The difference is that political liberalism produces more honest negotiations but less consistent policy.
For this reason political liberalism is a luxury, not a utility.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-economic-liberalism-and-political-liberalism-in-the-context-of-international-relations
The country has been engaging in ‘the big sort’ for decades now.
The Republican party represents whites and married women.
The Democratic party represents non-whites and unmarried women.
All economics and politics are merely demographic: Race, Culture, Class, Age, and maritial status. We blither a lot about politics under the assumption that people change. They don’t.
https://www.quora.com/Is-Donald-Trump-doing-a-good-job-at-bringing-Conservatives-and-Liberals-together
China cares about damaging american power, maintaining the power of the party so that they can prevent the fragmentation of the Chinese (Han) Empire, and restoring her position as ‘center of the world’, in order to gain economic, political and military advantage.
North Korea helps and hurts this strategy.
https://www.quora.com/Does-China-actually-care-about-North-Korea
A perfect free market economy is no more possible than a perfectly managed economy. That is because people at a material disadvantage use collective bargaining (the government) to gain advantage.
https://www.quora.com/Would-the-poor-have-better-standards-of-living-in-a-perfect-free-market-economy
Capitalism: The voluntary organization of production, distribution, trade, and consumption.
Socialism: The involuntary organization of production, distribution, trade, and consumption.
The difference is in incentives. Capitalism works and people work in it. Socialism doesn’t work, and people don’t work in it.
https://www.quora.com/Is-Leninism-a-different-form-of-capitalism
[Y]eah. I’m controversial. Although, it’s somewhat odd to me that advocating truth-telling, not-stealing, limiting public publication to truthful statements, converting to market rather than authoritarian government, and paying poor people in exchange for having just one kid, is controversial. Slaying sacred ideological cows in every era is controversial. But then, I don’t know why advocating deceitful speech, authoritarianism, theft, and systemic parasitism isn’t more controversial than truth telling and not stealing. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.
[Y]eah. I’m controversial. Although, it’s somewhat odd to me that advocating truth-telling, not-stealing, limiting public publication to truthful statements, converting to market rather than authoritarian government, and paying poor people in exchange for having just one kid, is controversial. Slaying sacred ideological cows in every era is controversial. But then, I don’t know why advocating deceitful speech, authoritarianism, theft, and systemic parasitism isn’t more controversial than truth telling and not stealing. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.
—“My philosophical problem with consequentialism is it’s lacking solid base.”— A Friend (Free Northerner)
[I]’d like to give you a different suggestion.
That we practice four levels of ethics depending upon the skill in the area of our actions.
1) Pedagogical Myths...(very young)..............Stories (WESTERN PATHOLOGICAL ALTRUISM)
2) Virtue Ethics.............(young)......................Biographies
3) Rule Ethics...............(inexperience adult)...Laws
4) Outcome Ethics........(experienced adult)....Science
But more importantly, ethical systems can be used as an excuse to steal. We are aware that altrusim can be abused easily. This is why I always suggest we test ethical statements for both the obverse (what is stated) and the reverse (what is not stated).
So the lower the precision (information content) of the ethical system, the more opportunity there is to claim that one is ethical while acting unethically.
My argument is that rothbardian libertarianism is built on this principle.
So instead I argue that we must use the most sophisticated (informationally dense) ethical system that we can, given our abilities, and fall back if we lack it.
ARTIFICIAL DISTINCTION FALLACY
So there is no difference in ethical models, only a difference in our skill level in any given area of thought. And that all ethical systems are simply increasingly precise variations on the same theory that we must achieve our greatest potential but do so without externalizing costs.
“SOLID BASE”
Therefore all ethical systems have a ‘solid base’. Impose no cost, and in particular impose no cost that will cost YOU due to retaliation by physical means(violence), procedural means(restitution), or normative means (reputation that costs you opportunities).
The method of imposing no cost on others is to limit ones actions that impose no involuntary costs, and engage in actions that impose costs only if they are product of, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary, and free of imposition of cost by externality.
As far as I know this is the correction of the artificial distinction between ethical systems. There is none. There are only different rules we can follow (techniques) given the information at our disposal.
SEE:
INTENTIONAL ABUSES OF RULE ETHICAL SYSTEMS
http://www.propertarianism.com/…/intentional-abuse-of-ethi…/
THE FALLACY OF “FREE TRADE ABSOLUTISM” AS PATHOLOGICAL ALTRUISM
http://www.propertarianism.com/…/the-fallacy-of-free-trade…/
Please keep up your good work. I enjoy Free Northerner.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine.
—“My philosophical problem with consequentialism is it’s lacking solid base.”— A Friend (Free Northerner)
[I]’d like to give you a different suggestion.
That we practice four levels of ethics depending upon the skill in the area of our actions.
1) Pedagogical Myths...(very young)..............Stories (WESTERN PATHOLOGICAL ALTRUISM)
2) Virtue Ethics.............(young)......................Biographies
3) Rule Ethics...............(inexperience adult)...Laws
4) Outcome Ethics........(experienced adult)....Science
But more importantly, ethical systems can be used as an excuse to steal. We are aware that altrusim can be abused easily. This is why I always suggest we test ethical statements for both the obverse (what is stated) and the reverse (what is not stated).
So the lower the precision (information content) of the ethical system, the more opportunity there is to claim that one is ethical while acting unethically.
My argument is that rothbardian libertarianism is built on this principle.
So instead I argue that we must use the most sophisticated (informationally dense) ethical system that we can, given our abilities, and fall back if we lack it.
ARTIFICIAL DISTINCTION FALLACY
So there is no difference in ethical models, only a difference in our skill level in any given area of thought. And that all ethical systems are simply increasingly precise variations on the same theory that we must achieve our greatest potential but do so without externalizing costs.
“SOLID BASE”
Therefore all ethical systems have a ‘solid base’. Impose no cost, and in particular impose no cost that will cost YOU due to retaliation by physical means(violence), procedural means(restitution), or normative means (reputation that costs you opportunities).
The method of imposing no cost on others is to limit ones actions that impose no involuntary costs, and engage in actions that impose costs only if they are product of, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary, and free of imposition of cost by externality.
As far as I know this is the correction of the artificial distinction between ethical systems. There is none. There are only different rules we can follow (techniques) given the information at our disposal.
SEE:
INTENTIONAL ABUSES OF RULE ETHICAL SYSTEMS
http://www.propertarianism.com/…/intentional-abuse-of-ethi…/
THE FALLACY OF “FREE TRADE ABSOLUTISM” AS PATHOLOGICAL ALTRUISM
http://www.propertarianism.com/…/the-fallacy-of-free-trade…/
Please keep up your good work. I enjoy Free Northerner.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine.
[T]he false use of ethics as a means of deception.
In childhood we require others to imitate: virtue ethics.
In adulthood we require general rules to apply : rule ethics.
In wisdom we require outcomes to measure : outcome ethics.
Not all can achieve outcome ethics. Some are stuck in virtue. Others in rule.
1) We forgive children who obey virtue ethics because they cannot understand rules.
2) We forgive adults who obey rule ethics because they cannot understand the outcomes.
3) We rarely forgive outcome ethics, which we see as error (when a general fails) and should have relied upon conventual wisdom or morality.
THE DARK SIDE
There are those who practice virtue and rule ethics in order to circumvent responsibility for outcomes.
Keynesianism and Rothbardianism are dark side ethics. They ignore the consequences in order to further current self interest.
Lies, more lies, and many more lies.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine.