If you aren’t willing to fight, then your opinion is irrelevant.
Pacifism was merely a convenient pretence to provide women, intellectuals and priests with the illusion of equal political standing.
It is just a pretence.
Warriors grant them permission.
Source date (UTC): 2015-03-03 06:36:00 UTC
War is morally justifiable – and morality is justificationary – as long as one is increasing the scope of suppression of free riding in all its forms.
The converse is also true.
Source date (UTC): 2015-03-03 06:01:00 UTC
[I]f you aren’t willing to fight, then your opinion is irrelevant. Pacifism was merely a convenient pretense to provide women, intellectuals and priests with the illusion of equal political standing. It is just a pretense. Warriors grant them permission.
[I]f you aren’t willing to fight, then your opinion is irrelevant. Pacifism was merely a convenient pretense to provide women, intellectuals and priests with the illusion of equal political standing. It is just a pretense. Warriors grant them permission.
(worth repeating)
One of my objectives is to ensure that men knowingly pay the tax of constraining their violence in exchange for the benefits of doing so. But if those benefits do not exist, then there is no reason to pay the tax.
Source date (UTC): 2015-02-28 13:43:00 UTC
When we attempt to promote Austrian Economics, we could, if we were intelligent, state that our interests are merely in developing institutions that facilitate voluntary exchanges, rather than mainstream economics, which attempts to maximize involuntary transfers.
In other words, we practice moral economics, and mainstream practices immoral economics.
It does no good whatsoever for advocates of Austrian Econ to make the false claims, or that mainstream does not practice our definition of ‘economics’, nor that their work is unscientific, nor that ours is somehow scientific even though it does not adhere to the warranties of scientific claims. All of these statements are mere verbalisms — they’re deceitful at worst, and merely ignorant at best.
Source date (UTC): 2015-02-27 06:15:00 UTC
[W]hen we attempt to promote Austrian Economics, we could, if we were intelligent, state that our interests are merely in developing institutions that facilitate voluntary exchanges, rather than mainstream economics, which attempts to maximize involuntary transfers.
In other words, we practice moral economics, and mainstream practices immoral economics.
It does no good whatsoever for advocates of Austrian Econ to make the false claims, or that mainstream does not practice our definition of ‘economics’, nor that their work is unscientific, nor that ours is somehow scientific even though it does not adhere to the warranties of scientific claims. All of these statements are mere verbalisms — they’re deceitful at worst, and merely ignorant at best.
Mises uses the word science repeatedly, yet offers purely rational (apriori) arguments. (He does not understand the difference between empirical science (observable external correspondence) and rationalism (internal consistency), and he was apparently unaware of operationalism (existential possibility free of imaginary content). Too bad. He was close.
We can make empirical statements about all sorts of economic phenomenon. And we cannot observe many economic phenomenon other than empirically. We can explain them operationally, but we cannot observe them or even identify them without empirical analysis.
The only way to warranty that we speak truthfully is to speak scientifically. And to speak scientifically requires that we speak operationally.
[W]hen we attempt to promote Austrian Economics, we could, if we were intelligent, state that our interests are merely in developing institutions that facilitate voluntary exchanges, rather than mainstream economics, which attempts to maximize involuntary transfers.
In other words, we practice moral economics, and mainstream practices immoral economics.
It does no good whatsoever for advocates of Austrian Econ to make the false claims, or that mainstream does not practice our definition of ‘economics’, nor that their work is unscientific, nor that ours is somehow scientific even though it does not adhere to the warranties of scientific claims. All of these statements are mere verbalisms — they’re deceitful at worst, and merely ignorant at best.
Mises uses the word science repeatedly, yet offers purely rational (apriori) arguments. (He does not understand the difference between empirical science (observable external correspondence) and rationalism (internal consistency), and he was apparently unaware of operationalism (existential possibility free of imaginary content). Too bad. He was close.
We can make empirical statements about all sorts of economic phenomenon. And we cannot observe many economic phenomenon other than empirically. We can explain them operationally, but we cannot observe them or even identify them without empirical analysis.
The only way to warranty that we speak truthfully is to speak scientifically. And to speak scientifically requires that we speak operationally.
I am much more of a free man in Ukraine and Russia than I am in America. I must deal with corruption and its economic consequences. And status is not so easily achievable by bourgeois means. But I feel far less a servant of the state than I do in the United States. Far less a servant of the credit system. Far less a servant altogether. And if I did not have to take care of family members in the states, I would just give up my citizenship. But having to take care of family, I would rather burn Washington to cinders one building at a time, one grave at a time, than surrender to the ultimate evil that has become the US of A, under socialist, progressive and neocon ideologies.
Source date (UTC): 2015-02-24 10:30:00 UTC
http://euromaidanpress.com/2015/02/23/moscow-military-analyst-russian-army-currently-unprepared-modern-war/TAKE THEM DOWN NOW. APPEASEMENT ONLY MAKES THEM STRONGER
Source date (UTC): 2015-02-23 09:18:00 UTC