(seriously) (worth reading) [I]t’s been done. Secret? Threaten a big company’s revenue stream or customer base, by providing a service better than they do. Why is that possible? Internal incompetence of bureaucracies. Why? Because brands always seek to facilitate the brand with tangential value rather than deliver a product or service in the most excellent way possible for consumers regardless of brand. Almost all companies make this mistake, Apple and Microsoft included. Dropbox should never have had a chance. But every other large organization failed by trying to “leverage”. That is a fallacy. Beats threatened Apple. Multiple companies threatened Facebook. Unfortunately management falsely understands the leverage as risk mitigation rather than risk amplification. Make it excellent. Threaten them over their mistakes. That is how you become a billionaire in short fashion. Thankfully I don’t care to be more than a millionaire. I do my threatening of paradigmatic fallacies with political philosophy and for me that is a greater reward.
Source: Original Site Post
-
Against Dysgenia, Does Not Imply Active Eugenia
—“Surely you understand how individualists might view your little eugenics project as pretty unworkable, fucked and backwards, don’t you”— [I] don’t have a eugenics project, I make the argument that at some point in your chain of reasoning you must have a means of making judgements between one set of preferences and another, and that the progressive preference is dysgenic. To warn against dysgenia is very different from conducting eugenia. I do not see the political reason for redistributing from the middle class to the lower class if this constructs dysgenia that inhibits the formation of the high trust society which is necessary for the standard of living that allows for redistribution. In other words, i’m making an argument against a logical fallacy. This might seem to you as if I am making a sentimental argument,b ecause you argue largely sentimentally. But I don’t. I might actually be largely incapable of it. Most of my arguments are in the general vein of pointing out the fallacy of the libertarian and classical liberal, and progressive canons that do not account for the problem of trust, intelligence, and impulsivity in the construction of a polity capable of constant innovation necessary to stay ahead of both the genetic red queen, the malthusian red queen, and the technological red queen, and how those three red queens must be defeated in order to preserve economic prosperity that allows us to have whatever nonsensical social order we choose. I suspect that this argument is not obvious to you and most others, but that is my fundamental argument and the insight I am trying to incorporate into political science, political economy, economics, and philosophical ethics. -Cheers
-
Against Dysgenia, Does Not Imply Active Eugenia
—“Surely you understand how individualists might view your little eugenics project as pretty unworkable, fucked and backwards, don’t you”— [I] don’t have a eugenics project, I make the argument that at some point in your chain of reasoning you must have a means of making judgements between one set of preferences and another, and that the progressive preference is dysgenic. To warn against dysgenia is very different from conducting eugenia. I do not see the political reason for redistributing from the middle class to the lower class if this constructs dysgenia that inhibits the formation of the high trust society which is necessary for the standard of living that allows for redistribution. In other words, i’m making an argument against a logical fallacy. This might seem to you as if I am making a sentimental argument,b ecause you argue largely sentimentally. But I don’t. I might actually be largely incapable of it. Most of my arguments are in the general vein of pointing out the fallacy of the libertarian and classical liberal, and progressive canons that do not account for the problem of trust, intelligence, and impulsivity in the construction of a polity capable of constant innovation necessary to stay ahead of both the genetic red queen, the malthusian red queen, and the technological red queen, and how those three red queens must be defeated in order to preserve economic prosperity that allows us to have whatever nonsensical social order we choose. I suspect that this argument is not obvious to you and most others, but that is my fundamental argument and the insight I am trying to incorporate into political science, political economy, economics, and philosophical ethics. -Cheers
-
Failure To Use Operational Definitions In Economics, Politics and Law Is Criminal (Really)
(Profound)(reposted)(worth repeating) [W]hile a failure to rely upon operational definitions in mathematics, logic and philosophy may only be immoral, and in science unethical – in economics, politics and law it is criminal. In Mathematics avoiding operationalism merely perpetuates an error; in logic and philosophy it is deceptive of both others and one’s self; in science wastes others’ time. But in economics, politics and law, failure to use operationalism creates theft. That is the answer to the riddle Mises, Rothbard, and Hoppe couldn’t solve in economics and ethics. Nor Hayek and Popper and their followers in politics and philosophy. But then, neither did Bridgman and his followers in science, nor Brouwer and his followers in math. I don’t think the long list ending with Kripke solved it either in logic. One cannot use this heavily loaded term ‘true’ as other than analogy without a constructive knowledge of its meaning. And the only meaning that is constructively possible is testimony: performative truth. All else is merely proof. And the quaint linguistic contrivance that conflates the most parsimonious possible theory with testimony is, much like multitudinous abuses of the verb to-be, nothing more than a means by which we obscure our ignorance as a means of making mere analogies as a substitute for truth claims. Only constructive proofs demonstrate that one possesses the knowledge to make a truth claim. Everything else is merely analogy.
-
Failure To Use Operational Definitions In Economics, Politics and Law Is Criminal (Really)
(Profound)(reposted)(worth repeating) [W]hile a failure to rely upon operational definitions in mathematics, logic and philosophy may only be immoral, and in science unethical – in economics, politics and law it is criminal. In Mathematics avoiding operationalism merely perpetuates an error; in logic and philosophy it is deceptive of both others and one’s self; in science wastes others’ time. But in economics, politics and law, failure to use operationalism creates theft. That is the answer to the riddle Mises, Rothbard, and Hoppe couldn’t solve in economics and ethics. Nor Hayek and Popper and their followers in politics and philosophy. But then, neither did Bridgman and his followers in science, nor Brouwer and his followers in math. I don’t think the long list ending with Kripke solved it either in logic. One cannot use this heavily loaded term ‘true’ as other than analogy without a constructive knowledge of its meaning. And the only meaning that is constructively possible is testimony: performative truth. All else is merely proof. And the quaint linguistic contrivance that conflates the most parsimonious possible theory with testimony is, much like multitudinous abuses of the verb to-be, nothing more than a means by which we obscure our ignorance as a means of making mere analogies as a substitute for truth claims. Only constructive proofs demonstrate that one possesses the knowledge to make a truth claim. Everything else is merely analogy.
-
Propertarianism is not a Philosophical Preference – It's The Logic Of Cooperation : Praxeology
[P]ropertarianism can be used to describe, compare, and advocate any political system in rigidly logical, universally commensurable form. While one can surely advocate liberty with it, its primary purpose is to suppress error, fallacy and deception. Its the logic of cooperation. The logic of ethics and politics. Aristocratic Egalitarianism can be argued with it. Which I do every day. And AE is the most ethical political model yet developed. But propertarianism only allows me to argue in favor of it logically and truthfully – to construct proofs. But preference for any given political order is still one if choice.
-
Propertarianism is not a Philosophical Preference – It’s The Logic Of Cooperation : Praxeology
[P]ropertarianism can be used to describe, compare, and advocate any political system in rigidly logical, universally commensurable form. While one can surely advocate liberty with it, its primary purpose is to suppress error, fallacy and deception. Its the logic of cooperation. The logic of ethics and politics. Aristocratic Egalitarianism can be argued with it. Which I do every day. And AE is the most ethical political model yet developed. But propertarianism only allows me to argue in favor of it logically and truthfully – to construct proofs. But preference for any given political order is still one if choice.
-
Propertarianism is not a Philosophical Preference – It's The Logic Of Cooperation : Praxeology
[P]ropertarianism can be used to describe, compare, and advocate any political system in rigidly logical, universally commensurable form. While one can surely advocate liberty with it, its primary purpose is to suppress error, fallacy and deception. Its the logic of cooperation. The logic of ethics and politics. Aristocratic Egalitarianism can be argued with it. Which I do every day. And AE is the most ethical political model yet developed. But propertarianism only allows me to argue in favor of it logically and truthfully – to construct proofs. But preference for any given political order is still one if choice.
-
Propertarianism is not a Philosophical Preference – It’s The Logic Of Cooperation : Praxeology
[P]ropertarianism can be used to describe, compare, and advocate any political system in rigidly logical, universally commensurable form. While one can surely advocate liberty with it, its primary purpose is to suppress error, fallacy and deception. Its the logic of cooperation. The logic of ethics and politics. Aristocratic Egalitarianism can be argued with it. Which I do every day. And AE is the most ethical political model yet developed. But propertarianism only allows me to argue in favor of it logically and truthfully – to construct proofs. But preference for any given political order is still one if choice.
-
More On Salon's "Coming Apart" Article (Response 2)
MORE ON COMING APART : SALON’S ARTICLE : RESPONSE 2 DECEPTIONS IN THIS ARTICLE 1) NATION: A ‘nation’ describes a body of people with similar genetic, linguistic, cultural, normative, and religious properties. When we discuss a diverse populace we do not use the term nation, we use the term EMPIRE. All diverse states must be either federations(voluntary and excitable) or empires (involuntary and non-exitable). If a diverse body of people contains a minority that cannot succeed then it is an empire. China is an empire. America is an empire. Labeling the USA as a nation is a dishonest attempt to label a heterogeneous voluntary polity with the legitimacy of a homogenous nation state, when in fact, it is merely a heterogeneous empire with a record of violence to oppress attempts at secession. 2) MORAL AND “CHOICE” RATHER THAN ECONOMIC AND “POSSIBLE” ARGUMENTS —“Yet somehow the republic kept experiencing what Lincoln called “a new birth of freedom,” thanks only partly to the fortuitous confluence of two oceans’ protection, a vast continent’s ever-alluring frontier and unending streams of aspiring immigrants:”— Lets not be dishonest here, and cast this as a moral argument. The reason for American economic success is that the colonists used british weapons and might to conquer a continent, then steal that continent for themselves. Then sell it off to immigrants, and profit from it. It has been the most profitable conquest and sale of a territory in history. Even today, for all intents and purposes, the american economy consists largely of the housing business. As the housing business goes, so does the american economy. The problem is that we have run out of immigrants from high trust societies, from nuclear family societies, from empirical societies, from rule of law societies, and from truth-telling societies. And contrary to dogma, the evidence is that immigrants from these cultures are not adapting to the (a) absolute nuclear family (b) meritocracy (c) self-supporting productivity (d) minimal statism, (d) civic society, (e) common language, that was what was required of immigrants in order to participate in the american dream of having land so that one could control one’s destiny. WIthout those norms and habits, america has evolved from a polity of ideas, to a simple empire of increasing totalitarianism as the productive classes are slowly farmed to service the unproductive classes, and single motherhood and requisite poverty of single motherhood, has now reach near majority status. Thousands of years of suppressing single motherhood and its endemic poverty and dependency have been reversed in less than a century. 3) ECONOMIC TRUTH vs MORAL JUSTIFICATION Economic history is the only form of truth we can extract from the past. Humans justify their wants, given the conditions that they live under. This article is not much different from ‘god wills it’ because its arguments are allegorical and moral, with a thin veneer of rationalism. Whereas a scientists would look at the economy, the incentives, and demonstrated human behavior and dismantle the authors entire line of argument as a series of childlike justifications of pre-cognitive, non rational, counter-productive human cognitive biases – just as easily as he could dismantle the composition of a rock by mass spectrometry, and just as accurately. The truth is quite different. Humans act as tribes, and these tribes make best use of the circumstances that they can to increase their status and reproductive ability. SOme of theses strategies are successful (rapid population expansion of poor peoples) and some are unsuccessful (progressive status seeking at the expense of child bearing). Time determines winners, not words. Words are used to deceive. We deceive in order to steal. The only true words are operational words. Everything else is analogy. And almost all analogy is a lie.