See, if you stick at it for a few years, the incomprehensible is distillable to a string of statements that are – at least for the informed – relatively intelligible. Remember all the criticism I used to get a few years ago? Well, we are getting PRETTY CLEAR these days. 🙂 Patience, hard work, and trial and error.
Source date (UTC): 2015-06-25 13:06:00 UTC
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY: ITS NOT LIKE I”M ALL THAT GENTLE ON ANYONE
I am just more hostile to pseudoscience and deceit than I am to error.
I’m attacking the failures of:
– The Anglo Enlightenment
– The German Enlightenment
– The Jewish (Cosmopolitan) Enlightenment
– The French Enlightenment
And the failure of the:
– Russians
– Muslims
– Asians
To have their own incomplete, or failed, enlightenments.
Only the west discovered truth and high trust. But our enlightenments were incomplete. All of them. They all failed.
Source date (UTC): 2015-06-25 11:59:00 UTC
NO, ROTHBARDIANISM IS OBJECTIVELY IMMORAL. PERIOD
Cosmopolitan Libertarians (meaning zero-commons advocates) do not perceive the commons as in their reproductive interests, so they reject paying for them. Mostly because they are rejects. It’s logical.
Anglo libertarians (meaning advocates of commons free of perverse incentives), or what we call ‘small government, classical liberals’ are not rejects, and do not object to paying for commons. They object to predation, parasitism, commons that create perverse incentives.
>>> That is called “the modern regulatory nation-state”, not “libertarians.”
Curt Doolittle
Actually no. Rothbardian ethics (Cosmopolitan Libertinism) circumvent not only all physical, but all normative commons consequent to intersubjectively verifiable property. As walter block and Rothbard argue, blackmail, abuse of asymmetric information, externality, and no promise of warranty are central to the libertarian ethical system. Period.
In other words, Rothbardian ethics are the ethics of the ghetto: the low trust society of the ghetto and levant. Rothbard advanced Jewish ghetto ethics (separatism) as a substitute for anglo Saxon liberty (high trust and extensive commons). And while it is possible to use Rothbard’s ethical system for inter-state law (separatists), it is insufficient for intra-group law, since low trust increases both transaction costs and demand for authoritarian intervention to suppress retaliation for actions that invoke retaliation.
So, no, it’s not an opinion, it’s merely fact. Rothbardian ethics are parasitic, and since they encourage parasitism, predatory, and non-rational, since demand for the state is equal to the lack of suppression (means of resolution) for impositions of costs both physical, institutional and normative.
That’s just empirical. People retaliate. People pay high costs to retaliate.
That’s because cooperation is disproportionately rewarding, so we evolved altruistic punishment in order to prevent disintegration of cooperation by the production of perverse incentives. This desire to retaliate on one hand and invest on the other is called our ‘moral intuitions’.
Rothbardianism is objectively, rationally, empirically, immoral.
Period.
Source date (UTC): 2015-06-25 10:16:00 UTC
THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD IS A MORAL PHILOSOPHY
—I suppose it would really annoy Hawking to have it demonstrated that the scientific method is only a moral philosophy: a set of criticisms that allow you to warranty that your theories are free of existential impossibility, limitlessness, error, bias, imaginary content, wishful thinking, deception, and (objective) immorality (in the domain of the social sciences).—
(The first person who gave me that idea was Ken Hopf. Too bad he is stuck in 1930.)
Source date (UTC): 2015-06-25 08:52:00 UTC
https://www.change.org/p/amazon-walmart-ebay-stop-supporting-genocide-racism-and-terrorismThe confederate flag? A few million slaves? Let’s look at Che, communist and Islamic flags.
Source date (UTC): 2015-06-25 07:53:00 UTC
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/8520033/Stephen-Hawking-tells-Google-philosophy-is-dead.htmlNO STEPHEN: PHILOSOPHY ISN’T DEAD, SO MUCH AS JUSTIFICATIONARY RATIONALISM IS DEAD. AND SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY ARE ONE.
You know, I bet I could convince him that I have unified philosophy and science under testimonialism and propertarianism, and claim that science was just philosophy, and most of philosophy was error.
TESTIMONIAL TRUTH, TESTMONIALISM, PROPERTARIANISM, CONTRACTUAL GOVERNMENT.
Source date (UTC): 2015-06-25 07:42:00 UTC
Curt Doolittle shared a post.
Source date (UTC): 2015-06-25 07:19:00 UTC
http://www.moreright.net/the-long-run-economic-performance-of-ancient-greece/REWRITING OUR HISTORY THANKS TO SCIENCE
Source date (UTC): 2015-06-25 02:12:00 UTC
THE DEFINITION OF “OFFENDED”
—“Offended does not mean harmed, it means warned.”— Robyn Harte-Bunting
To offend is to warn. 🙂
Source date (UTC): 2015-06-25 01:15:00 UTC
Peculiar. I find it really fascinating that libertarians use their own names with utter confidence, while so many conservatives use fake names. I jus strikes me as odd.
I’ll tell you why: because my board, investors, and management teams have always told me to shut up online. And I have found the opposite to be true: I have a reputation for telling customers the painful truth. And you know, they just like knowing that if they’re paying big bucks for someone’s time and opinion, that they are going to get something unfiltered.
So if you’re talking truth, just do it. If you talking trash, then I understand. But the question is why should you talk trash if you can talk the truth?
The truth is enough.
Source date (UTC): 2015-06-24 13:33:00 UTC