Lower prices are not an intrinsic good.
They appear to be bait for consumption.
Higher productivity is hard to argue is not an intrinsic good.
Saving the Results of Productivity Increases, rather than expanding the population, appears to be an intrinsic good.
In other words, encouraging hyper-consumption is an attack on the commons.
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-17 04:14:00 UTC
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H37JIKFVp7MHOPPE AT HIS BEST :
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-16 16:20:00 UTC
I know why professionals give up on fb and blogs.
John Taylor (economist) doesn’t even allow comments. And I don’t think our Harvard man does either.
How much is it worth to debate anyone really? I mean, I would love to debate Hoppe just so I could show him right by scientific means.
But I can’t think of anyone else even marginally able to conduct such a debate other than Hans.
Yet I burn hours on well Intentioned idiots.
But when I do I learn a bit more about the error capacity of humans.
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-16 11:47:00 UTC
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-16 06:39:00 UTC
http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2014/09/28/moral-foundations-as-property-rights/MORAL FOUNDATIONS AS REPRODUCTIVE STRATEGIES RESULTING FROM GENDER BIAS IN COOPERATION
FEMININE COOPERATION BIAS (BUILD OFFSPRING)
1. Proportionality/cheating, Justice, treating others in proportion to their actions. (The asset of goods.)
2. Care/harm for others, protecting them from harm. (The asset of life and body.)
MASCULINE (BETA) COOPERATION BIAS (OBTAIN OFFSPRING)
3. Liberty/Oppression, characterizes judgments in terms of whether subjects are tyrannized. (The asset of time, opportunity.)
MASCULINE (ALPHA) COMMONS BIASES (COMPETITIVE TRIBE OF MALES)
And three others can be expressed as community property rights covering social capital.
4. In-Group Loyalty/In-Group Betrayal to/of your group, family, nation, polity.
5. Respect/Authority/Subversion for tradition and legitimate authority.
6. Purity/Sanctity/Degradation/Disgust, avoiding disgusting things, foods, actions.
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-16 05:30:00 UTC
Love is part of our movement.
We must teach men to love one another again.
Because with love we speak the truth, build trust, build commons.
“I love you man” is the best signal I know how to send.
The best bond I know how to build.
The best promise I know how to make.
The best loyalty I know how to maintain.
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-15 17:22:00 UTC
I have no problem with killing. It is simply necessary at times.
Because we cannot kill ideas without the killing the host that has invested in them.
But Suffering is not acceptable, and revelry in suffering is contemptible.
This is the difference between ‘us’ and ‘them’.
There is no place for evil in the human heart.
Reason is not compatible with passion.
Truth not compatible with hatred.
Kill them all if needed.
But take no joy in it.
It is a necessary action.
But not one to take joy in.
For each life lost is one that could have been beautiful if not infected by evil.
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-15 17:12:00 UTC
Beautiful, and objectively “good” women.
Friends, or at least men you enjoy, respect, and care about.
Good food. Good Atmosphere.
Enough alcohol to make us stop fearing for our status signals.
A constant effort by all to obtain greater intimacy with each other.
Laughter.
Joy.
I wish I had more of you to share it with.
Hugs.
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-15 17:09:00 UTC
I am a christian and a catholic, a cultural american and an ethnic Englishman.
Unlike some (lesser) peoples, I am not conflicted whatsoever by the separation between my faith and science. I don’t need to apply reason to my faith, i need to intuit it. And I am not sure that I can do more than that. (and I can understand a lot of things). I need to understand my universe, so that can act in it. I cannot intuit it. So I must not rely upon my intuition. Instead I must rely upon my reason.
For simple minds this may be a contradiction.
But Faith is faith. Science is Science. If they contradict, then my understanding of my faith is incorrect.
I have no problem banning people who cannot do the same.
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-15 12:24:00 UTC
HOW WILL THE CURRENT ERA BE REMEMBERED?
I am almost positive that the current era will be interpreted as a century long failed experiment, and that cognitive scientists and legal philosophers and anthropologists will obtain the credit for repairing it.
Not that Austrians are wrong, but that their program was incomplete, cut off by the wars, and the need for reconstruction.
And that Mises fundamental insight was misunderstood – not only by others but himself: moral criticism.
Hayek was likely right in that the twentieth century will be considered an era of mysticism in the future. Mysticism meaning ‘pseudoscience’ today, for having relied upon aggregates alone rather than testing them with actions.
But explaining why this is true is difficult.
What we have been exploring is not so much economics but the addition of credit to the inventory of weapons of influence that can be used to govern a people.
I am almost certain now that this is correct.
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-15 07:15:00 UTC