http://www.christophercantwell.com/2014/04/08/top-10-reasons-libertarians-arent-nice/I WANT TO FIND FAULT WITH CANTWELL’S ARROGANCE BUT I CAN’T. HE’S RIGHT.
We’re right and they’re wrong. That’s just how it is.
Source date (UTC): 2014-07-05 12:40:00 UTC
MORE ON COMING APART : SALON’S ARTICLE : RESPONSE 2
DECEPTIONS IN THIS ARTICLE
1) NATION: A ‘nation’ describes a body of people with similar genetic, linguistic, cultural, normative, and religious properties. When we discuss a diverse populace we do not use the term nation, we use the term EMPIRE. All diverse states must be either federations(voluntary and excitable) or empires (involuntary and non-exitable). If a diverse body of people contains a minority that cannot succeed then it is an empire. China is an empire. America is an empire. Labeling the USA as a nation is a dishonest attempt to label a heterogeneous voluntary polity with the legitimacy of a homogenous nation state, when in fact, it is merely a heterogeneous empire with a record of violence to oppress attempts at secession.
2) MORAL AND “CHOICE” RATHER THAN ECONOMIC AND “POSSIBLE” ARGUMENTS
—“Yet somehow the republic kept experiencing what Lincoln called “a new birth of freedom,” thanks only partly to the fortuitous confluence of two oceans’ protection, a vast continent’s ever-alluring frontier and unending streams of aspiring immigrants:”—
Lets not be dishonest here, and cast this as a moral argument. The reason for American economic success is that the colonists used british weapons and might to conquer a continent, then steal that continent for themselves. Then sell it off to immigrants, and profit from it. It has been the most profitable conquest and sale of a territory in history.
Even today, for all intents and purposes, the american economy consists largely of the housing business. As the housing business goes, so does the american economy. The problem is that we have run out of immigrants from high trust societies, from nuclear family societies, from empirical societies, from rule of law societies, and from truth-telling societies. And contrary to dogma, the evidence is that immigrants from these cultures are not adapting to the (a) absolute nuclear family (b) meritocracy (c) self-supporting productivity (d) minimal statism, (d) civic society, (e) common language, that was what was required of immigrants in order to participate in the american dream of having land so that one could control one’s destiny. WIthout those norms and habits, america has evolved from a polity of ideas, to a simple empire of increasing totalitarianism as the productive classes are slowly farmed to service the unproductive classes, and single motherhood and requisite poverty of single motherhood, has now reach near majority status. Thousands of years of suppressing single motherhood and its endemic poverty and dependency have been reversed in less than a century.
3) ECONOMIC TRUTH vs MORAL JUSTIFICATION
Economic history is the only form of truth we can extract from the past. Humans justify their wants, given the conditions that they live under. This article is not much different from ‘god wills it’ because its arguments are allegorical and moral, with a thin veneer of rationalism. Whereas a scientists would look at the economy, the incentives, and demonstrated human behavior and dismantle the authors entire line of argument as a series of childlike justifications of pre-cognitive, non rational, counter-productive human cognitive biases – just as easily as he could dismantle the composition of a rock by mass spectrometry, and just as accurately.
The truth is quite different. Humans act as tribes, and these tribes make best use of the circumstances that they can to increase their status and reproductive ability. SOme of theses strategies are successful (rapid population expansion of poor peoples) and some are unsuccessful (progressive status seeking at the expense of child bearing). Time determines winners, not words.
Words are used to deceive.
We deceive in order to steal.
The only true words are operational words.
Everything else is analogy.
And almost all analogy is a lie.
Source date (UTC): 2014-07-05 10:54:00 UTC
http://www.salon.com/2014/07/04/we_the_people_are_violent_and_filled_with_rage_a_nation_spinning_apart_on_its_independence_day/COMING APART – FOR GOOD REASONS.
I have spent my life studying this problem and arrived at a much more simplistic conclusion: that it is diversity and scale that are the cause of our conflict, and only dissolution of the empire, and devolution of the central government’s power to the states, that reflect regional values will cure the ill. The european project is failing precisely because of different values exemplified by the protestant north, catholic south, and orthodox east. Not that these religions are the cause, but the values of the different polities, their family structures, their degree of trustworthiness, and their different levels of taste for corruption. The natural course of a divided people on a vast land is to choose between chinese and russian totalitarianism, or european small-statism. And given the empirical evidence, the european model produces the highest trust, most redistributive, polities on earth. Diversity of states is apparently good, and diversity within a state is apparently bad. The reason being that diversity decreases trust. This does not apply only to ethnic diversity, but to political diversity.
The cure is dissolution of the empire, and devolution of the central government, not the construction of a new monopoly religion to rival christianity or islam – which is the secular religion that the author is promoting consciously or not.
No one implements totalitarianism out of ill intention, but out of desire for the suppression of conflict. However, the opposite cure for suppression of conflict is secession and devolution of central power.
But then, as far as I know, only progressives want totalitarianism. Both in American and everywhere else.
Interestingly, out of all factions, its the Tea Party that recommends the devolutionary solution. Strange as it may seem, they are the ones who are correct.
Source date (UTC): 2014-07-05 01:18:00 UTC
—“Surely you understand how individualists might view your little eugenics project as pretty unworkable, fucked and backwards, don’t you”—
I don’t have a eugenics project, I make the argument that at some point in your chain of reasoning you must have a means of making judgements between one set of preferences and another, and that the progressive preference is dysgenic. To warn against dysgenia is very different from conducting eugenia.
I do not see the political reason for redistributing from the middle class to the lower class if this constructs dysgenia that inhibits the formation of the high trust society which is necessary for the standard of living that allows for redistribution. In other words, i’m making an argument against a logical fallacy. This might seem to you as if I am making a sentimental argument,b ecause you argue largely sentimentally. But I don’t. I might actually be largely incapable of it.
Most of my arguments are in the general vein of pointing out the fallacy of the libertarian and classical liberal, and progressive canons that do not account for the problem of trust, intelligence, and impulsivity in the construction of a polity capable of constant innovation necessary to stay ahead of both the genetic red queen, the malthusian red queen, and the technological red queen, and how those three red queens must be defeated in order to preserve economic prosperity that allows us to have whatever nonsensical social order we choose.
I suspect that this argument is not obvious to you and most others, but that is my fundamental argument and the insight I am trying to incorporate into political science, political economy, economics, and philosophical ethics.
-Cheers
Source date (UTC): 2014-07-04 13:28:00 UTC
http://t.co/dkhImh6z4Z
Source date (UTC): 2014-07-03 11:02:00 UTC
Curt Doolittle shared a post.
Source date (UTC): 2014-07-03 09:54:00 UTC
http://www.garynorth.com/public/12619.cfmWORTH READING
There may not be a revolution but there certainly can be a civil war…
Source date (UTC): 2014-07-01 11:45:00 UTC
Peter, [I] have spent years on this question and I am fairly certain now that Mises’ work, like Bridgman’s was an unsuccessful attempt at developing operationalism. Both Mises and Popper can best be understood as cosmopolitan intellectuals bringing their pseudoscientific allegorical culture to their work, just as Kant brought continental duty and authority to his – both rebelling against anglo empiricism. Hayek could not solve the problem of the social sciences either. He correctly intuits that the problem exists, but he can only offer us laments, criticisms, and classical liberal solutions. Unfortunately he did not have decades of computer science to provide him with an alternative conceptual framework and terminology to replace his classical liberalism and moral psychology. Post mainstream economists cannot yet solve the relationship between mathematics, logic, ethics and economics. And Austrians should have. But the sad state of our ranks and the distraction of philosophers by the marxist, socialist, and postmodern programs misallocated intellectual capital in pursuit of the impossible. So when hayek says the 20th century will be remembered as an era of reemergent mysticism, he only knows something is wrong : endemic pseudoscience – but he does not know why or how to fix it. He was a herald and a critic but he did not solve it. So did Poincare, Mandelbrot, Bridgman, the mathematical Intuitionists. So did mises. The interesting insight that I have only recently understood, is that the other disciplines succeeded but their scope was narrower than that of economics. And had mises not failed. Had popper not failed. Had Hayek not failed, then the missing argument would have been available to the less complicated fields of math, logic and science, as well as economics. The insight that the only truth that can exist is performative, and the only possible claim to sufficient knowledge necessary to make a truth claim, is the demonstration if construction by operational means and measures. Ie: the problem is ethical. I am fairly certain now, that I have solved that mussing bit -by accident. And that the necessary insights exist in the multiple attempts at articulating operationalism in multiple fields – thereby solving, finally, the nature and definition of truth. This allows us to repair praxeology as an empirical research program whose theoretical constructs are reducible to operational statements, each of which is sympathetically testable by human perception, as to the rationality and volition of those statements. Ie: truth. Mises was too much on a mission, too arrogant, too culturally biased, and too ignorant of mathematics, science and philosophy to solve the problem. But he came closer than anyone else had to date.
Peter, [I] have spent years on this question and I am fairly certain now that Mises’ work, like Bridgman’s was an unsuccessful attempt at developing operationalism. Both Mises and Popper can best be understood as cosmopolitan intellectuals bringing their pseudoscientific allegorical culture to their work, just as Kant brought continental duty and authority to his – both rebelling against anglo empiricism. Hayek could not solve the problem of the social sciences either. He correctly intuits that the problem exists, but he can only offer us laments, criticisms, and classical liberal solutions. Unfortunately he did not have decades of computer science to provide him with an alternative conceptual framework and terminology to replace his classical liberalism and moral psychology. Post mainstream economists cannot yet solve the relationship between mathematics, logic, ethics and economics. And Austrians should have. But the sad state of our ranks and the distraction of philosophers by the marxist, socialist, and postmodern programs misallocated intellectual capital in pursuit of the impossible. So when hayek says the 20th century will be remembered as an era of reemergent mysticism, he only knows something is wrong : endemic pseudoscience – but he does not know why or how to fix it. He was a herald and a critic but he did not solve it. So did Poincare, Mandelbrot, Bridgman, the mathematical Intuitionists. So did mises. The interesting insight that I have only recently understood, is that the other disciplines succeeded but their scope was narrower than that of economics. And had mises not failed. Had popper not failed. Had Hayek not failed, then the missing argument would have been available to the less complicated fields of math, logic and science, as well as economics. The insight that the only truth that can exist is performative, and the only possible claim to sufficient knowledge necessary to make a truth claim, is the demonstration if construction by operational means and measures. Ie: the problem is ethical. I am fairly certain now, that I have solved that mussing bit -by accident. And that the necessary insights exist in the multiple attempts at articulating operationalism in multiple fields – thereby solving, finally, the nature and definition of truth. This allows us to repair praxeology as an empirical research program whose theoretical constructs are reducible to operational statements, each of which is sympathetically testable by human perception, as to the rationality and volition of those statements. Ie: truth. Mises was too much on a mission, too arrogant, too culturally biased, and too ignorant of mathematics, science and philosophy to solve the problem. But he came closer than anyone else had to date.
Peter, [I] have spent years on this question and I am fairly certain now that Mises’ work, like Bridgman’s was an unsuccessful attempt at developing operationalism. Both Mises and Popper can best be understood as cosmopolitan intellectuals bringing their pseudoscientific allegorical culture to their work, just as Kant brought continental duty and authority to his – both rebelling against anglo empiricism. Hayek could not solve the problem of the social sciences either. He correctly intuits that the problem exists, but he can only offer us laments, criticisms, and classical liberal solutions. Unfortunately he did not have decades of computer science to provide him with an alternative conceptual framework and terminology to replace his classical liberalism and moral psychology. Post mainstream economists cannot yet solve the relationship between mathematics, logic, ethics and economics. And Austrians should have. But the sad state of our ranks and the distraction of philosophers by the marxist, socialist, and postmodern programs misallocated intellectual capital in pursuit of the impossible. So when hayek says the 20th century will be remembered as an era of reemergent mysticism, he only knows something is wrong : endemic pseudoscience – but he does not know why or how to fix it. He was a herald and a critic but he did not solve it. So did Poincare, Mandelbrot, Bridgman, the mathematical Intuitionists. So did mises. The interesting insight that I have only recently understood, is that the other disciplines succeeded but their scope was narrower than that of economics. And had mises not failed. Had popper not failed. Had Hayek not failed, then the missing argument would have been available to the less complicated fields of math, logic and science, as well as economics. The insight that the only truth that can exist is performative, and the only possible claim to sufficient knowledge necessary to make a truth claim, is the demonstration if construction by operational means and measures. Ie: the problem is ethical. I am fairly certain now, that I have solved that mussing bit -by accident. And that the necessary insights exist in the multiple attempts at articulating operationalism in multiple fields – thereby solving, finally, the nature and definition of truth. This allows us to repair praxeology as an empirical research program whose theoretical constructs are reducible to operational statements, each of which is sympathetically testable by human perception, as to the rationality and volition of those statements. Ie: truth. Mises was too much on a mission, too arrogant, too culturally biased, and too ignorant of mathematics, science and philosophy to solve the problem. But he came closer than anyone else had to date.