Form: Critique

  • VERDICT: CONSERVATIVE PHILOSOPHERS? THEY’RE TERRIBLE. Seriously. You know, I cri

    VERDICT: CONSERVATIVE PHILOSOPHERS? THEY’RE TERRIBLE.

    Seriously. You know, I criticize libertarians for a nonsensical view of man every day, but at least we produce pretty rigorous philosophy now and then. At least SOME logical and institutional innovations.

    Sure we have conservative public intellectuals – most of them neocons. Murray’s an analyst, not a philosopher. But philosophers?

    Who have we got really? Sowell, maybe Weaver? In the past we’ve had only Oakeshott, Burke, Locke, Hume, De Tocqueville and Smith? Is Hayek a conservative (protestations to the contrary). I think so. It is possible to make conservative arguments rationally and scientifically – Sowell does it. Why is it that its rare? Are scientists procedurally conservative, even if their incentives encourage them to be politically progressive? I don’t know. I do know that science at the moment is doing a phenomenal job of reversing a century and a half of progressive psuedoscience. That does not mean scientists are conservative. It does mean however that conservatives operate scientifically: if it can’t happen without the government interfering, then it shouldn’t happen. Let the evidence present itself for all of us to judge. Take small risks. Human hubris is a dangerous thing.

    What have the progressives got? I mean, the list is endless.

    Why are we so bad at understanding ourselves, but so good at understanding the physical world?

    Not sure I can answer that quite yet.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-21 01:38:00 UTC

  • USUALLY I AGREE WITH TALEB (But his suggestion that extreme wealth is analogous

    USUALLY I AGREE WITH TALEB

    (But his suggestion that extreme wealth is analogous to overdoes, well, doesn’t sit well with me.)

    Small problem of measurement on the one hand and acting upon it on the other. Wealth sufficient to circumvent the market or to seek rents, then yes, but otherwise I see no measurement that has meaning. If an individual possessed 80% of the wealth of an economy, if it is employed in the market, not used as credit sufficient to create monopolies, and politically free of rents then it is for all intents and purposes in circulation, and his behavior manageable under the common law. I am pretty sure I can answer all objections. But not in a comment. Wealth is inly a problem if the government lags or impedes the evolution of tactics in an economy. The common law, unlike a government, is not impeded from evolution at the rate of the market.

    As far as I know, representational, majority rule government is the problem blocking evolution under common law. I cant see much evidence of durable families in the economy that are not the product of economic rents on the distribution if liquidity through the financial markets instead of through consumers.

    Government is and remains the problem, not wealth. That is the best answer I can manage, and as far as I know thats the state of knowledge if our art if political economy.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-14 16:25:00 UTC

  • THE ARISTOCRATIC RED PILL : AUSTRO LIBERTARIANISM AS YET ANOTHER COSMOPOLITAN PS

    THE ARISTOCRATIC RED PILL : AUSTRO LIBERTARIANISM AS YET ANOTHER COSMOPOLITAN PSEUDOSCIENCE

    I started ‘coming out’ against Austro (Misesian) Libertarian (Rothbardian) Pseudoscience, Immorality and Impossibility in December of ’13 or so. And I’ve built up a set of pieces since then that outline the arguments. It wasn’t really until June that I put the last pieces together and understood just why mises failed and rothbard was able to get away with is nonsense.

    This set of sketches outline the main arguments that constitute the Aristocratic Egalitarian criticism of the fallacies of the Austro Libertarians. While I’ll continue working on the book until it’s as close to perfect as I can get it, these posts will provide the red pill that lets you see Austro Libertarianism as the utter nonsense that it is. If you need more than this, then you’ll have to wait for me to finish. But I kind of think the educated person won’t need to.

    (Items marked “***” are best choices.)

    1) Why Mises Failed in Economics and Social Science

    2) Criticisms of Misesian Pseudoscience

    3) Criticisms of Rothbardian Libertinism

    — Law

    — Ethics

    — Fallacies

    4) Moral Blindness of Sentimental Libertarians

    — WHY MISES FAILED —

    ***The Failure Of Mises In Context

    http://www.propertarianism.com/2014/06/21/mises-praxeology-as-the-failure-to-develop-economic-operationalism-yes/

    ***The Irony of Austrian A Priorism***

    http://www.propertarianism.com/2014/07/08/the-irony-of-austrian-apriorism/

    ***To Boettke On Hayek’s and Mises’ Failures

    http://www.propertarianism.com/2014/06/30/to-peter-boettke-on-hayek-and-mises-failures/

    — CRITICISMS OF PSEUDOSCIENCE —

    Definition of Pseudoscience

    http://www.propertarianism.com/2014/04/03/definition-of-pseudoscience/

    Axiomatic and Consistent vs Theoretic and Correspondent

    http://www.propertarianism.com/2014/04/03/more-on-the-axiomatic-consistent-vs-theoretic-correspondent/

    Logic vs Science

    http://www.propertarianism.com/2014/04/03/logic-vs-science/

    Why Misesian praxeology, as stated, is a pseudoscience.

    http://www.propertarianism.com/2014/04/27/q-curt-why-is-praxeology-a-pseudoscience-and-therefore-false/

    The End of Praxeology as a Pseudoscience

    http://www.propertarianism.com/2014/04/03/the-end-of-praxeology-as-a-pseudoscience/

    Why Undermine Praxeology?

    http://www.propertarianism.com/2014/04/27/q-curt-why-do-you-want-to-undermine-praxeology/

    Praxeology as Crankism

    http://www.propertarianism.com/2014/04/03/crankish-rationalist-pseudoscience-like-praxeology-is-crankish-science-and-logic-are-parsimonious/

    Fallacy of Criticizing Empiricism

    http://www.propertarianism.com/2014/04/03/if-mises-is-a-kantian-should-we-convict-him-of-conspiracy-too/

    The Limits of Misesian Criticism

    http://www.propertarianism.com/2013/12/25/on-the-limits-of-the-misesian-criticism/

    *Reforming Praxeology

    http://www.propertarianism.com/2013/12/24/on-the-reformation-of-praxeology/

    — CRITICISMS OF ROTHBARDIAN LIBERTINE LIBERTARIANISM —

    THE ROTHBARDIAN FAILURE AND ITS DAMAGE TO LIBERTY

    ***Reforming Libertarianism is Pretty Simple Really***

    http://www.propertarianism.com/2014/04/27/reforming-libertarianism-is-pretty-simple-really/

    ***Moral Realism – The Prohibition on Free Riding***

    http://www.propertarianism.com/2014/06/14/moral-realism-the-prohibition-on-free-riding/

    ***Demand For Authority : Suppressing Retribution For Anti-Social, Unethical, and Immoral Actions***

    http://www.propertarianism.com/2014/06/26/demand-for-authority-suppressing-retribution-for-anti-social-unethical-and-immoral-actions/

    ***Ending The Debilitating Libertarian Dependence Upon The NAP***

    http://www.propertarianism.com/2014/05/16/ending-the-debilitating-libertarian-dependence-upon-rothbards-nap/

    ***Rendering Rothbard’s Cosmopolitan Fallacies Impossible

    http://www.propertarianism.com/2014/06/20/rendering-rothbardian-fallacies-intellectually-embarrassing-and-argumentatively-impossible/

    ***Response to Woods and Cantwell on Aggression***

    http://www.propertarianism.com/2014/06/14/contra-response-to-tom-woods-and-chris-cantwell-on-aggression/

    ***The Possibility of Thick, Aristocratic, and Thin Libertarianism

    http://www.propertarianism.com/2014/05/29/the-possibility-of-thick-aristocratic-and-thin-libertarianism/

    ETHICAL COMPARISONS AND CRITICISMS

    Ghetto Ethics

    http://www.propertarianism.com/2014/02/15/definition-ghetto-ethics/

    The Fiction of Ghetto Property Rights

    http://www.propertarianism.com/2014/02/15/the-fiction-of-the-morality-of-ghetto-property-rights/

    Criticism of the NAP

    http://www.propertarianism.com/2014/04/03/the-central-object-of-the-anarchic-research-program/

    The NAP Fails on Transaction Costs Alone

    http://www.propertarianism.com/2014/02/15/another-nail-in-the-rothbardian-coffin-nap-fails-on-transaction-costs-alone/

    The NAP Is Insufficient For The Suppression Of The State

    http://www.propertarianism.com/2014/02/15/the-n-a-p-is-insufficient-for-suppression-of-demand-for-the-state-in-fact-the-nap-is-unethical-by-definition/

    Reforming Libertarian Ethics

    http://www.propertarianism.com/2014/02/15/reforming-libertarian-ethics/

    The Four Libertarian Frameworks

    http://www.propertarianism.com/2014/04/03/the-four-libertarian-frameworks/

    Tables and Diagram

    http://www.propertarianism.com/2014/04/03/comparison-of-the-libertarian/

    Rothbardian ethics are parasitic

    http://www.propertarianism.com/2014/04/03/rothbardian-ethics-are-parasitic/

    Rothbardian Ethics As A Parasitic Scam

    http://www.propertarianism.com/2014/02/15/rothbardian-ghetto-ethics-as-a-parasitic-scam/

    LAW

    Humans will fill an ethical vacuum left by Rothbardian libertine ethics.

    http://www.propertarianism.com/2014/04/27/humans-will-invent-institutions-to-fill-ethical-and-moral-vacuums/

    FALLACIES

    List of Rothbardian Fallacies

    http://www.propertarianism.com/2014/04/03/the-end-of-ghetto-libertarianism/

    The deception of “psychic benefit”

    http://www.propertarianism.com/2014/04/27/the-moral-deception-of-the-ethical-standard-of-psychic-benefit/

    Immigration as Redistribution

    http://www.propertarianism.com/2014/04/27/caplans-dishonest-redistributive-argument-in-favor-of-open-immigration/

    The Immorality of Pacifist Libertarianism

    http://www.propertarianism.com/2014/04/03/the-immorality-of-pacifist-libertarianism/

    Fallacy of Desirable Choice

    http://www.propertarianism.com/2014/02/15/6832/

    Liberty Expressed as a Right Is An Attempt to obtain it at a discount

    http://www.propertarianism.com/2013/11/26/the-reason-you-use-the-word-liberty-and-not-aristocracy/

    More on Rothbardian attempts to obtain liberty for free

    http://www.propertarianism.com/2013/11/26/aristocratic-egalitarian-vs-rothbardian-ethics/

    MORAL BLINDNESS

    http://www.propertarianism.com/2014/04/03/why-are-libertarians-less-sensitive-to-the-transaction-costs-of-immoral-and-unethical-actions/

    http://www.propertarianism.com/2014/04/27/we-are-morally-blind-limited-in-our-perceptions-and-memory-and-severely-in-our-reason-the-last-thing-we-should-do-is-construct-large-risk-prone-intentionally-managed-states/

    http://www.propertarianism.com/2014/04/27/libertarian-moral-spectrum-blindness/

    http://www.propertarianism.com/2014/04/27/i-didnt-realize-the-power-of-my-argument-against-libertarian-perception-of-reality/

    Rothbardians bear the burden of demonstrating that they are not morally blind.

    http://www.propertarianism.com/2014/04/27/its-up-to-rothbardians-to-demonstrate-that-they-are-not/


    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-14 12:52:00 UTC

  • ROTHBARDIANS CAN CLAIM THEY ARE ANARCHISTS AND LIBERTINES, BUT NOT LIBERTARIANS,

    ROTHBARDIANS CAN CLAIM THEY ARE ANARCHISTS AND LIBERTINES, BUT NOT LIBERTARIANS, OR ETHICAL AND MORAL MEN.

    Anarchist is true, libertine is true, libertarian is false, moral man is false.

    There is no liberty in rothbardian libertinism. No means of obtaining it nor means of holding it.

    Rothbard would have us return to the ethics of the nomadic pastoralists an their endemic warfare. We all bring our cultural heritage with us. As such we can look at the results of pastoral heritage. If we acted as Rothbards’ ghetto inhabitants, or Rothbards’ pastoralists, or Rothbard’s wandering merchants, we would be treated like them: landless, despised, ostracized, and frequently decimated. We cannot construct absurdly utopian social systems on absurdly unsuccessful social systems. The western militia led by professional warriors of equal status, is a unique social system.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-14 01:44:00 UTC

  • 20th CENTURY PHILOSOPHERS WERE SEEKING POWER, NOT TRUTH Operationalism construct

    20th CENTURY PHILOSOPHERS WERE SEEKING POWER, NOT TRUTH

    Operationalism constructs rigid correspondence, eliminates the problem of imprecise language, even non-existent language, by creating names for operations rather than allegories, normative usage, or worst of all, relying upon names of experiences rather than the actions that cause them.

    It has become increasingly frustrating, if not dismissive, to read the philosophical arguments of the 20th century, which seek to find truth in language through a variant of set operations – which of course, must be nothing more than circular. When the answer was just sitting there for everyone to pick up and run with.

    But It was apparently much better to seek truth as a means of persuasion of others, rather than to seek truth as a means of testing the content of one’s testimony. And I think the psychologists and intellectual historians could spend a lot of time analyzing that particular bit of 20th century mysticism. Or perhaps pseudoscience. Or more graciously ‘error’.

    What vanity, or error would lead a body of people to seek authority rather than duty?

    I hope the depth of that question comes across.

    We all seek power. But the truth is just as likely to impede our ambitions as assist in them. But the academy, sought to take power from the church. Moral power. Reason and Science were the first blow. Darwin was the second. The Universalist State the third. It was all in pursuit of power.

    Philosophers of the 20th century, knowingly or not, were seeking power, not truth.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-11 04:08:00 UTC

  • More On Salon's "Coming Apart" Article (Response 2)

    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.

  • More On Salon’s “Coming Apart” Article (Response 2)

    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.

  • More On Salon's "Coming Apart" Article (Response 2)

    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.

  • More On Salon’s “Coming Apart” Article (Response 2)

    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.

  • MORE ON COMING APART : SALON’S ARTICLE : RESPONSE 2 DECEPTIONS IN THIS ARTICLE 1

    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