[R]othbard “appropriated” the term “libertarianism” and instead gave us anarcho capitalism as the reinterpretation of cosmopolitan ethics of the eastern european borderlands, under Russian, Lithuanian, and Polish rule. It is the ethic of the ghetto. Of the people who do not produce commons or defense. There is nothing ‘libertarian’ in Rothbarianism, and nothing moral in his or Block’s attempt to construct moral and legal rules. The word “is” remains extremely confusing for english speakers, since it refers both to “exists as”, and can be used as a shortcut for AVOIDING or CONFLATING, or DECEIVING the method by which something exists. So I prefer to state libertarianism as the reciprocal insurance of all individuals in a polity against the undesired imposition of costs upon that which has been transformed at the cost of individual actions or inactions – whether that cost be imposed by an individual(violence, theft, fraud, externality) a group of individuals (conspiracy), or an organization devoted to the construction of commons (government). Liberty can only be constructed by this means: mutual insurance against the involuntary imposition of costs. There is no free lunch. And arguments in favor of ‘belief’ in liberty, or belief that we should leave one another alone, are merely fraudulent attempts to obtain the experience of liberty without paying the very high cost of both insuring one another against impositions of costs, and the high cost of refraining from imposing costs upon others, and the high cost of creating commons that produce disproportionate returns, including the commons of Liberty itself. And as empirical evidence we should note that the cosmopolitans lost eastern Europe just as their ancestors lost Spain and Jerusalem. There are no free rides. Liberty is rare because it is expensive. And because only a militia of warriors possesses the incentive to construct it. But the returns on the high trust society warrant it. Because westerners dragged man out of ignorance, mysticism, disease, and poverty in the ancient and modern worlds because of it. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine SOURCE http://ex-army.blogspot.com/…/running-libertarianism-into-g…? AND ORIGINAL POST http://www.everyjoe.com/…/pol…/why-im-no-longer-libertarian/
Category: Commentary, Critique, and Response
-
Refuting Immoral Attacks on Propertarianism
(from an exchange) [W]hy would you even try to criticize Propertarianism unless you either don’t understand it, are immoral, or both?
I have spent a lot of my life in these subjects and I am all too well aware of the power of so called “scribblers” to reorder human thinking. The question I have for anyone that criticises these ambitions is why they prefer pseudoscience to science, obscurantism to philosophy, propaganda to information, deceit to truthfulness. There is no safe answer with which one can retort. Especially since the evidence of transformation of polities to greater correspondence (truth) is now overwhelming in every era. So if you don’t like me or my arguments you are welcome to attempt to refute them. But constant offers if opinion and a failure to construct argument are just pissing in fire hydrants. Basically you are forcing a cost of refutation upon me by shaming rather than engaging in the pursuit of truth. First, this violates the principle of cooperation under which it is rational to forgo predation in favour of cooperation. Second it is a rather obvious tactic. And the question it presents us with is why are you motivated to preserve lying, shaming, rallying which is merely the postmodern equivalent is saying its unchristian and a violation of gods will. So if we focus the lens in your incentives and abilities, then why is it that you as one who imposes costs upon others rather than seeking the truth, and imposes those costs though fraudulent methods of criticism, and who seeks to preserve the institutional tolerance for the forms of fraud that you employ … Why is it that you feel your pseudo rational non empirical, truth preventing, arguments should be more tolerable in politics than their rationalist and supernatural predecessors? Why are you so afraid of truth and voluntary exchange? Why are you so immoral that you will impose costs by fraud upon others? In other words, why are you demonstrably an immoral person? Except to perpetuate immorality? Truth built the west. Truth can restore it. (A couple of middle class guys hanging around Paris nearly overthrew the world.)
-
Refuting Immoral Attacks on Propertarianism
(from an exchange) [W]hy would you even try to criticize Propertarianism unless you either don’t understand it, are immoral, or both?
I have spent a lot of my life in these subjects and I am all too well aware of the power of so called “scribblers” to reorder human thinking. The question I have for anyone that criticises these ambitions is why they prefer pseudoscience to science, obscurantism to philosophy, propaganda to information, deceit to truthfulness. There is no safe answer with which one can retort. Especially since the evidence of transformation of polities to greater correspondence (truth) is now overwhelming in every era. So if you don’t like me or my arguments you are welcome to attempt to refute them. But constant offers if opinion and a failure to construct argument are just pissing in fire hydrants. Basically you are forcing a cost of refutation upon me by shaming rather than engaging in the pursuit of truth. First, this violates the principle of cooperation under which it is rational to forgo predation in favour of cooperation. Second it is a rather obvious tactic. And the question it presents us with is why are you motivated to preserve lying, shaming, rallying which is merely the postmodern equivalent is saying its unchristian and a violation of gods will. So if we focus the lens in your incentives and abilities, then why is it that you as one who imposes costs upon others rather than seeking the truth, and imposes those costs though fraudulent methods of criticism, and who seeks to preserve the institutional tolerance for the forms of fraud that you employ … Why is it that you feel your pseudo rational non empirical, truth preventing, arguments should be more tolerable in politics than their rationalist and supernatural predecessors? Why are you so afraid of truth and voluntary exchange? Why are you so immoral that you will impose costs by fraud upon others? In other words, why are you demonstrably an immoral person? Except to perpetuate immorality? Truth built the west. Truth can restore it. (A couple of middle class guys hanging around Paris nearly overthrew the world.)
-
“Add Speaker Ryan To the Hit List of Traitors”— Well, a little aggressive, but
–“Add Speaker Ryan To the Hit List of Traitors”—
Well, a little aggressive, but it appears appropriate.
Source date (UTC): 2015-12-17 11:40:00 UTC
-
Untitled
http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2015/12/what-is-the-best-theory-for-the-rise-in-mass-shootings.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+marginalrevolution%2Ffeed+%28Marginal+Revolution%29
Source date (UTC): 2015-12-16 15:09:00 UTC
-
LIBERTINISM INTO THE GROUND… Um… Rothbard “appropriated” the term “libertari
http://ex-army.blogspot.com/2015/12/running-libertarianism-into-ground.htmlRUNNING LIBERTINISM INTO THE GROUND…
Um…
Rothbard “appropriated” the term “libertarianism” and instead gave us anarcho capitalism as the reinterpretation of cosmopolitan ethics of the eastern european borderlands, under Russian, Lithuanian, and Polish rule. It is the ethic of the ghetto. Of the people who do not produce commons or defense.
There is nothing ‘libertarian’ in Rothbarianism, and nothing moral in his or Block’s attempt to construct moral and legal rules.
The word “is” remains extremely confusing for english speakers, since it refers both to “exists as”, and can be used as a shortcut for AVOIDING or CONFLATING, or DECEIVING the method by which something exists.
So I prefer to state libertarianism as the reciprocal insurance of all individuals in a polity against the undesired imposition of costs upon that which has been transformed at the cost of individual actions or inactions – whether that cost be imposed by an individual(violence, theft, fraud, externality) a group of individuals (conspiracy), or an organization devoted to the construction of commons (government).
Liberty can only be constructed by this means: mutual insurance against the involuntary imposition of costs.
There is no free lunch. And arguments in favor of ‘belief’ in liberty, or belief that we should leave one another alone, are merely fraudulent attempts to obtain the experience of liberty without paying the very high cost of both insuring one another against impositions of costs, and the high cost of refraining from imposing costs upon others, and the high cost of creating commons that produce disproportionate returns, including the commons of Liberty itself.
And as empirical evidence we should note that the cosmopolitans lost eastern Europe just as their ancestors lost Spain and Jerusalem.
There are no free rides.
Liberty is rare because it is expensive.
And because only a militia of warriors possesses the incentive to construct it.
But the returns on the high trust society warrant it.
Because dragged man out of ignorance, mysticism, disease, and poverty in the ancient and modern worlds because of it.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
SOURCE
http://ex-army.blogspot.com/2015/12/running-libertarianism-into-ground.html?
AND
ORIGINAL POST
http://www.everyjoe.com/2014/05/07/politics/why-im-no-longer-libertarian/
Source date (UTC): 2015-12-16 10:22:00 UTC
-
FINANCIAL TIMES: TRUMP IS AMERICA’S PUTIN? Vladimir Putin offers Donald Trump fa
FINANCIAL TIMES: TRUMP IS AMERICA’S PUTIN?
Vladimir Putin offers Donald Trump fans a glimpse of the possible
The Russian leader offers a glimpse of a president unstymied by Congress, writes Courtney Weaver
Vladimir Putin…Russian President Vladimir Putin chairs a meeting on fuel and energy industries in the Kremlin, in Moscow, Russia, Tuesday, Oct. 27, 2015.
On a blustery evening, a crowd of thousands gather at a political rally, many eager to explain to me why their country needs a strong leader, is right to take a more aggressive stance on the world stage and should be respected and feared by other nations.
It’s a scene not unlike those I have covered over the past five years as a correspondent for the FT in Russia. Only this time I have not come to see the adoring fans of Vladimir Putin. I am in Macon, Georgia, and the man we are waiting for is Donald Trump.
One month into a new job covering the US presidential campaign, I am starting to find that the Trump phenomenon is more understandable when viewed through the lens of a Putin-Trump Venn diagram — or, rather, the Venn diagram of their supporters.
Two weeks ago in Macon at a stadium full of diehard Trump supporters, I met Tal Wollschlaeger, a law student, who declared apropos of nothing and with no knowledge of my background that he wanted to see a US president more like . . . Mr Putin.
“I think Putin is brilliant!” the twenty-something Mr Wollschlaeger told me as two of his friends nodded in agreement. “He’s taking care of business the way he has to. His country loves him. He’s done well for them. He does what he says and he gets the job done.”
He continued: “We just have to reassert ourselves. We’ve got to the point where Britain and France can’t look to us for advice because we can’t make the first move any more, because really we’re too weak. We need to get our seat back at the table.”
At first it seemed like a one-off, a random Putin fan sprouting up like a unicorn in a southern US city nicknamed the Heart of Georgia. But I don’t think Mr Wollschlaeger is an outlier.
In Dubuque, Iowa, a crucial primary state, the Associated Press recently spoke to Duane Ernster, a local Trump supporter who also offered the Putin comparison. “Maybe we need a warrior instead of a politician,” he said. “People compare Mr Trump to Putin. There’s something to be said about the man who takes care of the Russian people.”
In a Gallup survey last year — a period marked by Russia’s annexation of Crimea, the war in Ukraine and western sanctions — Mr Putin ranked as the 10th most admired man in America, beating among others vice-president Joe Biden, the Dalai Lama and the actor George Clooney.
To Mr Putin’s admirers in the US, he offers a tantalising view of what it might be like to have a president stymied by neither Congress nor two-term limits — and one who treats the delicate art of diplomacy more like judo than chess. To many of these people, Mr Trump represents the quixotic tsar who will rid Washington of its gridlock, reverse failed foreign policies and end years of perceived economic decline. If he is Trump the Terrible, so much the better.
In his campaign, Mr Trump appears to be taking chapters out of Mr Putin’s handbook. There is the creation of a perceived external threat (in Mr Putin’s case, the US and its encroachment into Russia’s sphere of influence; in Mr Trump’s, it is Muslims and illegal immigrants); the salty language; and the stranglehold on national television. Both men are credited with being spontaneous, unpredictable and counter-intuitive, qualities that make it difficult for opponents to out manoeuvre them.
The two men’s ratings appear to defy logic. Mr Putin’s remains strong despite a worsening economy on the back of western sanctions, lower oil prices and the plunging rouble. Mr Trump’s support improves the more offensive or outlandish his comments become.
The comparisons to Mr Putin seem to suit Mr Trump just fine, perhaps because he knows they suit part of his base. In the past few months, Mr Trump has declared that he would “get along” with Mr Putin in a way that President Barack Obama has not, and he has been one of the few candidates to express his approval of Moscow’s military campaign in Syria. Mr Trump likes to joke that he and the Russian president are “stablemates” because they both appeared (separately) on the same episode of the US news programme 60 Minutes.
As for Mr Putin’s impression of Mr Trump? He has yet to comment.
courtney.weaver@ft.com
Source date (UTC): 2015-12-16 03:56:00 UTC
-
HOW PAUL KRUGMAN USES THE BIG LIE (important piece) (progress on the cosmopolita
HOW PAUL KRUGMAN USES THE BIG LIE
(important piece) (progress on the cosmopolitan method of lying)
Krugman is one of the most artful liars in the modern world. We tend to criticize him on his errors. But casting his work as error is too generous: he is simply an extremely artful liar.
If you could ask the Genii how to create the world’s most objectively evil lie, it would include the use of half truth, used as a means of suggestion, to evoke a moral altruistic response, to force an intertemporal predictive bias, that obscured the loss of difficult-to-measure-capital, as an increase in current consumption. You would convince the lion to eat it’s tail.
This is Krugman’s technique.
That this subtle technique is the origin of The Monotheistic Lie, (The First Great Lie), as well as the 19th-20th century cosmopolitan pseudo-sciences: Boaz, Freud, Cantor, Marx-Keynes (The Second Great Lie), should not surprise us.
What Marx achieved through loading, framing, overloading, and suggestion in dialectic, Keynes achieved by abandoning loading, and relying upon framing, overloading and suggestion, with innumeracy.
This is Keynes’ achievement: to convert the pseudo-moral, into the pseudo-scientific. But the result is the same: obscuring the consumption of capital accumulated over millennia (k-selection for eugenic quality) into short term consumption (r-selection for dysgenic quantity). In other words, the Cosmopolitan’s second attempt at The Great Lie using the same means.
In 2009 I wanted to start blogging about his technique, but rapidly I realized his ability to generate deceit was inexpensive, and the required effort to demonstrate the construction of his lies was terribly expensive. So I’m thrilled that those more capable of it – Bob Murphy – are doing it instead.
Once you understand the mechanism of Krugman’s deception is merely an instance of the Great Lie Technique applied to economics, and his use of suggestion on one hand, and ridicule on the other, you realize he’s just using moral cognitive biases as a very sophisticated slight of hand by which to justify, encourage, and obscure the transfer of capital to consumption, so that the state can expand and the unproductive can obtain commission on the redistribution of capital to consumption.
We can only do what we did in the past, and use science – the discipline of truth telling – to over come the Great Lies.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2015-12-16 03:25:00 UTC
-
MERKEL: “MUTICULTURALISM, A SHAM” == PARALLEL SOCIETIES (not that we can trust w
MERKEL: “MUTICULTURALISM, A SHAM” == PARALLEL SOCIETIES
(not that we can trust what merkel says any more than putin or obama these days) (h/t: Alexander Brown )
Monday, December 14, Chancellor Angela Merkel was at a her party convention. There, she told her political party people that multiculturalism is indeed a sham, that she would act to stem the raging migrant flow. She however defended her opened door policy that left German borders opened for the migrant influx, and said she is decidedly against aggressive unilateral German action in migrant crisis resolution, insisting that she would seek an European agreement towards a final solution.
Angela Merkel:
“Multiculturalism leads to parallel societies and therefore remains a ‘life lie’.
The [ migrant ] challenge is immense. We want and we will reduce the number of refugees noticeably.”
The Chancellor told the gathering that the migrants have to integrate, and assimilate German culture, values, and respect laws.
Already, ONE MILLION migrants made it into Germany, and got registered by the German authorities beginning January 2015.
She is beginning to speak the truth as per this tide of immigration. The timing however, is significant. She may be doing so to please the political base she was meeting. Or she may mean what was said, in fact.
If she is serious, question would be when she realised this: now or prior. If earlier, why is she now speaking, and wanting to act albeit still weakly. If now, it further speak to her palpable weakness and cluelessness, even more. Regardless, she is now somewhat awake. And, Germany may close the migrant tap while benefitting from those that already made it in situ.
Source date (UTC): 2015-12-15 04:20:00 UTC
-
WELL AT LEAST AMERICANS ARE BEING HONEST NOW – MUST HAVE BEEN AN ACCIDENT. —“I
WELL AT LEAST AMERICANS ARE BEING HONEST NOW – MUST HAVE BEEN AN ACCIDENT.
—“In the 21st century, nations cannot — and we cannot allow them to redraw borders by force. These are the ground rules. And if we fail to uphold them, we will rue the day. Russia has violated these ground rules and continues to violate them. Today Russia is occupying sovereign Ukrainian territory. Let me be crystal clear: The United States does not, will not, never will recognize Russia’s attempt to annex the Crimea. (Applause.) It’s that saying — that simple. There is no justification.
And as Russia continues to send its thugs, its troops, its mercenaries across the border, Russian tanks and missiles still fill the Donbas. Separatist forces are organized, commanded and directed by Moscow — by Moscow. (Applause.)
So the United States will continue to stand with Ukraine against Russian aggression. We’re providing support to help and train and assist your security forces, and we’ve relied on and rallied the rest of the world to Ukraine’s cause.”
– From Vice President Joe Biden’s speech in the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, December 8, 2015″—
Source date (UTC): 2015-12-15 02:43:00 UTC