—“Given that all wealth was produced by humans (everything around us was once raw matter in the ground), as long as parasitism is suppressed and the reproduction rate is lower than the consumption rate for each family, the production of more humans (those of likely high-productive ability) would yield more productivity than merely maximizing production from the current population.”— Steve Pender
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-17 12:32:00 UTC
“Take comfort from the gasoline price. It indicates that the powerful aren’t really what they believe they are. In the long run, decentralized markets always outpace and outwit the ability of elites to dictate and manipulate them. Every penny by which the price drops signals to the world: freedom can prevail even in a world in which the powerful are conspiring to destroy it.” – Jeffrey Tucker
—“Once you reject the Hayekian insight of the spontaneous nature of the social order, everything looks like a consequence of deliberation and war. All social and economic effects have a powerful, volitional, intentional cause. It’s a fundamental error.” –Tucker
Well the first statement is a psychologism.
It is not necessary to reject spontaneous order.
It is always possible for asymmetries – particularly state asymmetries – to distort that order.
Ergo there is no incompatibility between the self organising market and asymmetric influence that distorts it.
As such, as far as I know, the current price is a reflection of intentional distortion of the price through sale at below necessary return rate in order to achieve aforementioned ends.
So the source of your error is the intentional use of the pretence of rule ethics outside of the discipline of rule of law, applying it to truth propositions.
This is the source of Rothbards and mises errors, the source of Hoppe’s error of argumentation, and the source of kinsella’s error.
That this is nothing but justificationary excuse making is logically obvious.
That does not mean that a generation or two of useful idiots didn’t fall for it. They did.
The reality of the current state of affairs is that your era’s gentlemen should stick to advocacy of Liberty and leave philosophy to those of us who practice social science.
It seems that molyneux has learned and therefore move to advocacy after failing at philosophy.
I defend you as a moral man. I know you well enough.
But the difference between your eras use of justificationary rationalism and my eras use of ratio-scientific testimonialism is as great a difference as that between accounting and calculus.
Better to learn from my work and ask questions than think ones self able to participate in philosophical discourse of this magnitude.
“Curt how did you come to that conclusion?” is a great way to start. 😉
Affections. Always.
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-16 09:13:00 UTC
—“Not all “Charles” nor Causes are equal. “Killing in the name of Charles Manson has no redeeming value. Killing in the name of Charles Martel is an honor.”— James Santagata
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-16 04:38:00 UTC
—“Director of the Russian Institute for Strategic Research Leonid Reshetnikov believes there is an attempt to eliminate Orthodoxy in Ukraine.”Ukrainism from the very start was an anti-Orthodox concept: it was directed not only against Russians, against Moskals (Moscovites – IF), it was directed against Orthodoxy.”—
Not quite true.
Ukrainian people will not forgive Russians for their present or past crimes against them.
Nor will Russians apologize for their crimes against the people of eastern Europe and lessen Ukrainian anger over their impoverishment, deception, starvation, and murder. It is not in the Russian character to apologize for Russian crimes against humanity.
Ukrainian people understand that the orthodox church has intentionally evolved into a propaganda and intelligence service for Moscow.
Ukrainian people are increasingly skeptical of their church – partly because many orthodox priests act like little more than beggars in robes – and partly because they know that the priests can be bought by Moscow.
My adopted ‘family’ here was raised Orthodox and goes to the catholic church. For the simple reason that the mass is full of love and personal encouragement rather than authority and promise.
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-16 02:29:00 UTC
http://www.sciencedump.com/content/people-who-use-emojis-lot-are-hornier-according-scienceOMG.
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-15 05:03:00 UTC
ISLAM AS INFANTILIZATION OF THE HUMAN MIND
—–He proceeds to “list a few of their habits which Arabs are known for.” His subheadings include: “A lack of privacy for other’s space,” “Childish behavior,” “Stealing shoes,” “Etiquettes when eating,” “Getting angry” “Sleeping habits,” “The staring competition,” “Treating animals badly,” “Beggars,” “Driving ‘skills’,” and “Empty words.” —-
Damn. Thats it you know. It’s not just ignorance but infantilization as the result of imposed ignorance.
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-14 09:16:00 UTC
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-14 04:01:00 UTC
(Via Francesco Principi)
“The xenophobia expressed in environments with high pathogen severity creates barriers to intergroup cooperation. These barriers cause greater poverty in environments with increased pathogen severity, in addition to the direct effects of disease on the human capital that is essential to economic growth. Xenophobic groups in competition for resources are unwilling to resolve this competition through cooperative means, and they are more likely to resort to violent conflict.”
This idea has legs.
(Via Francesco Principi)
“The xenophobia expressed in environments with high pathogen severity creates barriers to intergroup cooperation. These barriers cause greater poverty in environments with increased pathogen severity, in addition to the direct effects of disease on the human capital that is essential to economic growth. Xenophobic groups in competition for resources are unwilling to resolve this competition through cooperative means, and they are more likely to resort to violent conflict.”
This idea has legs.
[I] think that love (noun) refers to the condition in which one’s happiness depends on another’s. And therefore to love (verb) must mean to act in a manner consistent with this condition prevailing. If we adopt these as our definitions, then it becomes obvious, upon cursory examination, that we can never accurately describe actual “love” (either the noun or the verb) as either universal or unconditional for long. For example, unrequited love would tend to consume, either its host, or its host’s willingness to continue entertaining it; for it entails costs with certainty, but holds out no sure promise of benefits, and would be easy to take advantage of. But reciprocal love may prove (under some conditions) sustainable or even (under others) productive. Curt Doolittle made a status the other day, or perhaps a comment, wherein he opined that the statement “I love you” must resolve operationally to something like “I promise that if you test the hypothesis that ‘I love you’ you will not find it untrue.” So we can resolve this still further to say that “I love you” means “I promise that if you test the hypothesis that my happiness depends on your own against my actions, you will not find it untrue.” —Eli Harman