Um, technically speaking it’s Pilpul I have a problem with regardless of whether it’s in religion, philosophy, traditional law, argumentative rationalism (Pseudo-rationalism), pseudoscience, propaganda, or any other form of falsehood prose. The reason is that I understand that all deceptions are created by the same technique(s). And that just as the greeks invented reason on a scale previously impossible, the rabbis took the greek technique and invented lying on a scale previously impossible. And that this technique is extremely dangerous both in religious (christianity and islam) and pseudoscientific (marx,freud,boas, cantor, mises, rothbard), and pseudo rational (rousseauian , kantian, postmodern) forms. So I want to prevent another abrahamic dark age whether created by christianity and islam in the past, or marxism, postmodernism and multiculturalism in the present. Because we are extremely susceptible to these forms of lies.
Source: Original Site Post
-
While We Can Cheat a Little Here and There, the Logic of Economics Is Pretty Obvious.
1) Every definition of capitalism vs socialism that I know of, and as far as I know, the very definition of the terms, is that of ownership. So as we say ‘word games’ are just that, and nothing more. 2) interest is necessary for the purpose of intertemporal measurement of theories of production distribution and trade. It is possible to argue that under fiat currency interest on consumption does not fulfill this function, and that we should, if possible, seek to eliminate interest on end point (consumer) consumption. However without interest we cannot know if we created or destroyed capital (time). 3) Marxists are wrong with the labor theory of value – labor (transformation) is effectively valueless, and it is the organization of production with or without labor that provides the multiples, and only voluntary exchange in the market that determines whether such hypothesized value was created.. 4) Socialist are wrong that (a) competitive production distribution and trade can be organized such that it supports any given scheme of production, (b) that people will do more than devote the minimum time and effort to production distribution and trade (c) that black markets will replace bad decisions, (d) that corruption is a given and funded by socialist means of production, (e) that any and all such attempts must of logical necessity fail. 5) Social democrats have finally realized that the result of their organizations is the loss of intertemporal incentive and therefore population necessary to preserve intertemporal transfers. 6) Keynesians have finally realized that their inflation effectively loses all productivity gains, and that the austrian predictions were correct that each attempt to suppress a correction only exacerbates the consequent corrections. 7) All monetarists have learned that the presumption of an infinite ability to inflate and therefore eliminate debt is only as true as trading partners tolerance for the calculability of contracts, and the predictability of networks of sustainable specialization and trade. So, you know, I consider pretty much everyone an idiot at this point and that while we can cheat a little here and there because of the vast amount of noise in any economy, the logic of economics is pretty obvious.
-
While We Can Cheat a Little Here and There, the Logic of Economics Is Pretty Obvious.
1) Every definition of capitalism vs socialism that I know of, and as far as I know, the very definition of the terms, is that of ownership. So as we say ‘word games’ are just that, and nothing more. 2) interest is necessary for the purpose of intertemporal measurement of theories of production distribution and trade. It is possible to argue that under fiat currency interest on consumption does not fulfill this function, and that we should, if possible, seek to eliminate interest on end point (consumer) consumption. However without interest we cannot know if we created or destroyed capital (time). 3) Marxists are wrong with the labor theory of value – labor (transformation) is effectively valueless, and it is the organization of production with or without labor that provides the multiples, and only voluntary exchange in the market that determines whether such hypothesized value was created.. 4) Socialist are wrong that (a) competitive production distribution and trade can be organized such that it supports any given scheme of production, (b) that people will do more than devote the minimum time and effort to production distribution and trade (c) that black markets will replace bad decisions, (d) that corruption is a given and funded by socialist means of production, (e) that any and all such attempts must of logical necessity fail. 5) Social democrats have finally realized that the result of their organizations is the loss of intertemporal incentive and therefore population necessary to preserve intertemporal transfers. 6) Keynesians have finally realized that their inflation effectively loses all productivity gains, and that the austrian predictions were correct that each attempt to suppress a correction only exacerbates the consequent corrections. 7) All monetarists have learned that the presumption of an infinite ability to inflate and therefore eliminate debt is only as true as trading partners tolerance for the calculability of contracts, and the predictability of networks of sustainable specialization and trade. So, you know, I consider pretty much everyone an idiot at this point and that while we can cheat a little here and there because of the vast amount of noise in any economy, the logic of economics is pretty obvious.
-
The Difference Between Debate, Negotiation, and Prosecution
SERIES: Intelligible > imaginable(believable) > reasonable > rational > justificationary > logical > calculable > tautological. 1) On can rely on intuitionism and start with reason in order to construct calculation, or one can start with logic explain calculation (transformation of inputs into outputs), and devolve calculation into increasingly incommensurable (deflated, inflated, conflated, fictionalized) categories, until we define the unintelligible. 2) We can start optimistically with an attempt at negotiation and therefore cooperation, leaving open one’s choice of preference, or we can start pessimistically with prosecution and therefore and therefore a threat, leaving decidability (Truth) as the only means of escape. 3) In the market and in philosophy we can choose, in law and the court we cannot, because if you cannot testify to it – which is what empiricism is reducible to – you cannot defend yourself from prosecution with it. So as I write natural law, I don’t negotiate, I prosecute.
-
The Difference Between Debate, Negotiation, and Prosecution
SERIES: Intelligible > imaginable(believable) > reasonable > rational > justificationary > logical > calculable > tautological. 1) On can rely on intuitionism and start with reason in order to construct calculation, or one can start with logic explain calculation (transformation of inputs into outputs), and devolve calculation into increasingly incommensurable (deflated, inflated, conflated, fictionalized) categories, until we define the unintelligible. 2) We can start optimistically with an attempt at negotiation and therefore cooperation, leaving open one’s choice of preference, or we can start pessimistically with prosecution and therefore and therefore a threat, leaving decidability (Truth) as the only means of escape. 3) In the market and in philosophy we can choose, in law and the court we cannot, because if you cannot testify to it – which is what empiricism is reducible to – you cannot defend yourself from prosecution with it. So as I write natural law, I don’t negotiate, I prosecute.
-
One Cannot Be Philosophically Literate without Knowledge of Economics for One Reason: Man’s Amoralism.
The empirical revolution, and its counter-revolution “the enlightenment”: the international attempt to restate local custom in local categories, relations, operations and values, other than deflationary empirical prose – because otherwise the extant order would not withstand such scrutiny. But that counter-revolution came from the most backwardly governed country in europe by a man of profoundly low (libertine) character who presumed an idyllic fictional (feminine actually) nature of mankind. A wish not a truth. Man is neither moral nor immoral, but amoral. It is just nearly always more rewarding to act morally – at least over any period of time. One cannot be philosophically literate without knowledge of economics (incentives) precisely for this reason: man’s amoralism.
-
One Cannot Be Philosophically Literate without Knowledge of Economics for One Reason: Man’s Amoralism.
The empirical revolution, and its counter-revolution “the enlightenment”: the international attempt to restate local custom in local categories, relations, operations and values, other than deflationary empirical prose – because otherwise the extant order would not withstand such scrutiny. But that counter-revolution came from the most backwardly governed country in europe by a man of profoundly low (libertine) character who presumed an idyllic fictional (feminine actually) nature of mankind. A wish not a truth. Man is neither moral nor immoral, but amoral. It is just nearly always more rewarding to act morally – at least over any period of time. One cannot be philosophically literate without knowledge of economics (incentives) precisely for this reason: man’s amoralism.
-
The Military Industrial Complex Is a Good Thing.
—“What’s wrong with the military industrial complex?”—Steve Pender (rhetorical question) Nothing. At it’s very worst it is: (a) the optimum research and development investment, and (b) the optimum means of economic redistribution, (c) the optimum means of producing male investment in the social order, (d) the optimum means of producing male prosociality. (Besides we replaced it with the Cathedral complex and that’s the worst possible of each.)
-
The Military Industrial Complex Is a Good Thing.
—“What’s wrong with the military industrial complex?”—Steve Pender (rhetorical question) Nothing. At it’s very worst it is: (a) the optimum research and development investment, and (b) the optimum means of economic redistribution, (c) the optimum means of producing male investment in the social order, (d) the optimum means of producing male prosociality. (Besides we replaced it with the Cathedral complex and that’s the worst possible of each.)
-
The Origins of Numbers
(And the two part key) To create a record that represented “two sheep”, they selected two round clay tokens each having a + sign baked into it. Each token represented one sheep. Representing a hundred sheep with a hundred tokens would be impractical, so they invented different clay tokens to represent different numbers of each specific commodity, and by 4000 BC strung the tokens like beads on a string.[7] There was a token for one sheep, a different token for ten sheep, a different token for ten goats, etc. Thirty-two sheep would be represented by three ten-sheep tokens followed on the string by two one-sheep tokens. To ensure that nobody could alter the number and type of tokens, they invented a clay envelope shaped like a hollow ball into which the tokens on a string were placed, sealed, and baked. If anybody disputed the number, they could break open the clay envelope and do a recount. To avoid unnecessary damage to the record, they pressed archaic number signs and witness seals on the outside of the envelope before it was baked, each sign similar in shape to the tokens they represented. Since there was seldom any need to break open the envelope, the signs on the outside became the first written language for writing numbers in clay. An alternative method was to seal the knot in each string of tokens with a solid oblong bulla of clay having impressed symbols, while the string of tokens dangled outside of the bulla.[8] Beginning about 3500 BC the tokens and envelopes were replaced by numerals impressed with a round stylus at different angles in flat clay tablets which were then baked.[9] A sharp stylus was used to carve pictographs representing various tokens. Each sign represented both the commodity being counted and the quantity or volume of that commodity.