http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/–THIS S.E.P. ENTRY IS A TRAVESTY OF CONFUSION–
There is no correspondence with NECESSITY in this article. We are silent on the most important topic of our times: that is, that liberty is necessarily dependent upon property rights, and that is all.
Source date (UTC): 2013-11-03 09:58:00 UTC
http://www.stephenhicks.org/2013/11/02/kolakowski-on-leftist-responsibility/
Source date (UTC): 2013-11-03 07:10:00 UTC
CRITICIZING HALF BAKED LIBERTARIAN NONSENSE
(from elsewhere) (natural rights)
ACK!
Natural rights are those that we MUST GRANT EACH OTHER to live happily and prosperously together. They aren’t given by god, it’s just that because we evolved as we did, we NATURALLY TO GRANT THEM TO EACH OTHER. God in this sense, is evolution, the universe, or fate, depending upon your favorite analogy.
Natural rights are just property rights. And the property rights that we MUST grant one another.
Human rights, are AMBITIONS that states hold one another accountable for striving for.
Libertarians are too comfortable with half baked theories. Science is better than reason. And science uses evidence. Evidence is that morality is similar but varies by reproductive strategy (class and gender), reproductive organization (family structure) and the structure of production (economics).
Leave religion and justification to theology. We’re libertarians. We’re supposed to be the smart guys. Science, reason and falsification. Not morality, analogy and justification.
Source date (UTC): 2013-10-31 06:23:00 UTC
http://t.co/EYH1dIEacA
Source date (UTC): 2013-10-30 20:57:00 UTC
http://archive.mises.org/18385/the-origin-of-libertarianism/LIBERTARIANS AND THE HIGH BAR OF REASON
You know if you have a sort of crazy liberal or conservative, they almost always argue from sentiment, and sometimes morality. But libertarians argue from morality and reason. The problem is that the barrier to entry for ‘reason’ is a lot higher than the barrier to entry for morality or sentiment. And the number of libertarians that can’t cross that barrier is just as high as the number of conservatives and liberals that can’t cross it. So more libertarians look like idiots than conservatives and liberals, simply because the bar to NOT look like an idiot is a lot higher in libertarianism. Thankfully a lot of us get over that bar.
Although, not enough unfortunately. 🙂
Source date (UTC): 2013-10-30 15:34:00 UTC
facebook.comTargetprocess
Source date (UTC): 2013-10-29 13:56:00 UTC
“OUR POLITICAL NATURE”: PAPER MACHE INTELLECTUALISM.
(book review) (criticism)
========
This review is from: Our Political Nature: The Evolutionary Origins of What Divides Us
Trivial, biased regurgitation of Haidt’s work without credit.,
October 29, 2013
Amazon Verified Purchase
1.0 out of 5 stars
I understand the business of writing money-making books by regurgitating the works of others for fun and profit. And I understand the need to simplify works for less academic readers. But I also understand not giving credit to the people who you’re copying. Especially when it’s by attempting to avoid references to them. I also understand the use of obscurant language, bias as propaganda, and oversimplification via analogy as a means of inserting deception.
This is a weak attempt by an also-ran author to insert his political bias into the political discourse as a substitute for scholarship. It’s not plagiarism per se. Because that would add insult to the prior work.
Read Haidt instead. It is a balanced work by the leading academic in the field. If you read “The Righteous Mind”, “Explanation of Ideology: Family Structure & Social System”, “The Red Queen”, and “Demonic Males” you will know pretty much the moral origins of human beings. If you read Andrew Heywood’s “Political Ideologies : An Introduction” that will explain political discourse.
The fact is, that moral codes are largely genetic. What isn’t genetic is determined by the structure of the family (absolute nuclear, nuclear, traditional, extended or tribal). What isn’t determined by family structure is determined by economics. However, this is all misleading because MORAL sensibilities are different from VOTING PATTERNS.
American voting patterns can be reduced to this single statement, and nothing else matters:
—“93% of blacks, 70% of Latinos, 60% of those under 30, and 62% of single people, voted for Obama. And white married couples over 30 years of age voted for Romney. Not much else matters.”—
-Dick Morris”
NOTHING ELSE MATTERS – WE ARE TRIBAL CREATURES.
========
Source date (UTC): 2013-10-29 07:31:00 UTC
OPEN LETTER TO PROGRESSIVES
(satire)
An open letter from Anarcho Capitalists to Progressives
Hi.
You know, we like people who disagree with us. It’s really fun to debate. We are nerds after all. We love this stuff.
But, you know how you feel when Orthodox conservatives tell you something unscientifically, absolutely ridiculous? With a straight face? I mean, you can’t really hold an debate when science, reason, logic and fact go out the window. Just isn’t possible.
Well, we feel the same way when you Orthodox Totalitarian Humanists say something economically ridiculous. And, if you’re talking, it’s pretty much economically ridiculous. Really. We love you and all. But. I mean. BOTH of you are ridiculous. You orthodox progressives, AND the orthodox conservatives.
Now, a lot of libertarians are just as idealistic as you are. We have libertarians that think the world will someday wake up and agree with them; just like you think the world will agree with you, if ‘they only understood’. If they only “could see the light”.
But, you know, most of us libertarians actually understand that none of us are going to change our moral preferences. I mean, that’s what science and evidence tell us.
And so, given that none of us will change, we have this crazy idea that you can have your totalitarian government, and we can have our libertarian government, and if we do that, then we can get along just fine.
We just wonder one thing: why won’t you let us live like we want to, if we are willing to let you live like you want to?
It’s an honest question. Although, we kinda’ suspect we won’t get an honest answer. (Sorry, but we’re honest about this stuff.)
And we also suspect that we’re the ones holding the moral high ground. ‘Cause we don’t want to conquer you. But unless you let us live our lives the way we want to, then you just want to conquer us.
And we don’t think that’s moral, right, good, or nice.
Cheers.
Nerdy Anarcho Capitalist Libertarians Everywhere.
Source date (UTC): 2013-10-25 15:31:00 UTC
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2013/10/donald-kuehn-none-of-them-along-the-line-know-what-any-of-its-worth-noted.htmlCONTRA DANIEL KEUHN : OBFUSCATORY LANGUAGE
—“The greatest hesitation I have about the market economy is the wedge between demand and the willingness to pay that is the ability to pay.” —
Curtd said…
Hmm…
(a) What is incorrectly allocated in the structure of production that allows people to desire to consume, but have nothing to exchange?
(b) It is probably true that if we bypassed the financial system, and inflated the currency, by directly, say, crediting people’s debit cards – as long as it was done equally, that this would increase activity in the economy by redistributing savings and investment that are not moving, to consumers who desire to spend. We’ve been talking about this for a couple of decades now.
(c) But why is there structural misallocation in the first place, and what misallocations are we creating this way?
— We are creating poor single parent households. Would this activity increase the rate of creation of single parent households?
— We are clearly failing at education of our work force compared to the Germans
— We are clearly transforming old age savings into academic institution equity, and long term student debt, without performing any useful education other than sortition.
— We are clearly immigrating vast numbers of low wage workers rather than employing our young and old at higher cost, and therefore creating two dependent classes.
— We are clearly destroying the system of intergenerational cooperation of savings and borrowing, and the information system that goes with it.
— We are clearly depending upon future anticipated growth, based upon a five hundred years of the spread of anglo absolute nuclear families, accounting, law, money and prices around the world by forcible conquest and unforced competition.
(d) Instead: WHAT TROUBLES ME IS THE MISALLOCATION OF ACTION, CAPITAL, CREDIT, and POLICY THAT PREVENTS PEOPLE WHO DESIRE TO PAY FROM EARNING SOMETHING TO PAY FOR IT.
One can use the artful word ‘wedge’ as a means of obfuscation: As OBSCURANT LANGUAGE, in order to obfuscate the underlying CAUSAL RELATIONS. This is what it means to speak as a leftist: using obscurant, and therefore, unscientific language. 🙂
At least the right’s religious people speak in analogy not obfuscation. 🙂 The left’s religious people simply use obfuscatory language, and artificially select short time horizons so that they can ignore externalities. 🙂
Source date (UTC): 2013-10-24 19:17:00 UTC
WHO TOLD ME ABOUT _BOUNDARIES OF ORDER_ AT PFS?
(question)
Ok, so I have given it a second pass, and you know it’s just written romantically and worldly, and the whole (damned) justificationism of bringing in correspondence with nature is a useless mess. But honestly, that said, he did, as you’ve told me, do a pretty good job with it.
It’s still an appeal. I don’t want to make appeals. Appeals are a dead issue for libertarians. Moral diversity means we will forever fall on deaf ears.
But NECESSITY (they hayekian program, and the Hoppeian program) is something else entirely. It isn’t that we PREFER one thing or another, it’s that prosperity REQUIRES certain things and requires we DON”T DO other things.
Property is synonymous with morality. HOWEVER, the distribution of rights and rewards from property are determined by the structure of REPRODUCTION. As such, while economic and political thoguth iis NOT POLYLOGISTIC, it is POLYMORAL, because reproductive rights are DIVERSE AND IRRECONCILABLE except through PROPERTY RIGHTS.
Propertarianism is an evolution over current libertarianism because it has BROADER EXPLANATORY POWER and is not based upon PREFERENCE for liberty, but NECESSITY in balancing scarcity, production, and reproduction by making cooperation between heterogeneous moral codes POSSIBLE.
***For all intents and purposes, different family structures render us into behaving as different tribes, if not different species.***
We have no means of reconciling this difference. Because there are material differences between the gene pools.
So we must construct political systems, like the market, to allow for heterogenous investment and production, while doing what the market cannot: inhibit our willingness to cooperate because of free riding, privatization, socialization and rent seeking.
That is the one purpose we must put government to. Because privatizations of commons is indeed a problem that the market cannot on its own solve, at least, solve competitively.
Source date (UTC): 2013-10-24 09:57:00 UTC