Curt Doolittle shared a post.
Source date (UTC): 2015-04-21 05:10:00 UTC
Curt Doolittle shared a post.
Source date (UTC): 2015-04-21 05:10:00 UTC
—“In his philosophy of writing history, Barzun emphasized the role of storytelling over the use of academic jargon and detached analysis. He concluded in From Dawn to Decadence that “history cannot be a science; it is the very opposite, in that its interest resides in the particulars.”—Jaques Barzun
Source date (UTC): 2015-04-21 00:56:00 UTC
—“A further problem is that a person recognizing a lie perceives no personal cost as a consequence – after all he was not a victim of deception. He who is deceived also perceives no cost because, rather than feeling deceived, he instead feels more enlightened. The relative absence of cost makes deception very profitable.”— Aaron Kahland
Source date (UTC): 2015-04-20 10:34:00 UTC
My brave mother, with three kids, very little income, and a sadistic drunkard of a husband, always made sure she had a ‘run bag’ of money to get away with.
Thankfully, he actually adored her, and he worked hard as hell as an outlet for his frustration. But he never succeeded his father’s approval, in her approval, or ours. His behavior was largely the result of failing to get anyone’s approval. Her disapproval was largely the result of his alcoholism. Ours was simply terror.
I contemplated killing him for years, usually trying to fall asleep at night while he verbally terrorized my mother – starting at I think 11 or 12. More than a few times I stood there watching him sleep with a hunting knife in my 70-pound hands.
I couldn’t give a thimble for his life. I was happy to bear the consequences, and was sure, naively, that I would be vindicated. But I thought my mother would never forgive me, and I was worried she would be even worse off because of it.
I have extraordinary patience under hardship really. And I will work a very long time for my objectives. But what drives me relentlessly in pursuit of freedom it is that experience: we can never tolerate subjugation, because every man is corruptible.
The only rule is rule by all, and therefore rule by none: the rule of law, property rights, and property en toto: the total suppression of parasitism upon others.
Kill the evil. Punish the wicked. Advance the productive. Protect the helpless.
A Plan. A Weapon. Time. Determination. Perseverance. Execution.
Civilization is very fragile at the moment.
Source date (UTC): 2015-04-20 08:36:00 UTC
“Without a revolutionary theory there cannot be a revolutionary movement.”–Vladimir Lenin
Yeah. Well, I’m there Vova.
Source date (UTC): 2015-04-20 08:12:00 UTC
“Writers are engineers of human souls.” ― Yury Olesha
( Roman Skaskiw )
Source date (UTC): 2015-04-20 08:00:00 UTC
http://www.theimaginativeconservative.org/2015/04/myths-about-attending-college-debunked.html#AGAINST THE ACADEMY’S SALE OF INDULGENCES – THE CHARTER FOR THE NEW REFORMATION
(good arguments for your use.)
Christopher,
This self-serving post is disingenuous at best.
As far as we know, right now, students learn almost nothing in university that is used in life. University largely performs a filtering and indoctrination service. So students are filtered out of the workforce by extremely expensive procedural gymnastics. They are not taught anything that helps them in the workforce. They are only taught the work discipline that was not provided to them in public k-12. We can test this argument fairly easily by employment and productivity comparisons of other northern European education systems and ours – which expensively educate far fewer, but impose far greater discipline in k-12.
The empirical and honest analysis, which has been provided by economists for years now, is to (a) perform output rankings of colleges by the performance of students, giving no weight to capital resources, (b) to measure how much of the revenue capture is devoted to undergraduates and teaching professors, versus how much of the revenue is spent on dead weight (administration), profiteering (the physical plant and endowment), and graduate programs (profiteering). (c) how much retention there is of the freshman class through graduation(test of honesty rather than entrapment). (d) how much is diverted for publicity and status purposes (sports).
The empirical test of education is this: If (1)overhead was capped at 15%, and (2) all but an additional 10% was required to stay within the departments that performed the teaching, and (3) if teaching and research departments were separated, and (4) if graduate programs had to be self-funding, and (5) if universities were only able to collect a percentage of income from their graduates for a period of 30 years, and so if graduates could not earn, then universities could not collect income, then what would universities teach, and how would they teach instead?
That is the reform that is required.
As far as we know, educational institutions since at least 1963 have provided a means of privatizing public wealth that parents could have saved for their retirements, and we have now a generation about to retire that has been sold a defective product without warranty, at the expense of their retirements, for no marginal increase in the employability of their offspring.
This is era has been one of the most massive misappropriations of public wealth in western history – equal to that of the church’s selling of indulgences, and the reason for the protestant reformation against the church. The military industrial complex at very least, is a net break even for Americans because of the petro-dollar, and the regulatory capture we impose on world politics, finance and trade. But the academy literally sells indulgences: fraudulent, underperforming products without warranty, insulated from claims against warranty by the state, and the outcome of which produce seriously damaging externalities for our economy, culture, and civilization.
Those are the facts. The boomer-generation’s Academy has not only been a bastion of pseudoscience in the social sciences, instituted a permanent degradation of the western canon, and has been a bastion of financial privatization on a scale we have not seen since the late middle ages.
We should note that all of the sources you quote are paid interests, and that none of the sources you list are independent economists specializing in education, nor advocates of education reform.
We are conservatives. We are supposed to be the people that tell the truth.
Postmodern deceits, pseudoscience, statistical deception, propagandism, and reality-by-chanting are tactics of, and mastered by, the left. There is no room in conservatism (aristocracy) for foolery and deceit. Civilization is too important a craft to be left to the foolish and corrupt.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine.
Source date (UTC): 2015-04-20 07:08:00 UTC
THE FIRST QUESTION OF ETHICS DETERMINES THOSE THAT FOLLOW
I tend to turn libertarianism on its ear: The first question of ethics is why do I not kill you and take your stuff.
The ritual of setting aside this question in order to enter into debate has been lost through the ages. And common interest conveniently assumed instead as the default starting point.
Instead, why do I not kill you? What are the minimum criterion for cooperation under which not killing you is advantageous.
Certainly it is not rational to permit violence or theft. Certainly not deceit. Certainly not the imposition of costs. Certainly not danger to my kith and kin.
Certainly not at an expense to my kith and kin.
So a political order is only preferable if not individually, familially or tribally destructive.
But this is why Hoppe is wrong. Argumentation is a legal question, not one of incentives. It presumes cooperation, rather than illustrating that cooperation is a compromise between the weak and the strong. Cooperation is unequally beneficial. For the weak, a gain; for the cunning, a loss of deceit; and for the strong a barrier requiring sufficient boon to be overcome.
Source date (UTC): 2015-04-20 06:26:00 UTC
GENIUS
—“The difficulty with pollution of physical commons is identifying the polluter. Non-difficulty is calculating damages. Problem with liars is not identifying the culprit, which is easy, but quantifying damages.”— Aaron Kahland
Source date (UTC): 2015-04-20 06:12:00 UTC
THE INFORMATIONAL COMMONS MUST BE DEFENDED JUST AS WE DEFEND THE NORMATIVE AND PHYSICAL COMMONS.
The postmoderns (like Chomsky) are liars. Why should we not punish liars for the pollution of the informational commons, just as we punish pollution of the physical commons?
Safeguard the helpless. Punish the wicked. Kill the evil.
Source date (UTC): 2015-04-20 05:35:00 UTC