Steve Sailer’s Law of Female Journalism: “The most heartfelt articles by female journalists tend to be demands that social values be overturned in order that the journalist herself be considered hotter.”
Source date (UTC): 2015-03-14 04:14:00 UTC
Theme: Deception
-
Yep. Free Speech, rather than Truthful Speech, was the error that let the frankf
Yep. Free Speech, rather than Truthful Speech, was the error that let the frankfurt school win.
Source date (UTC): 2015-03-11 07:49:00 UTC
-
“Propertarianism sounds Fascist”— (a useful idiot) Bruce (all), That would imp
—“Propertarianism sounds Fascist”— (a useful idiot)
Bruce (all),
That would imply that property rights were not in and of themselves fascist – as you mean the term “fascist”. When in fact, such rights must be somehow insured by force.
On the other hand, the way you use the term (as a pejorative analogy) is not an honest or truthful representation of the term ‘Fascist’, but mere name calling as a means of avoiding argument. It is a form of gossip: rallying and shaming as a substitute for argument.
The communal left’s view of property is that it is theft of the commons, since, in their assessment, all existential reality constitutes a commons if we are to cooperate and eschew violence and theft at all. In turn, we must argue that we do not wish to cooperate in those circumstances where it is against our interests to cooperate on their terms. And they likewise will respond that it is not in their interest to cooperate in those circumstances where it is against their interests to cooperate on our terms.
It may be (it is) certainly true that in the long run, that individual property rights produce the lowest friction, highest opportunity, highest velocity, and greatest incentive for production – and that by consequence, that production reduces relative prices and absolute cost (caloric cost) of everything produced.
But it is not true that in the short term, that in the interests of the less able, less willing, and less fortunate, are not better served by the seeking of rents on their perception of commons – particularly if they respect property rights to any degree whatsoever, and in doing so pay the cost of constructing property rights, and thereby the voluntary organization of production.
So we are, demanding individual property rights, terribly fascist – imposing unwanted rules on the distribution and use of resources.
Taking the argument further. If it is in your interests to use what those of us consider the most important commons – that of information and norms – in terms we find just as heinous as the left finds private property, it is again, a matter of willingness to cooperate and therefore eschew violence and theft, or to return to violence and theft if such cooperation is unsuitable.
You can, of course, argue why you should not be held accountable for the manufacture, distribution and sale of harmful and unwarrantied goods fraudulently represented, even if such fraud is but by omission, or the harm that of ignorance due to a failure of due diligence. Why is it that you may use the market that is created by millions of people paying the high cost of forgoing theft, violence, fraud and fraud by omission, to sell defective goods? Is that not in itself theft? Or, is the rothbardian emphasis on material property merely a rhetorical ruse to justify pervasive theft and fraud? (it is.)
Man is apex predator – particularly against himself. Why should the strong cooperate rather than conquer? Why should the weak respect property? Why should the cunning trade honestly? Because unless we do, none of the others have incentive to cooperate with us.
Neither aristocracy (violence and law), bourgeoise (production and trade), intellectual (gossip and myth) or proletarian (laborer) can have his preference. We all must trade compromises with one another. The market for goods and services allows us to do so where competition provides positive incentives. The market for commons that we mistakenly call government allows us to trade that which we cannot trade in the market where competition provides malincentives.
That is science. Everything else is justification. Libertine justification of fraud, fraud by omission, and profiting from harm, included.
Man does not object morally to self harm. He objects to profiting from assisting others in self harm. Man does not object morally to profit. He objects to profit from non-production. We evolved a distasted for in-group parasitism. That disgust is called ‘moral sensibility’. Unfortunately, our christian lie of universalism necessary for the extension of trust beyond kinship, came at the expense of our prior pagan truth of inequality. And as such, we have evolved a christian normative set of taboos that prohibit our understanding of the inter-temporal division of moral labor. Each group conservative (long) libertarian (medium) and progressive (short), divides the labor of perceiving the universe around us, and reacting through ‘moral intuition’ in response to it. Then justifying our intuition with words, we negotiate with one another to serve the whole – short medium and long term – by exchanges. Libertines and progressives are apparently (measurably) morally blind, while conservatives seem to see the entire spectrum. So trade between moral intuitions is just as important as trade in the market – because none of us (save perhaps some conservatives) is capable of sensing the entire spectrum. Instead, each of us advocates his own reproductive strategy, and calls it ‘moral’. But it is no more an accurate representation of moral reality than an individual has an accurate perception of the market.
Cheers.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
(I don’t hope to convince you. I’m casting a net for smart people. Every once in a while we find one. And these conversations are for the purpose of finding them.)
cc: pi
———
Bruce Majors Wrote:
Propertarianism Sounds fascist
———
Curt Doolittle Wrote”
DISCUSSION:
In a statist world, where we have lost the right of universal standing in defense of the commons, and where the state has deemed itself judge of all provisions of all commons (if not in practice also treating our private property as a commons merely on loan to us), then yes, these ads did and do exist – only because we lack universal standing through state usurpation.
In a libertine world, (Rothbardian), then no, these advertisements are not prohibited, nor does standing exist for claims against manufacturers, distributors and advertisers. There is no implied warranty in libertinism. There is no requirement for truth in libertinism. There are no informational commons in libertinism. (And therefore no western civilization.) And there is no responsibility for externalities in libertinism.
In a Propertarian world, these advertisements are not regulated, but universal standing would prevent their promotion as violations of the informational commons, and the injured would have rights of restitution (expensive restitution) against those who manufactured and distributed such goods. However, individuals who personally produced, or non-commercially produced these goods, would have no recourse.
Good example for use in comparing political systems.
Curt
Source date (UTC): 2015-03-09 05:17:00 UTC
-
The difference is that Americans are not intentionally deceitful – just ideologi
—The difference is that Americans are not intentionally deceitful – just ideologically optimistic, naive, and desperate to preserve borders, human rights, and capitalism as a means of focusing states on inward transformation instead of expansion, in order to prevent another world war. Russia is a low-trust, poor, corrupt society that cannot build a modern economy, where it seems almost impossible to imagine that people have positive intentions. The most murderous and evil people the world has ever known. And the greatest mistake we have made in the west was not leaving Patton to conquer russia and save us from the continuance of russian brutality, deceit, and murder.—
Source date (UTC): 2015-03-09 01:30:00 UTC
-
MORE KANT’S DECEIT Since the term enlightened refers throughout its history as t
MORE KANT’S DECEIT
Since the term enlightened refers throughout its history as the loss of ignorance, it is hard to argue that Mysticism is a form of Enlightenment, when in fact, it is a BARRIER to enlightenment, and measurably imposes ignorance wherever it exists – it is hard to argue that authoritarian mysticism(or magianism) is identical to or even similar to kantian justificationary rationalism, except as a means of imposing similar deceptions. To attempt do so is to depends upon circular reasoning.
Again, Kant created a new means of deceit, that was a rationalist reformation of scriptural monotheism, the mystical (magian) deceit. Both were verbalisms that succeeded in deceit by means of analogy, loading, framing, overloading and suggestion – to overwhelm our limited ability to reason in correspondence with reality.
This deceit is still practiced by continental philosophers, but was followed by a superior innovation of the Jewish Enlightenment: they created pseudoscience: Marx, Freud, Cantor and Mises. And was successfully transformed into the mathematical equivalent of pseudoscience by the statisticians, Keynes, and the post-keynesians. And also Into a century of analytic philosophy indistinguishable from psychology. But worse, by relying upon new media of magazines, radio and television, to propagate postmodern propaganda, thereby repeating the technological revolution that the printing press had provided to the enlightenment era thinkers.
Empiricism is a strange term for the art of truth telling – correspondence with reality. But science is the discipline of truth telling. And everything else appears to be the discipline of coercion or deceit.
3 mins · Like
Curt Doolittle The reason we find Kant appealing, is that he tries to find a means by which we can justify our Christian and indo-european ethics, in rational terms.
But it is merely a deceit. An elaborate deceit. Like religion, a comforting deceit. Because truth is not authoritarian or justificationary in origin, but critical.
That said, I am criticizing his method not his conclusions.
His conclusions and his purpose in constructing his authoritarian reasoning, were aristocratic – NOT LIBERAL
(in the contemporary sense of the word)
Source date (UTC): 2015-03-04 13:48:00 UTC
-
KANT AN ENLIGHTENMENT LIBERAL? > Curt Doolittle If you consider the enlightenmen
http://www.columbia.edu/acis/ets/CCREAD/etscc/kant.htmlWAS KANT AN ENLIGHTENMENT LIBERAL?
> Curt Doolittle
If you consider the enlightenment an effort to escape the church and mysticism once again, then perhaps.
If you consider the enlightenment a time period, then maybe.
If you consider the enlightenment the restoration of scientific or empirical thought after Justinian’s initiation of suppression of it, then no – he is a member of the counter enlightenment.
We tend to treat the anglo, German, French and Jewish enlightenment programs as different approaches to the advent of literacy and prosperity, and the admission of cultural failure after the European wars, and/or escaping the church.
But the French, German, and Jewish efforts were just as much a reaction to anglo island empiricism as they were to the church, wars, literacy and prosperity.
As human beings we like ideal types and single axis of causation.
But that desire is merely one of our many cognitive biases.
It reduces the cost of contemplating complex things.
But truth, if we desire it, is not bounded by the pragmatism of costs.
Just the opposite.
>Curt Doolittle
(Sorry Stephen. Didn’t realize you were the author of the original post. )
>Shane Young
Yes. Kant is an Enlightened Liberal. However, it’s important to understand that “Enlightened” is not synonymous with “Liberal”. If it were, the question becomes: “Was Kant an Enlightened enlightened or a Liberal liberal?”
1 hr · Edited · Like
>Curt Doolittle
Shane: Requires definition of both enlightened and liberal. Does liberal mean universalist, or simply that the franchise should be extended? If the franchise should be extended, to what extent. Does universalist mean unscientific (non-correspondent with reality)?
Kant’s statements above, are not universalist. They are limitations on enfranchisement.
An anglo Classical Liberal wanted to enfranchise all property owners.
That was an easy point of demarcation.
>Shane Young
Curt: Ad Fontes.
http://www.columbia.edu/acis/ets/CCREAD/etscc/kant.html
Kant. What is Enlightenment
Enlightenment is man’s emergence from his self-imposed nonage. Nonage is the inability to use one’s own understanding without another’s guidance. This nonage is self-imposed if its cause lies not in lack of understanding but in indecision and lack of courage to use one’s own mind without another’s g…
COLUMBIA.EDU
>Curt Doolittle
Yes, well, why don’t we look for an NPV, rather than Kant to supply his own circular definition. It’s not like he he was giving us a scientific analysis. He was doing the opposite: looking for an excuse to preserve authority.
>Shane Young
I take Kant for his word.
>Curt Doolittle
OK. But that doesn’t have much to do with the question.
Was he an enlightenment liberal? To answer that question requires that we have definitions of The Enlightenment (not ‘personal enlightenment’) and of ‘liberal’. It’s true that the term enlightenment evolved in response to the french use of it, which in turn was a reference to Kant’s essay, but the scholars who used and still use the term, refer to the time period and the SET of philosophers across all of Europe who transformed the discourse on ‘the good’ away from middle-age mystical-metaphor, and returned it to its origins in western correspondence with reality, and individualism.
Now when we get to the term ‘liberal’ the term was intentionally appropriated and abused at several stages. As far as I know, the original term referred to extending the franchise, even if the term ‘liberty’ in its original meaning meant the preservation of local law and custom. The purpose of the use of the term was propaganda: that the emergent middle class that now was more economically important than the landed aristocracy, was justified in taking political power from that aristocracy, while preserving aristocratic culture themselves by adopting it.
This term was later extended to all classes, and the general term equality.
Then later, to that of universalism.
“Meaning” (an analogy) is quite different from “a sequence of operations” (a name). The latter exists and the former does not. Or more precisely, the latter is informationally independent, while the former is loaded and fungible.
>Shane Young
Historically, The Age of Enlightenment and the Age of Reason are not equal. From this perspective, there is little difference between the Middle Ages and the Enlightenment.
>Shane Young
To clarify, Enlightenment (notice Cap) is synonymous with Germano-mysticism. In a Germano-enlightened culture, one is free to be an authoritarian mystic i.e. an Enlightened Liberal. One could say, it is one’s Duty to act as such.
>Curt Doolittle
Exactly, just as mystical analogy(meaningful), rationalism(internally consistent), empirical (externally correspondent), and operational (existentially possible sequence) are not equal – in the beginning of that sequence is largely imaginary, and the end of that sequence prohibits the imaginary and depends entirely on the existential.
So again, the categories by which we attach meaningful names to these things are one thing (an effort at communication by analogy) and the categories of necessary operational properties and causal relations are something else.
Which is why this matter is one of constant debate:
The difference between the experience of meaning, the internal consistency of our terms, the external correspondence of those terms, and the operational possibility that such events could have occurred.
The French, German and Jewish enlightenments were reactions as much to the Anglo Empirical enlightenment as they were to the opportunity to displace the church and justify and secure political power from the aristocracy.
They wanted to secure the power just as the island-dwelling British had done. But since they were ether landed peoples (french catholic and german protestant) or diasporc (jewish) they could not adopt anglo empirical and commercial universalism without preserving authority. Because if they did, they would lose group cohesion – they would lose local moral authority of their traditions ,and therefore control over one another as a competitor to other groups. They had no ocean to protect them.
Hence why americans Canadians and australians are the world advocates of universalism: they carry with them the anglo island tradition into sparsely populated territories.
And as population has increased, the friction between groups of dissimilar interests that affected Europe, now has started to affect america and Canada.. with Austraila lagging behind.
All verbal argument is justification of group evolutionary strategy, or individual reproductive strategy.
Science is not necessarily advantageous.
That is why the french, germans and jews rebelled against empiricism in the age of enlightenment.
To preserve their groups.
Source date (UTC): 2015-03-04 10:02:00 UTC
-
***George Soros is the Natural Consequence of Popper’s Open Society.*** I am fix
***George Soros is the Natural Consequence of Popper’s Open Society.***
I am fixing it. But I did not seriously account for the idealism of the Popperians. I assumed it was a rational rather than intuitive choice. And for a small minority of critical rationalists / realists it is a rational choice (myself included). But the natural consequence of Popper’s open society is Progressive Tyranny.
I have been struggling with this problem of the half-truth of popperian thought for years now.
While the basic Critical Preference, Critical Rational, and Critical Realist propositions are true, it does not follow that the ANALOGISTIC application of those principles is true in a world where we are competitors by politics, production, trade, law, culture and norm.
The Open Society is an evil.
Which I find depressing as hell, but unable to counter.
Source date (UTC): 2015-03-04 04:31:00 UTC
-
“The accumulated weight of Russia’s lies has to result in something – there has
“The accumulated weight of Russia’s lies has to result in something – there has to be a consequence to it. They can understand the truth. Maybe it’s time for them to understand the truth. But to accept it, Russians need a moral exit. They need a way to feel good about themselves that isn’t a lie. They need to rediscover their own story. They need a new mythology. But they have been lied to for so long: Russians are not ‘Rus’. They are not Kievan. They are Muscovites – Europeans, and the purest europeans – but their culture and institutions are Byzantine, Mongol, Tatar and Islamic. And that is an unappealing and not an inspiring history.” – Roman Skaskiw (Paraphrased)
Source date (UTC): 2015-03-01 15:01:00 UTC
-
have got to be kidding. I never had much faith in my fellow man. But this is jus
http://news.yahoo.com/video/kremlin-suggests-nemtsov-murder-staged-174219937.htmlYou have got to be kidding.
I never had much faith in my fellow man.
But this is just becoming Brazil. (The Terry Gilliam Kind)
Source date (UTC): 2015-02-28 17:27:00 UTC
-
all media is propaganda
all media is propaganda.
Source date (UTC): 2015-02-28 10:34:00 UTC