for the sake of brevity. Operational language is burdensome. But it prevents the evolution of what appear to be complex problems, from that which is merely a byproduct of aggregation (laundering). MORE ON PROMISES AND TRUTH –“Other philosophers believe it’s a mistake to say the researchers’ goal is to achieve truth. … When they aren’t overtly identifying truth with usefulness, the instrumentalists Peirce, James and Schlick take this anti-realist route, as does Kuhn. They would say atomic theory isn’t true or false but rather is useful for predicting outcomes of experiments and for explaining current data. Giere recommends saying science aims for the best available “representation”, in the same sense that maps are representations of the landscape. Maps aren’t true; rather, they fit to a better or worse degree. Similarly, scientific theories are designed to fit the world. Scientists should not aim to create true theories; they should aim to construct theories whose models are representations of the world.”– [T]his is a wordy paragraph that simply states that better theories correspond to and explain reality, than less good theories. But theories can never be identical to reality, since they are always representations (I would call them ‘aggregates that exclude information’). I can promise you that I followed the scientific method, and that my theory is internally consistent, externally correspondent and falsifiable (and perhaps a few other things). If you agree that my theory is useful, internally consistent, externally correspondent, and falsifiable, (and perhaps a few other things) then you can say that I spoke the truth. You may, for sake of manners and brevity say that the theory is then true. But that is merely an abbreviation for the fact that the theory is true, and useful. As far as I know this is the limit of our ability without entering the fantasy world of platonism.
-
Immoral, Unethical, Irrational, Liberty Destroying Rothbardians.
[O]nce you realize that rothbardian libertarians are genetically biased to act immorally, and that Rothbardianism helps them justify their immorality, then you realize that they’re just as impossible to discourse with rationally as progressives. Both are morally blind to the majority of the moral spectrum. Conservatives see the entire moral spectrum. The problem is that they use allegorical language, so it’s very hard to get them to talk about this subject in rational, economic terms. It’s just not intuitive to them that their philosophy is simply one of hyper efficient economics – the most trustworthy society yet developed. And since they’re the most trustworthy, they’re the most economically productive. Meanwhile they’re losing the battle against deceitful left, and immoral libertarians. The only solution for libertarianism is to return its foundations to their original ethics of aristocracy and nobility, and as a consequence to the thought leadership of the conservatives.
-
Immoral, Unethical, Irrational, Liberty Destroying Rothbardians.
[O]nce you realize that rothbardian libertarians are genetically biased to act immorally, and that Rothbardianism helps them justify their immorality, then you realize that they’re just as impossible to discourse with rationally as progressives. Both are morally blind to the majority of the moral spectrum. Conservatives see the entire moral spectrum. The problem is that they use allegorical language, so it’s very hard to get them to talk about this subject in rational, economic terms. It’s just not intuitive to them that their philosophy is simply one of hyper efficient economics – the most trustworthy society yet developed. And since they’re the most trustworthy, they’re the most economically productive. Meanwhile they’re losing the battle against deceitful left, and immoral libertarians. The only solution for libertarianism is to return its foundations to their original ethics of aristocracy and nobility, and as a consequence to the thought leadership of the conservatives.
-
Trust Is The Most Scarce And Most Expensive Form Of Capital
Rothbardian Libertarianism is an attack on the high trust society. It an obscurant, rationally justified, excuse for advocating, low trust, parasitic ethics of the ghetto. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_capital
-
Trust Is The Most Scarce And Most Expensive Form Of Capital
Rothbardian Libertarianism is an attack on the high trust society. It an obscurant, rationally justified, excuse for advocating, low trust, parasitic ethics of the ghetto. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_capital
-
The Promise Of Honesty As Truth
(sketch) [I]s following the scientific method like honest testimony? An honest statement may be true or not. We may speak truthfully (honestly) but, we may still err. So is a scientist who does not follow the scientific method dishonest? I think so. He does not speak the truth. Because in science we have established the moral rule of the scientific method. Is a politician or public intellectual arguing for taxation with postmodern language dishonest? I don’t know. It depends upon whether we apply the scientific method as a criteria for honesty, and he avoids it. If so. Yes. We cannot ever know the truth, but one can speak ethically, which is the best that we have. Is a mathematician advocating a mathematical reality dishonest? I don’t know. It depends if we apply the scientific method as a criteria for honesty, and he avoids it. If so. Yes. But are each of these people’s statements false if they put forth their arguments dishonestly? Or is honesty in each discipline unrelated to truth and falsehood? Can I make dishonest but true statements? I think so. I certainly can make honest but false statements. Is there any relationship between testimony and truth? I don’t think so. But since we can never know the objective truth, we must abide by the best criteria at our disposal, yes? Isn’t that what ethics require of us? That is why we have established ethical norms. Because when it is impossible to know, following the norms means we are blameless if we err. But can I know if I speak the truth? Well, I’m kind of after the inverse concern. Popper is terribly concerned about error and overly optimistic claims. I’m terribly concerned about self deception, and the deception of others. If we can’t know the truth, then what constitutes moral speech? It is one thing to fall victim to bias, another to fall victim to error, another to avoid operational language in order to justify to one’s self or others that which one does not truly understand, and yet another to engage in obfuscation for the purpose of self, or other, deception. I think that if I, as a speaker, reduce my statements to operational language, and that I can construct any abstraction I refer to in operational language, that I can attest to the truth of my statements in the original sense of the term: honesty. Conversely if I cannot so so, then I cannot make that claim. I think that if I follow the rules of the scientific method that this is the same as speaking honestly with the promise of having followed that method. This is honesty. I am speaking the truth or am I speaking honestly? Because the original meaning of ‘truth’ is ‘speaking honestly’ about events. I think that if I follow rules of operations in the logics this is the same as speaking honestly and with the promise of not committing an error. Since the logics are imperfect, the rules are a contract for communication. If I follow those rules then I have acted honestly. I think that if I observe that the snow is white, that if I state to you that the snow is white, it is a promise to you that the snow is white. This is I think, a description of truth in ethics. I think all other versions of the word ‘truth’ are analogies to these statements.