Curt Doolittle

Form: Critique

  • The Economist Magazine Is Wrong On Oligarchs: Flaunt It. Flaunt It Everywhere. Always.

    The Economist: Don’t Flaunt It*That’s what a Republic is. A Natural Rotation Of Oligarchs.* [E]very country has an oligarchy. Oligarchies are NECESSARY and they are unavoidable. The question is which composition of people do you want to be governed by: (a) soldiers, (b) priests or (c) commerce? Why that list of three? Because there are only three forms of coercion avalable for humans to use in building organizations: (a) violence, (b) ostracization from opportunity and (c) exchange – or, technically, remuneration. If, as we have seen, people DEMONSTRATE that they UNIVERSALLY prefer to live under conditions of wealth, and only ONE of these three coercive sets CREATES wealth, then it is only logical, that china DUPLICATES the rise of the West’s aristocracy – which is the SOURCE of western prosperity – by having government run by people who udnerstaand commerce. And in particular, who understand nationalism as a commercial strategy. THEY DO IT RIGHT. WE DO IT WRONG NOW. Our leaders are priests of egalitarianism – who assume business will succeed and that they can simply plunder business at will. They are Not aristocrats responsible for the economic welfare of their citizens. China is doing it RIGHT. They’re doing it RIGHT by imitating the rise of the WEST. The rise that we were programmed by the left to believe was evil, colonial, oppressive, masculine. When in fact, we dragged all of humanity out of pervasive ignorance and poverty with our aristocratic christian ethics, technology, and culture. FLAUNT IT. FLAUNT IT EVERY DAY. AND CHEER THOSE WHO FLAUNT IT.

  • THE CONSTITUTION ACTUALLY SAYS ABOUT RELIGION, AND HOW THE STATE HAS CREATED A S

    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/13/texas-gov-rick-perry-americans-have-no-right-to-freedom-from-religion/WHAT THE CONSTITUTION ACTUALLY SAYS ABOUT RELIGION, AND HOW THE STATE HAS CREATED A STATE RELIGION IN SPITE OF THE CONSTITUTION.

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; “

    WHAT THAT MEANS

    It means what it says. It doesn’t say freedom of religion, or freedom from religion. As a libertarian of course, I would prefer that it did say what we libertarians desire it said. Just like every other faction desires it to say one thing or another. But that’s what it says and all it says. It means only that the congress may not pass a law establishing an official single monopoly religion, or inhibiting the practice of religion by those who desire to.

    WHAT THE FOUNDERS INTENDED

    1) The founders intended that the state not take control of the christian church as it had in France and England, because the state would abuse the church, which was the source of moral teaching, and use the church for immoral ends. However, in practice, the state has made the education system it’s ‘church’ and the source of moral teaching, thereby creating its own religion.

    2) The founders intended that the church retain it’s position as the source of moral teaching. They stated repeatedly that the constitution was an inferior protector of our liberty – that the only material protection of liberty was the moral code of the citizenry itself. In practice, through public education, the state has created its own moral code against the wishes of the majority. We call this code socialism, or the more recent incarnation of socialism: “postmodernism”, or in colloquial terms “liberalism’, or in institutional and political terms ‘social democracy’. But whatever we call it, the state has adopted and sponsored a religion, and not agnosticism, and not atheism, and the state does not practice atheism or agnosticism, or even neutrality – it practices postmodernism, and an intentional attack on christianity, while supporting all other monotheistic religions.

    BUT OUR CONSTITUTION DOESN’T CONSTRAIN THE STATE ANY LONGER

    Political debates that rely upon some set of rights make no sense today. Thanks to the destruction of the constitution by liberals by abusing the 14th amendment as a ruse, and in particular under the threat of stacking the court imposed by FDR, the constitution no longer constrains the state, because other than by the untested principle of nullification, the federal government is now in practice a dictator to the states. WIthout state opposition to the federal government, groups of individuals have no institutional means of cooperating en masse to oppose expansion of the government.

    RECOMMENDED READING (This is really all you need to know)

    Nullification, by Thomas Woods. (The least expensive and least disruptive means of regaining our rights: move, and vote for nullification.)

    How Liberals Rewrote the Constitution, by Richard Epstein. (A detailed history of the project to undermined the constitution so that socialism could be adopted.)

    The Constitution Of Liberty, by Friedrich Hayek. (Freedom is synonymous with property rights and rule of law. That’s it.)

    Source date (UTC): 2013-06-14 05:08:00 UTC

  • Why Did Stephen Hawking Cancel His 2013 Trip To Israel?

    Noam Chomsky, a radical leftist, a man filled with hatred, the only philosopher supporting left intellectuals, and perhaps one of the most immoral men in the world, convinced Hawking not to go.   

    This is neither a criticism of Hawking, nor support for israeli policy, but a statement about Chomsky’s career as a purveyor of destructive political ideology.

    It’s also proof that most intellectuals are terribly incompetent outside of their direct discipline.  And it’s further evidence that academia is insuated from and fails to understand basic economics, basic geopolitics, and have unfortunately adopted not the skeptical empiricism that science recommends, but instead, much of the ideological platform of the postmodernist movement, and it’s intentional misrepresentation of the nature of man.

    https://www.quora.com/Why-did-Stephen-Hawking-cancel-his-2013-trip-to-Israel

  • Why Did Stephen Hawking Cancel His 2013 Trip To Israel?

    Noam Chomsky, a radical leftist, a man filled with hatred, the only philosopher supporting left intellectuals, and perhaps one of the most immoral men in the world, convinced Hawking not to go.   

    This is neither a criticism of Hawking, nor support for israeli policy, but a statement about Chomsky’s career as a purveyor of destructive political ideology.

    It’s also proof that most intellectuals are terribly incompetent outside of their direct discipline.  And it’s further evidence that academia is insuated from and fails to understand basic economics, basic geopolitics, and have unfortunately adopted not the skeptical empiricism that science recommends, but instead, much of the ideological platform of the postmodernist movement, and it’s intentional misrepresentation of the nature of man.

    https://www.quora.com/Why-did-Stephen-Hawking-cancel-his-2013-trip-to-Israel

  • What Causes People To Become More Conservative Over Time?

    Interesting Answers.  Most of them unsupported or substantially wrong.

    Conservative is a reaction to the status quo.  The status quo in america is classical liberalism. Classical liberalism is the founding mythology of our country. This mythology contains the classical liberal, european aristocratic egalitarian view of man that we associate with the Protestant Ethic. The protestant ethical sensibilities are what ‘conservatives’ are ‘conservative’ about.

    The reason people become more conservative as they get older is that they have accumulated greater knowledge about the behavior of individuals in the real world.  Young people have experience with the ethic of the family and give undue weight to the consensus bias.   The market is the mature view of man, wherein we have dissimilar interests and goals and we can pursue those goals independently by cooperating on means within the market.  The family is the childlike view of mankind. It is naturally communal and communistic. It is so because a family has similar interests, similar means, and similar abilities.

    Single women and single mothers vote more heavily left than any other demographic group.  This changes if they stay married, at which point they skew conservative. If it were not for women voters, and specifically single women voters, we would never have had a liberal president, and it’s unlikely we would ever have had a liberal government.  FOr this reason, women are responsible for the left shift in america.   And the increase in single women and single mothers is the result of the feminist attack on the nuclear family as an economic institution.  Single women revert to their instinctual reproductive strategy: to bear children but to place responsibility for supporting them on the tribe.  The family is the smallest tribe possible. When the family is not present, women still pursue their reproductive strategy, and vote to place responsibility on the state (the tribe) for services.

    As we get older we understand the scarcity of good and services, and we understand the nature of human beings as more selfish and less communal.  The market system and the family compensate for these selfish properties of human being and create community by controlling the selfish behavior of human beings.

    That is why people become more conservative as they get older.

    https://www.quora.com/What-causes-people-to-become-more-conservative-over-time

  • FINISHED MY WORK ON RORTY. (eh.) His criticism of the metaphysical project is ac

    FINISHED MY WORK ON RORTY. (eh.)

    His criticism of the metaphysical project is accurate. His definition of truth as ‘whatever we agree upon’ is just a justification for postmodern verbal deception. It’s a justification not a description.

    Waste of time.

    Sigh.

    As for political philosophy, we are back to the philosophy of science, but where instead of testing hypotheses against the regular patterns of the physical universe, we are testing hypotheses against the willingness to enter voluntary exchanges.

    Of course, the universe has a fairly constant periodicity at the newtonian scale of our human actions (albeit at much faster and slower, larger and smaller, that’s something else entirely). But human beings exhibit any number of periodic patterns due to age, generation, state of current knowledge, arrangement of current resources, and arrangement of humans into complex webs of production that we call a division of labor, all of which is signalled by prices made possible by the commensurability of money, subject to flocking and swarming, and external shocks from the physical world.

    Just as we hypothesize that the universe expands and contracts, so does our civilization, as we gain new knowledge of how to more effectively extract calories from the world’s resources, then via fertility, consume the incremental value of that knowledge.

    Meanwhile we school like fish to national opportunities, until they too are exhausted via boom and bust. And within that boom and bust the constant signaling necessary for mating and reproduction take place giving rise to subtle differences in fashion and aesthetics, which are the micro-applications of those advances in our capture of calories from the material world.

    Truth is a description of actions that if repeated, reproduce previous results among categories with a similar periodicity. This is somewhat problematic because first, periodicity becomes extremely complicated outside of the newtonian physical world, or, among humans, outside of the family.

    Second because production cycles and therefore all the categories of measurement, randomly fall apart and then are recreated in response to changing demand on one and and availability of solutions on the other.

    Truth is not what we agree it is. Ambitions may be whatever we agree upon. Even if those ambitions are metaphorically, a-rationally or irrationally stated.

    It may be true that we can chant false things often enough that people will for some time believe them long enough to implement som policy or other. In fact, that is what happens most of the time. That is the purpose of the progressive-postmodern program.

    But truth in the physical world and truth in the world of human action are different in the sense that the actions needed to replicate something in the physical world will remain constant, and actions needed to replicate something in the human world will not remain constant.

    In either case, any true statement is a statement about the set of actions, not about the thing or process itself (which doesn’t exist as a set of conditions except as a collection of statements or symbols or stimuli). Most confusion is caused by this confusion. We can make statements. We can test these statements.These statements under test, will either reproduce prior results (true) or not (false), or be inconclusive (not true, not false, but simply non logical).

    True statements are true by means of analogies constructed of abstract categories we call actions – and they are indeed categories. And these statements are just statements. They are statements that if imitated, produce consistent results each time that they are tested. And without additional information they will not change. But since we are always subject to new information, they are constantly open to possible change, even if that change is largely only an increase in the detail provided by smaller and larger, or faster and slower scales.

    Humans must be able to reduce conceptual analogies to something that can be processed by the brain in two or three seconds. Most of our work is to produce some means by which we create causal categories that can be submitted to our senses in a form that we can associate with other associations in three seconds or less.

    Lots of associative power. Short periodicity for processing that much information.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-03-31 13:20:00 UTC

  • Brian Caplan is Wrong on Immigration – Like Most Libertarians

    [T]here is nothing new about that though. (And Walter Block is wrong well.) Although I agree with Caplan’s work on education and voting, his position on immigration is ideological, not empirical or rational, and it is decidedly not ethically sound. The only test of any ethical statement is whether all transfers caused by any act, are voluntary transfers – including involuntary transfers of goods, actions and opportunity, and including both direct involuntary transfers by externality, asymmetry of knowledge, fraud, theft or violence (in that order), and including reverse involuntary transfers caused by impediment, free-riding, rent seeking, or privatization (in that order). There is no other test of any ethical statement. There isn’t. Period. Libertarian ‘self ownership’ is not an ethical statement. It is an epistemic statement, or it is a demand, or it is an appeal, but it is not an ethical statement. If any statement claims to be moral, or ethical, while at the same time, providing an excuse to conduct involuntary transfer via externality or asymmetry of knowledge, it is simply a RUSE – an act of fraud. (If you are even an amateur libertarian philosopher, then you are welcome to attempt to circumvent that argument. But you won’t be able to.) In fact, “competition” itself, as we use the term, is the normative sanction of external involuntary transfer by an artificial, counter-intuitive, set of rules we call the market, consisting of voluntary transfer of goods and services, by fully informed consensual exchange, and insured as fully informed and consensual by warranty, at the cost of opportunity and investment to other producers of similar goods, in an effort to coerce producers to innovate in their use of resources, to produce goods for all at lower price, or higher quality, in an effort to produce goods and services at the lowest cost and highest quality for all consumers participating in that set of normative rules that comprise that market, and which we in turn call ‘a society’.REGARDING: http://www.cato-unbound.org/2013/03/19/bryan-caplan/the-rights-of-the-worlds-poor-a-reply-to-hassoun/ [T]he ‘libertarian’ free trade in labor would be true if and only if there were no external costs to that labor. In other words, immigration is incompatible with redistribution. And distribution is warranted by conformity to norms. Where norms represent property rights. And therefore immigration is an act of theft by capitalists and immigrants from the middle and working classes. Certainly you would not argue that free trade in nuclear materials and nuclear waste would be a ‘good thing’? Or free trade in communicable diseases? Nuclear energy produces a temporal good, but has many negative external and largely inter-temporal consequences for the environment. Communicable diseases help provide incentives for creating medical treatments, and help us maintain relative immunity from the evolution of bacteria and viruses. But, according to Caplan and Libertarians, these externalities are not part of any equation we use to measure these things?

      Institutionally, Caplan would have to prove that the waves of Catholic and Jewish immigrants and their attacks on the constitution, rather than adapting culturally by market forces, have had no long term negative impact on the society – despite without those attacks we can empirically demonstrate that we would not have entered the ‘great society’ problem. Or that immigration of the third world has not further exacerbated these redistributive trends, away from the intertemporal savings and lending model of society which constrains risk and fragility, to the intertemporal redistribution model that encourages risk and fragility. We can DEMONSTRATE EMPIRICALLY that waves of immigrants have provided short term economic benefit for long term erosion of the property rights, homogeneity of interest, and high trust society that perpetuates those property rights as norms. We can DEMONSTRATE EMPIRICALLY that the wave of german immigrants both after the 1870’s economic crash in Europe and after the world wars, had a net positive effect on the institutions and economy of the united states, by tracing their technological contributions. Ethically, caplan would have to DEMONSTRATE that immigration enforces no uncompensated involuntary transfers. I can certainly demonstrate that open immigration forces involuntary transfers – ie: is theft. the only means of avoiding that process, is to allow individuals to immigrate under sponsorship, and to pay for insurance against the immigrant and his descendants from becoming the recipient of involuntary transfers from others. There is no other way to achieve it. This suite of errors is caused by the misperception that formal institutions rather than informal institutions, are the source of the high trust society, universalism, and individual property rights. However, we can easily demonstrate that just the opposite is true: a society without these norms, and where those norms are enforced by education and formal institutions, most specifically, the rule of law, and where political action is prohibited, forcing all competition into the market. We all bring our heritage with us. Our norms. Our values. Our metaphysics. They are not chosen rationally. They are inherited as habits from our families. Is it any wonder, any coincidence that Rothbard, Block and Caplan arem Jewish (diasporic perpetual immigrants), Hans Hoppe is German (landed tribal nationalists), and I’m an English-American (institutional imperialist)? It isn’t a mystery. We cannot escape our heritages, because within those cultural norms, assumptions and values, and even possibly, to some degree, in our genes, we hold assumptions about the natural order of man. The only way to judge those Norms, values, and metaphysics is to judge the civilizations that they produced where they were employed. We know that third world, catholic, and jewish institutions all failed to produce the universal high trust society. We know that we cannot create protestant germanic institutions outside of protestant germanic countries. Because those countries are not filled with protestant germanic norms. And those norms, and the metaphysical value judgements that they reproduce and reinforce, It was a very different thing a century ago, when our ancestors warned us about this future ‘suicide of the west’. There wasn’t any evidence that they would be right. Now that we have the evidence, the argument is not hypothetical. Our high trust society and the high trust economy will end, along with the political influence of its practitioners. Just like every other aristocratic european political system has ended. Because the high trust society, the nuclear family, universalism of the extended family, and rule of law are unnatural to man – man who seeks rents and involuntary transfers wherever he can find them in an perpetual effort to reduce the effort he must expend in order to gain or maintain a sufficient level of stimulation that we call ‘experiences’. So, what is the economic cost of that consequence? What was the cost of creating the high trust society? What was the opportunity cost of creating it? If the high trust society it is a one time event, impossible to evolve again, because of the impossibility of concordant circumstances, then the economic cost is infinite. I hope that gets my point across. The cost is infinite. And this difference, like all differences, is a difference in time preference and ‘population preference’ (as I have explained elsewhere.) But these preferences are not just tastes. They have meaning. That meaning ALWAYS favors a given population over a long time frame. Period.

    • ECONOMIST MAGAZINE IS WRONG ON OLIGARCHS: **FLAUNT IT. FLAUNT IT EVERYWHERE. ALW

      http://www.economist.com/news/china/21573606-rubber-stamp-billionaires-dont-flaunt-itTHE ECONOMIST MAGAZINE IS WRONG ON OLIGARCHS:

      **FLAUNT IT. FLAUNT IT EVERYWHERE. ALWAYS.**

      *That’s what a Republic is. A Natural Rotation Of Oligarchs.*

      Every country has an oligarchy. Oligarchies are NECESSARY and they are unavoidable.

      The question is which composition of people do you want to be governed by: (a) soldiers, (b) priests or (c) commerce?

      Why that list of three? Because there are only three forms of coercion avalable for humans to use in building organizations: (a) violence, (b) ostracization from opportunity and (c) exchange – or, technically, remuneration.

      If, as we have seen, people DEMONSTRATE that they UNIVERSALLY prefer to live under conditions of wealth, and only ONE of these three coercive sets CREATES wealth, then it is only logical, that china DUPLICATES the rise of the West’s aristocracy – which is the SOURCE of western prosperity – by having government run by people who udnerstaand commerce. And in particular, who understand nationalism as a commercial strategy.

      THEY DO IT RIGHT. WE DO IT WRONG NOW. Our leaders are priests of egalitarianism – who assume business will succeed and that they can simply plunder business at will. They are Not aristocrats responsible for the economic welfare of their citizens.

      China is doing it RIGHT. They’re doing it RIGHT by imitating the rise of the WEST. The rise that we were programmed by the left to believe was evil, colonial, oppressive, masculine. When in fact, we dragged all of humanity out of pervasive ignorance and poverty with our aristocratic christian ethics, technology, and culture.

      FLAUNT IT. FLAUNT IT EVERY DAY. AND CHEER THOSE WHO FLAUNT IT.

      (Reposted with edits)

      Source date (UTC): 2013-03-20 06:41:00 UTC

    • 1) It doesn’t follow that a one time expense, followed by fees for use is the sa

      http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/15/conservatives-and-sewers/?smid=fb-shareFALSE

      1) It doesn’t follow that a one time expense, followed by fees for use is the same as redistribution that creates dependencies. the first requires action, the second does not. THe free-rider problem is different from the progressive-fees problem. Free riding is a negative signal that says free riding is a ‘right’, progressive fees illustrate that this is not a ‘right’, but a ‘charity’. This sends ‘truthful’ signals to both parties. And truthful signals are necessary to prohibit involuntary transfers.

      2) It doesn’t follow that investment in a commons is the same as state-mandated redistribution. If that was true, there wouldn’t be factories, universities, churches and roads.

      3) It doesn’t follow that investment in a universal commons is not conservative. Only that to do so out of charity at a cost, is different than to do so out of opportunity for profit.

      4) it doesn’t follow that taxes must be levied other than fees. (They don’t need to be.)

      5) It doesn’t follow that taxes should be put into a general pool and open to use OTHER than the purpose levied. (they shouldn’t)

      6) It doesn’t follow that the monopolistic state is more efficient than competitive private administration (it’s not)

      7) It doesn’t follow that funding the bureaucracy doesn’t produce externalities that are of intolerable cost. (it does – one of which is forcing us to spend time defending ourselves against other people’s political movements, as they seek to control the predatory state)

      Conservatism is a metaphorical language. Conservatives have one ‘curse word’ with multiple meanings: “Socialism” – state control of property and production and b) “Democratic redistributive socialism” – state ownership of the proceeds from limited private control of property. This ‘curse word’ is a catch-all for ‘those people that use the state to destroy aristocratic individualism and the status signals that I get from individualism regardless of my rank. And this is important. Conservatives do not feel victims because they obtain positive status signals from other conservatives regardless of their economic rank. This is obtainable in human societies only through religious conformity and it’s consequences, or economic conformity and its consequences.

      Conservatives do not object to investment in the commons. Conservatism places higher value on delaying gratification than immediate gratification – the formation of moral capital – which is an inarticulate expression meaning training human beings to enforce a prohibition on involuntary transfers of all kinds.

      Conservatism is the argument that we should not fund the expansionary bureaucratic state that out of deterministic necessity subverts our property rights and therefore our freedom, and therefore our ‘character’ – a euphemism for the prohibition on involuntary transfers of all kinds – because it is our universal prohibition on involuntary transfers both within our families and tribes and without, that is the source of western exceptionalism: the high trust society.

      Our high trust society is unique because we CAN trust others to avoid involuntary transfers, because of the pervasive prohibition on involuntary transfer that we developed under Manorailism by demonstrating fitness needed to obtain land to rent. Partly as a rebellion against the Catholic Church, partly because the church forbid cousin marriage and granted women property rights, in order to break up the tribes and large land holding families. Partly as an ancient indo-european tradition of personal sovereignty in the nobility, which became a status signal, and, thankfully remains a status signal in conservatives.

      Small homogenous polities are redistributive. Large heterogeneous polities are not. This is because trust DECLINES in heterogeneous polities. And trust DECLINES in heterogeneous polities because of the different signals used by different groups, and the fact that signals in-group are ‘cheaper’ (discounted) that signals across groups with differing signals. A strong state in a small homogenous polity that functions as an extended family and therefore with high redistribution, is entirely possible. But by creating a powerful state in a heterogeneous polity, it becomes necessary and useful for people to compete via extra-market means using the state by seeking redistributions and limited monopoly (legal) rights in order to advance their signaling strategy. (Which is what Dr. Krugman does, daily – advance an alternative strategy. A strategy that he does not recognize is from the Ghetto. And would cause a return to the low trust society. And **IS*** right now, causing a return to the low trust society.

      Because the low trust society is natural to man. Thats why it exists everywhere but the aristocratic west.

      Source date (UTC): 2013-03-16 01:26:00 UTC

    • Kinsella’s Criticism of Locke, and My Explanation of Locke’s Reasonable Mistake, and What To Do About It.

      [T]hanks to Stephan Kinsella for giving me the opportunity to explain why Locke accidentally created the Labor theory of value. (From a FB post)

      I’m starting to think one of the costliest intellectual mistakes of all human history was Locke’s ridiculous idea that we own the fruits of our labor (or that we own our labor). This labor theory of property has led to all kinds of mischief, not to mention the labor theory of value and communism and hundreds of millions of deaths, plus the horrible IP system which also literally kills people and retards progress and imposes relative impoverishment. PLus, Locke anchored his theory in God-owns-us stuff, instead of rational argument, and he was a racist and pro-slaver. Meh. Lockean homesteading is correct, but not for Locke’s reasons. I’m going to do a long blog post about this.

      He needed to justify the middle class takeover of property from the aristocracy. To put a fork in feudalism. In the church. In the feudal commons. And to do that he had to justify ACTION as the source of property ownership. And he made the obvious logical leap that confused ownership with (a) subjective value, (b) exchange value and (c) market value. Which to us, is absurd, because we work to expose properties of the market in order to illustrate the evils of the middle class and proletarian states. Each of which attempts to reconstruct that aristocratic commons under different administrative ownership – full of sound and fury but changing nothing. But he wasn’t trying to do [what we are – expose the problem of the middle class and proletarian states]. So he didn’t have the need to disentangle the spectrum that we call ‘value’. (a,b and c above.) You’re right that he was imperfect and that there have been consequences to that imperfection. [B]ut to some degree, our emphasis on subjective value alone creates a similar problem. 1) Subjective value is immeasureable. (psychological) 2) Exchange value is incomensurable (barter: visible but incommensurable )) 3) Market value is calculable. (prices: visible, commensurable) I think, that when we libertarians use imprecise language that we make Hume’s mistake. We dont go deep enough and create confusion: political externalities. Just like he did. Because we do not illustrate the problems that the market solves by commensurability. Instead we think subjective value is self evident. And it may be. But it is incomplete. And therefore insufficient to support our claims. This is the same problem we have with Rothbardian ethics and Misesian Praxeology. Theyre incomplete as stated. And if incomplete they cannot be apodeictically certain as we claim. Too deep perhaps. More simply: There is more to value than subjectivity. [Subjectivity is but one point on a spectrum.]