Form: Short Note

  • My Very Own Private Wiki Entry

    Finally, I had the courage to ask for a Wikipedia page. I actually dont like the attention, but it’s necessary marketing.

  • Um. Liberals might ‘suck’ but that’s not the point I’m making.

    I do not say liberals ‘suck’ I say that they do not comprehend conservatives and that conservative language is to blame. This needs to be fixed if we are to have a democratic polity with rational debate. I have articulated that these differences are nothing more than reproductive strategies writ large. I’ve articulated the difference in complexity in these strategies. And I’ve left the CHOICE UP TO EVERYONE ELSE, that once these facts are known, that we can conduct rational political debate with the full knowledge that we are arguing instincts as well as evolutionary strategies, and that these instincts and strategies present irresolvable conflicts. SInce conflicts are irresolvable, the only solution is compromise, The only compromise that is possible is exchange. The libertarian solution to social conflict is voluntary exchange. That is the line of reasoning. With that line of reasoning, it becomes possible to conduct rational discourse by debating, not ultimate truths – because we now know that they are permanently in conflict – but by negotiating exchanges. In my work I recommend that we improve the institutions of government so that they are not winner-take-all conflicts as we have today, but that the houses of government return to their greek and english class structures which allows cooperation between classes with competing and irreconcilable differences, rather than conduct class warfare because our political system is winner-take-all.

  • Um. Liberals might ‘suck’ but that’s not the point I’m making.

    I do not say liberals ‘suck’ I say that they do not comprehend conservatives and that conservative language is to blame. This needs to be fixed if we are to have a democratic polity with rational debate. I have articulated that these differences are nothing more than reproductive strategies writ large. I’ve articulated the difference in complexity in these strategies. And I’ve left the CHOICE UP TO EVERYONE ELSE, that once these facts are known, that we can conduct rational political debate with the full knowledge that we are arguing instincts as well as evolutionary strategies, and that these instincts and strategies present irresolvable conflicts. SInce conflicts are irresolvable, the only solution is compromise, The only compromise that is possible is exchange. The libertarian solution to social conflict is voluntary exchange. That is the line of reasoning. With that line of reasoning, it becomes possible to conduct rational discourse by debating, not ultimate truths – because we now know that they are permanently in conflict – but by negotiating exchanges. In my work I recommend that we improve the institutions of government so that they are not winner-take-all conflicts as we have today, but that the houses of government return to their greek and english class structures which allows cooperation between classes with competing and irreconcilable differences, rather than conduct class warfare because our political system is winner-take-all.

  • Escher Triangle: impossible objects

    Escher Triangle: impossible objects.


    Source date (UTC): 2012-03-28 23:08:00 UTC

  • Why Do I Include Certain Authors In My Reading List And Not Others?

    Who is not included in my reading list and why? You might notice that I don’t include Steven Ozment and other great romantic historians. If you want to read them, then that’s fine. I agree with their rapture. On the other hand, I’m a POLITICAL ECONOMIST which means I care only about the necessary institutions needed to produce the greek and british miracles. It is an emotionless pursuit. And the romantics do not help me in that regard. I have the same problem with much of the conservative reading list produced by the National Review, which I view as, like that of Kirk, romantic and inspirational, but not helpful to an analytical intellectual looking to define institutions to create romantic attachments rather than assuming that those attachments create those institutions if such feelings could be instilled somehow. From my view this is simply illogical: it’s putting the cart before the horse. People feel romantic attachments to their institutions. But it is the institutions that created that sentiment. (Thanks to FredR for suggesting I include Victor Davis Hanson’s “The Other Greeks”.)

  • Why Do I Include Certain Authors In My Reading List And Not Others?

    Who is not included in my reading list and why? You might notice that I don’t include Steven Ozment and other great romantic historians. If you want to read them, then that’s fine. I agree with their rapture. On the other hand, I’m a POLITICAL ECONOMIST which means I care only about the necessary institutions needed to produce the greek and british miracles. It is an emotionless pursuit. And the romantics do not help me in that regard. I have the same problem with much of the conservative reading list produced by the National Review, which I view as, like that of Kirk, romantic and inspirational, but not helpful to an analytical intellectual looking to define institutions to create romantic attachments rather than assuming that those attachments create those institutions if such feelings could be instilled somehow. From my view this is simply illogical: it’s putting the cart before the horse. People feel romantic attachments to their institutions. But it is the institutions that created that sentiment. (Thanks to FredR for suggesting I include Victor Davis Hanson’s “The Other Greeks”.)

  • CONSERVATIVE STRATEGY: Starve the beast. It isn’t about rational language. It’s

    http://www.capitalismv3.com/2012/03/08/the-conservative-strategy/THE CONSERVATIVE STRATEGY: Starve the beast. It isn’t about rational language. It’s about rational outcomes.


    Source date (UTC): 2012-03-27 09:58:00 UTC

  • problem with our eristic political debate: Conservatism is articulated irrationa

    http://www.capitalismv3.com/2012/03/27/on-the-irrationality-of-liberal-rationalism/The problem with our eristic political debate: Conservatism is articulated irrationally but its premises are true. Progressivism is articulated rationally but its premises are false.


    Source date (UTC): 2012-03-27 09:58:00 UTC

  • is a racist, dishonest, political hack

    http://www.capitalismv3.com/2012/03/26/krugman-is-a-racist-dishonest-hack/Krugman is a racist, dishonest, political hack.


    Source date (UTC): 2012-03-27 09:51:00 UTC

  • REJECT A SUPERIOR MILITARY TECHNOLOGY The right has learned from the left. The l

    http://lewrockwell.com/north/north1108.htmlNEVER REJECT A SUPERIOR MILITARY TECHNOLOGY

    The right has learned from the left. The left hates it. The problem is, that the right views these tactics as dishonorable. THey intuitively reject the ethics of the bazaar, in favor of the ethics of chivalry.

    And that is the right’s vulnerability.

    Never reject a superior technology.


    Source date (UTC): 2012-03-25 20:05:00 UTC