[I]f Lou wants to claim ‘libertarian’ as the name for a political movement that advocates lying, deception, and general scumbaggery, then why should we morally allow the term liberty and libertarian to be associated with lying, deception, and immoral scumbaggery? Sorry. The origin of liberty is aristocracy, not parasitic low trust, lying, cheating, dishonest scumbaggery. Liberty isn’t your fire-hydrant Lou. You had your chance. you picked an immoral ethical code and failed. You picked a pseudoscience and failed. It’s time for the next generation to try to do better. Sorry man, but Rothbardianism is a dead cat bounce. http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/03/lew-rockwell/what-libertarianism-is-and-isnt/
Category: Commentary, Critique, and Response
-
The End Of Ghetto Libertarianism
[F]acts: 1) Praxeology is a pseudoscience 2) Rothbardian ethics are parasitic 3) Argumentation is descriptive not causal. 4) Private property alone is insufficient to eliminate demand for the state 5) Rights cannot exist without context of contract. 6) Property is what remains when all free riding is forcibly suppressed, meaning that it’s not a binary proposition open to intersubjective verifiability. 7) The Absolute Nuclear Family is necessary for suppression of demand for the state, and therefore liberty is the desire of a permanent minority who practice the ANF. Libertarianism was yet another pseudoscientific failure. Ethical Realism, Propertarianism, and Aristocratic Egalitarianism correct the errors of immoral libertarianism.
-
The End Of Ghetto Libertarianism
[F]acts: 1) Praxeology is a pseudoscience 2) Rothbardian ethics are parasitic 3) Argumentation is descriptive not causal. 4) Private property alone is insufficient to eliminate demand for the state 5) Rights cannot exist without context of contract. 6) Property is what remains when all free riding is forcibly suppressed, meaning that it’s not a binary proposition open to intersubjective verifiability. 7) The Absolute Nuclear Family is necessary for suppression of demand for the state, and therefore liberty is the desire of a permanent minority who practice the ANF. Libertarianism was yet another pseudoscientific failure. Ethical Realism, Propertarianism, and Aristocratic Egalitarianism correct the errors of immoral libertarianism.
-
If Mises Is A Kantian Should We Convict Him Of Conspiracy Too?
[I]nnovations are good. Better innovations are better. And, yes, Mises made an innovation, but the expository and explanatory power of the deductive and axiomatic method is LESS than the expository and explanatory power of the ratio-empirical method – not more. Congratulating Mises on improving Kant, who was probably the single greatest contributor to philosophical obscurantism and the destruction of reason in human history, is hardly a compliment. Its an accusation of conspiracy. (See Rand on Kant. Kantian pseudoscience is part of the reason the libertarian project from the continent has failed.) Hoppe’s argument is stated within the context of economic action. He is arguing that economics is purely deductive rather than like all other ‘sciences’ a mixture of: (a) the limits of our biological ability to perceive in real time, (b) a theory describing a general rule, (c) the use of logic to test the internal consistence of the theory, (d) and instrumental tests that replicate and falsify the theory But he misunderstands (or intentionally mischaracterizes) the development of theories. There is no point in retesting them if they’ve been sufficiently tested and criteria for falsification defined. We can develop economic laws just like we can develop physical laws. But we cannot develop economic axioms because axioms are not required to be correspondent with reality, while theories are – and human action exists in reality. [P]hilosophy itself, when expressed operationally, as action (realism), rather than as analogy (platonism etc), or as experience (phenomenalism etc), results in a statement of the ratio-empirical method. The philosophy of action is science, not rationalism, precisely because only science requires demonstration of action. Reason does not. Reason is a continental attempt to conflate authority, morality and reason as a reaction to ratio-empircal science, and commercial morality which would upset the hierarchy as it has in the anglo countries. It’s nonsense though. Economics, and human action, are empirical sciences that may, for the purposes of convenience be reduced to laws that are expressible in axiomatic terms. But axiomatic systems are not dependent upon external correspondence, and as such economics cannot under any circumstances be reduced to a logic. It is a science. It is the most challenging science because it lacks causal relations but it is a science born of observation, reducible to theories, we can use as laws, but these laws are not equivalent to axioms because axioms are not bounded by reality. Period.
-
If Mises Is A Kantian Should We Convict Him Of Conspiracy Too?
[I]nnovations are good. Better innovations are better. And, yes, Mises made an innovation, but the expository and explanatory power of the deductive and axiomatic method is LESS than the expository and explanatory power of the ratio-empirical method – not more. Congratulating Mises on improving Kant, who was probably the single greatest contributor to philosophical obscurantism and the destruction of reason in human history, is hardly a compliment. Its an accusation of conspiracy. (See Rand on Kant. Kantian pseudoscience is part of the reason the libertarian project from the continent has failed.) Hoppe’s argument is stated within the context of economic action. He is arguing that economics is purely deductive rather than like all other ‘sciences’ a mixture of: (a) the limits of our biological ability to perceive in real time, (b) a theory describing a general rule, (c) the use of logic to test the internal consistence of the theory, (d) and instrumental tests that replicate and falsify the theory But he misunderstands (or intentionally mischaracterizes) the development of theories. There is no point in retesting them if they’ve been sufficiently tested and criteria for falsification defined. We can develop economic laws just like we can develop physical laws. But we cannot develop economic axioms because axioms are not required to be correspondent with reality, while theories are – and human action exists in reality. [P]hilosophy itself, when expressed operationally, as action (realism), rather than as analogy (platonism etc), or as experience (phenomenalism etc), results in a statement of the ratio-empirical method. The philosophy of action is science, not rationalism, precisely because only science requires demonstration of action. Reason does not. Reason is a continental attempt to conflate authority, morality and reason as a reaction to ratio-empircal science, and commercial morality which would upset the hierarchy as it has in the anglo countries. It’s nonsense though. Economics, and human action, are empirical sciences that may, for the purposes of convenience be reduced to laws that are expressible in axiomatic terms. But axiomatic systems are not dependent upon external correspondence, and as such economics cannot under any circumstances be reduced to a logic. It is a science. It is the most challenging science because it lacks causal relations but it is a science born of observation, reducible to theories, we can use as laws, but these laws are not equivalent to axioms because axioms are not bounded by reality. Period.
-
Adding Kant To History's Most Destructive Minds
[I]‘m going to add Kant (obscurant anti-realism), to the ranks of history’s most destructive minds: Cantor(obscurant Pseudoscience), Freud(obscurant pseudoscience), Marx(pseudoscience), Napoleon (total war), Constantine(christianization of Europe), Plato (the Republic), Abraham(monotheism), Zoroaster (divine scripture).
Intellectual Sainthood
– Aristotle
– Machiavelli
– Bacon, Newton and Leibniz
– Smith, Hume and Jefferson
– Jevons, Menger, Walras, Marshall, Böhm-Bawerk, Wieser;
– Pareto, Durkheim, Weber and Hayek.
– Poincaré, Mandelbrot, Brouwer, Bishop, Taleb[N]ow, if I could get Hoppe off his Continental and Kantian platonism, then he would have be the first person to succeed in reducing all rights to property rights. Even if his definition of property is incomplete he would have done it. He managed to articulate the morality of states, but not the morality of polities necessary for the voluntary organization of production. And possibly, that was his only goal. Whereas with propertarianism, I’ve illustrated the definition of property necessary for the formation of a polity capable of voluntary organization of production in the absence of a state. But he isn’t a candidate for intellectual sainthood if he’s stuck in Kantian nonsense.
Failing that I’m stuck with doing it myself. And while I feel I have mastered ethics better than anyone else, I do not feel the same for philosophy proper. And while I’m getting there, I’m not there yet. I’m getting there. But the standard of measure is not my own comprehension, but the structure of my arguments. And I am just getting, after a year of solid hard work, to where I feel I can construct those arguments.
Einstein was right (even if a plagiarist) that most of doing something innovative is just working at it longer than anyone else.
-
Adding Kant To History’s Most Destructive Minds
[I]‘m going to add Kant (obscurant anti-realism), to the ranks of history’s most destructive minds: Cantor(obscurant Pseudoscience), Freud(obscurant pseudoscience), Marx(pseudoscience), Napoleon (total war), Constantine(christianization of Europe), Plato (the Republic), Abraham(monotheism), Zoroaster (divine scripture).
Intellectual Sainthood
– Aristotle
– Machiavelli
– Bacon, Newton and Leibniz
– Smith, Hume and Jefferson
– Jevons, Menger, Walras, Marshall, Böhm-Bawerk, Wieser;
– Pareto, Durkheim, Weber and Hayek.
– Poincaré, Mandelbrot, Brouwer, Bishop, Taleb[N]ow, if I could get Hoppe off his Continental and Kantian platonism, then he would have be the first person to succeed in reducing all rights to property rights. Even if his definition of property is incomplete he would have done it. He managed to articulate the morality of states, but not the morality of polities necessary for the voluntary organization of production. And possibly, that was his only goal. Whereas with propertarianism, I’ve illustrated the definition of property necessary for the formation of a polity capable of voluntary organization of production in the absence of a state. But he isn’t a candidate for intellectual sainthood if he’s stuck in Kantian nonsense.
Failing that I’m stuck with doing it myself. And while I feel I have mastered ethics better than anyone else, I do not feel the same for philosophy proper. And while I’m getting there, I’m not there yet. I’m getting there. But the standard of measure is not my own comprehension, but the structure of my arguments. And I am just getting, after a year of solid hard work, to where I feel I can construct those arguments.
Einstein was right (even if a plagiarist) that most of doing something innovative is just working at it longer than anyone else.
-
Adding Kant To History's Most Destructive Minds
[I]‘m going to add Kant (obscurant anti-realism), to the ranks of history’s most destructive minds: Cantor(obscurant Pseudoscience), Freud(obscurant pseudoscience), Marx(pseudoscience), Napoleon (total war), Constantine(christianization of Europe), Plato (the Republic), Abraham(monotheism), Zoroaster (divine scripture).
Intellectual Sainthood
– Aristotle
– Machiavelli
– Bacon, Newton and Leibniz
– Smith, Hume and Jefferson
– Jevons, Menger, Walras, Marshall, Böhm-Bawerk, Wieser;
– Pareto, Durkheim, Weber and Hayek.
– Poincaré, Mandelbrot, Brouwer, Bishop, Taleb[N]ow, if I could get Hoppe off his Continental and Kantian platonism, then he would have be the first person to succeed in reducing all rights to property rights. Even if his definition of property is incomplete he would have done it. He managed to articulate the morality of states, but not the morality of polities necessary for the voluntary organization of production. And possibly, that was his only goal. Whereas with propertarianism, I’ve illustrated the definition of property necessary for the formation of a polity capable of voluntary organization of production in the absence of a state. But he isn’t a candidate for intellectual sainthood if he’s stuck in Kantian nonsense.
Failing that I’m stuck with doing it myself. And while I feel I have mastered ethics better than anyone else, I do not feel the same for philosophy proper. And while I’m getting there, I’m not there yet. I’m getting there. But the standard of measure is not my own comprehension, but the structure of my arguments. And I am just getting, after a year of solid hard work, to where I feel I can construct those arguments.
Einstein was right (even if a plagiarist) that most of doing something innovative is just working at it longer than anyone else.
-
Adding Kant To History’s Most Destructive Minds
[I]‘m going to add Kant (obscurant anti-realism), to the ranks of history’s most destructive minds: Cantor(obscurant Pseudoscience), Freud(obscurant pseudoscience), Marx(pseudoscience), Napoleon (total war), Constantine(christianization of Europe), Plato (the Republic), Abraham(monotheism), Zoroaster (divine scripture).
Intellectual Sainthood
– Aristotle
– Machiavelli
– Bacon, Newton and Leibniz
– Smith, Hume and Jefferson
– Jevons, Menger, Walras, Marshall, Böhm-Bawerk, Wieser;
– Pareto, Durkheim, Weber and Hayek.
– Poincaré, Mandelbrot, Brouwer, Bishop, Taleb[N]ow, if I could get Hoppe off his Continental and Kantian platonism, then he would have be the first person to succeed in reducing all rights to property rights. Even if his definition of property is incomplete he would have done it. He managed to articulate the morality of states, but not the morality of polities necessary for the voluntary organization of production. And possibly, that was his only goal. Whereas with propertarianism, I’ve illustrated the definition of property necessary for the formation of a polity capable of voluntary organization of production in the absence of a state. But he isn’t a candidate for intellectual sainthood if he’s stuck in Kantian nonsense.
Failing that I’m stuck with doing it myself. And while I feel I have mastered ethics better than anyone else, I do not feel the same for philosophy proper. And while I’m getting there, I’m not there yet. I’m getting there. But the standard of measure is not my own comprehension, but the structure of my arguments. And I am just getting, after a year of solid hard work, to where I feel I can construct those arguments.
Einstein was right (even if a plagiarist) that most of doing something innovative is just working at it longer than anyone else.
-
Libertarian Non-logic Of 'Rights'
[Y]ou know, if you have to work that hard to ‘invent’ something like a ‘right’, it pretty clear evidence that there is something wrong with your reasoning. I’m an aristocratic egalitarian libertarian. We obtain property rights from one another by mastering violence and organizing to apply that violence against anyone who would interfere with our contract for property rights. See how parsimonious that is? Occam’s razor and all that? Because it’s true. You earn your rights only by the ancient exchange of the promise to protect all who claim property rights, from those who would deny them.