[C]aplan’s argument does not account for costs. He’s wrong. Always has been. This argument is just an extension of Cosmopolitan justification for identitarian incorporation of subgroups into host countries. It is simple literary and economic obscurantism that seeks to ignore the costs of heterogeneity on a population. In an homogenous population under universal absolute nuclear families, we still see high costs of relocation of individuals to changes in capital centers that doe NOT offset the increases in productivity – which are merely artifacts of the change in prices as demand increases in geographies. In homogenous populations containing ANF families, it takes time for the introduction of heterogeneous forces to play out, but temporary increases do simply to increases in demand for consumption due to relocation are not increases in production, and those costs have to measured against the long term decline of the trust as well as socialistic costs of incorporating lower trust groups into the society. Trust and homogeneity of high trust, is the most expensive capital to create. And heterogeneity consumes that capital asset – rapidly. The fallacy of the economic benefit of immigration is that there is no cost to norms. If high trust ethics were fully codified in law, then we could enforce high trust ethics at low cost. However, the immigration of low trust peoples has produced precisely the erosion of our constitution and our liberties that the protestants predicted would happen. The majority does not desire liberty. The minority desires liberty. And the aristocratic (noble) minority imposed high trust ethics upon the northern european peoples by force. It was that forcible imposition that caused the high trust society, plus the restoration of science, that resulted in european miracle – the only people to possess liberty. I don’t want to say Caplan is a LIAR, so much as engaged in intentional deception, but he’s no better than the progressives who abuse statistics to tout changes family incomes instead of individual incomes. Its sort of like his arguments as to why he’s not an austrian. They’re just word games. (There is no difference between the argument for prices and incentives. Obverse and Reverse of the same concept.) My purpose is to promote my genes, even at the expense of others genes. If we can cooperate while I do that then that’s fine. But if we cannot cooperate while I do that, then there is no point in cooperation. We all demonstrate our time preference. That’s mine. That’s everyone other than W.E.I.R.D’s – who are demonstrably suicidal. You don’t get to determine what my preference is. Thats totalitarian. If you dictate my preferences that is by definition not a state of liberty. I agree to cooperate if it’s beneficial to my ends, but not if it is not. That is all that can be said. I don’t subscribe to the leftist proposal of Rawls, nor the left libertarian position of open borders. I subscribe to the aristocratic proposal that if cooperation is beneficial to me and mine then we should cooperate, but if it’s not then no. I don’t know what’s libertarian about favoring dysgenics. I mean, why should I squander my earnings through redistribution? Why should I squander my culture’s high trust norms through redistribution? And why should I squander my genes through dysgenic redistribution? I mean, if you’re a libertarian and you claim to have rights to your earnings, then why do you only have rights to your earnings and not the right to your other forms of capital? I can spend my inheritance too. That isn’t an increase in production, that’s just rapid destruction of accumulated capital.
Theme: Deception
-
Immoral, Unethical, Irrational, Liberty Destroying Rothbardians.
[O]nce you realize that rothbardian libertarians are genetically biased to act immorally, and that Rothbardianism helps them justify their immorality, then you realize that they’re just as impossible to discourse with rationally as progressives. Both are morally blind to the majority of the moral spectrum. Conservatives see the entire moral spectrum. The problem is that they use allegorical language, so it’s very hard to get them to talk about this subject in rational, economic terms. It’s just not intuitive to them that their philosophy is simply one of hyper efficient economics – the most trustworthy society yet developed. And since they’re the most trustworthy, they’re the most economically productive. Meanwhile they’re losing the battle against deceitful left, and immoral libertarians. The only solution for libertarianism is to return its foundations to their original ethics of aristocracy and nobility, and as a consequence to the thought leadership of the conservatives.
-
Immoral, Unethical, Irrational, Liberty Destroying Rothbardians.
[O]nce you realize that rothbardian libertarians are genetically biased to act immorally, and that Rothbardianism helps them justify their immorality, then you realize that they’re just as impossible to discourse with rationally as progressives. Both are morally blind to the majority of the moral spectrum. Conservatives see the entire moral spectrum. The problem is that they use allegorical language, so it’s very hard to get them to talk about this subject in rational, economic terms. It’s just not intuitive to them that their philosophy is simply one of hyper efficient economics – the most trustworthy society yet developed. And since they’re the most trustworthy, they’re the most economically productive. Meanwhile they’re losing the battle against deceitful left, and immoral libertarians. The only solution for libertarianism is to return its foundations to their original ethics of aristocracy and nobility, and as a consequence to the thought leadership of the conservatives.
-
Trust Is The Most Scarce And Most Expensive Form Of Capital
Rothbardian Libertarianism is an attack on the high trust society. It an obscurant, rationally justified, excuse for advocating, low trust, parasitic ethics of the ghetto. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_capital
-
Trust Is The Most Scarce And Most Expensive Form Of Capital
Rothbardian Libertarianism is an attack on the high trust society. It an obscurant, rationally justified, excuse for advocating, low trust, parasitic ethics of the ghetto. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_capital
-
Truth Claims Carry The Burden Of Construction
If one makes truth claims, one carries the burden of demonstration. And, unfortunately, language is a terribly convenient tool for engaging in both deception and self deception. So to prohibit deception as well as self-deception, we must rely on a demonstration of knowledge of construction of terms, not just a knowledge of the use of terms. Just as we must rely upon the demonstration of internal consistency using logic, and external correspondence using tests. This means that if you make a truth claim using platonic language, you are not demonstrating knowledge of construction. And therefore is it is not possible to make truth claims under platonism. You are claiming truth which you cannot demonstrate the knowledge to claim. Which is unethical.
-
Truth Claims Carry The Burden Of Construction
If one makes truth claims, one carries the burden of demonstration. And, unfortunately, language is a terribly convenient tool for engaging in both deception and self deception. So to prohibit deception as well as self-deception, we must rely on a demonstration of knowledge of construction of terms, not just a knowledge of the use of terms. Just as we must rely upon the demonstration of internal consistency using logic, and external correspondence using tests. This means that if you make a truth claim using platonic language, you are not demonstrating knowledge of construction. And therefore is it is not possible to make truth claims under platonism. You are claiming truth which you cannot demonstrate the knowledge to claim. Which is unethical.
-
Libertarian Moral-spectrum Blindness
[Y]ou can’t reason with a libertarian who relies upon moral intuition any more than you can reason with a progressive who relies upon moral intuition. So, it’s pretty clear to me today, that libertarians are as morally blind (or in Haidt’s terms ‘tasteless’) as progressives are (albeit at a different part of the spectrum), and that the only conservatives can carry on a rational moral discussion – because only conservatives are not affected by large moral blind spots. The data says it. But I just experienced it first hand. And I hate what it means. It means that libertarians are just as irrational and impenetrable as progressives. That doesn’t mean that libertarians haven’t solved the problem of formal institutions. They have. (Hoppe has.) But it means that except as a sort of minority conducting intellectual experiments, libertarians are useless for the purpose of discussing political solutions. They’re by definition ‘immoral’. Or perhaps a form of moral color-blindness in which the majority of the spectrum is invisible to them. I’m a conservative libertarian. I place a premium on liberty and discount all the other moral values. That’s the definition of the moral intuitions of a libertarian. But that PERSONAL intuition and personal objective, is different from my understanding of POLITICS as a set of institutions that allow heterogeneous peoples to cooperate on means even if they possess competing ends. (Give the citizenry a circus and let their actions sort them out.) ANALOGY: 1) RED : PROGRESSIVISM – Sees only red. (Harm/Care : the adaptive challenge of caring for vulnerable children.) 2) BLUE : CONSERVATISM – Sees red, blue and yellow (Harm/Care, Proportionality, Authority/Hierarchy/Duty, Loyalty, Purity/Sanctity, Liberty/Oppression) 3) GREEN : LIBERTARIANISM – Sees only green (Liberty/Oppression : ) – Libertarians are “Red/Blue color blind.” – Progressives are “Green/Blue color blind.” – Conservatives are not color blind at all. Just how it is. YOU CAN”T REASON WITH A LIBERTARIAN EITHER [Y]ou can’t actually reason with a libertarian who relies upon moral intuition. It’s as irrational as trying to reason with a progressive who relies upon moral intuition. Both just justify their positions. You can reason to a conservative, or conservative libertarian, *EVEN IF* they rely on moral intuition. Because they aren’t morally blind to any part of the spectrum. And here I keep thinking (stupidly) that because I am not morally blind, even though I place a premium on liberty, and because I understand the RESULT of libertarian moral blindness: the reduction of all rights to property rights – that other libertarians will of course be as rational as I am. But that’s not true. I am literally talking to people who are for all intents and purposes, physically incapable of moral discourse, just as a color blind person is physically incapable of aesthetic discourse on colors that he cannot see. (Or the disability called “Ageusia” which prohibits taste.) THE INTELLECTUAL LIMIT [T]here is some point at which individuals abandon intuitionism (feelings) and resort to either rationalism (rules), or ratio-empirical science ( outcomes) for their epistemic judgements. The only libertarians that one can speak to rationally about morality are those that have abandoned intuitionism. And since it APPEARS to me that rationalism is just a form of justification, then further it appears that only those who adopt the ratio-scientific level of thought, abandon both intuition and justification, are capable of discourse. That means that we are very limited in the number those people who possess the capacity for rational discourse on ethics and politics. And that since only conservatives are not morally spectrum blind, that it is only conservatives who can rationally discuss these issues EVEN IF they are relegated only to intuition. THE TRIANGLE IS INVERTED Conservatives form the base of an inverted pyramid. Progressives and Libertarians are specialized variants of human. Progressives are ‘excessively female’ and libertarians ‘excessively male’. (I think some conservatives specialize in being ‘warriors’ but they’re indistinguishable because they have identical moral intuitions.) Where progressive, conservative and libertarian refer to moral intuitions. BUGS [T]he more I work on this problem the more I see humans of different moral persuasions just like specialized forms of ants. ‘Cause pretty much, that’s what we are.
-
Libertarian Moral-spectrum Blindness
[Y]ou can’t reason with a libertarian who relies upon moral intuition any more than you can reason with a progressive who relies upon moral intuition. So, it’s pretty clear to me today, that libertarians are as morally blind (or in Haidt’s terms ‘tasteless’) as progressives are (albeit at a different part of the spectrum), and that the only conservatives can carry on a rational moral discussion – because only conservatives are not affected by large moral blind spots. The data says it. But I just experienced it first hand. And I hate what it means. It means that libertarians are just as irrational and impenetrable as progressives. That doesn’t mean that libertarians haven’t solved the problem of formal institutions. They have. (Hoppe has.) But it means that except as a sort of minority conducting intellectual experiments, libertarians are useless for the purpose of discussing political solutions. They’re by definition ‘immoral’. Or perhaps a form of moral color-blindness in which the majority of the spectrum is invisible to them. I’m a conservative libertarian. I place a premium on liberty and discount all the other moral values. That’s the definition of the moral intuitions of a libertarian. But that PERSONAL intuition and personal objective, is different from my understanding of POLITICS as a set of institutions that allow heterogeneous peoples to cooperate on means even if they possess competing ends. (Give the citizenry a circus and let their actions sort them out.) ANALOGY: 1) RED : PROGRESSIVISM – Sees only red. (Harm/Care : the adaptive challenge of caring for vulnerable children.) 2) BLUE : CONSERVATISM – Sees red, blue and yellow (Harm/Care, Proportionality, Authority/Hierarchy/Duty, Loyalty, Purity/Sanctity, Liberty/Oppression) 3) GREEN : LIBERTARIANISM – Sees only green (Liberty/Oppression : ) – Libertarians are “Red/Blue color blind.” – Progressives are “Green/Blue color blind.” – Conservatives are not color blind at all. Just how it is. YOU CAN”T REASON WITH A LIBERTARIAN EITHER [Y]ou can’t actually reason with a libertarian who relies upon moral intuition. It’s as irrational as trying to reason with a progressive who relies upon moral intuition. Both just justify their positions. You can reason to a conservative, or conservative libertarian, *EVEN IF* they rely on moral intuition. Because they aren’t morally blind to any part of the spectrum. And here I keep thinking (stupidly) that because I am not morally blind, even though I place a premium on liberty, and because I understand the RESULT of libertarian moral blindness: the reduction of all rights to property rights – that other libertarians will of course be as rational as I am. But that’s not true. I am literally talking to people who are for all intents and purposes, physically incapable of moral discourse, just as a color blind person is physically incapable of aesthetic discourse on colors that he cannot see. (Or the disability called “Ageusia” which prohibits taste.) THE INTELLECTUAL LIMIT [T]here is some point at which individuals abandon intuitionism (feelings) and resort to either rationalism (rules), or ratio-empirical science ( outcomes) for their epistemic judgements. The only libertarians that one can speak to rationally about morality are those that have abandoned intuitionism. And since it APPEARS to me that rationalism is just a form of justification, then further it appears that only those who adopt the ratio-scientific level of thought, abandon both intuition and justification, are capable of discourse. That means that we are very limited in the number those people who possess the capacity for rational discourse on ethics and politics. And that since only conservatives are not morally spectrum blind, that it is only conservatives who can rationally discuss these issues EVEN IF they are relegated only to intuition. THE TRIANGLE IS INVERTED Conservatives form the base of an inverted pyramid. Progressives and Libertarians are specialized variants of human. Progressives are ‘excessively female’ and libertarians ‘excessively male’. (I think some conservatives specialize in being ‘warriors’ but they’re indistinguishable because they have identical moral intuitions.) Where progressive, conservative and libertarian refer to moral intuitions. BUGS [T]he more I work on this problem the more I see humans of different moral persuasions just like specialized forms of ants. ‘Cause pretty much, that’s what we are.
-
I Didn't Realize The Power of My Argument Against Libertarian Perception Of Reality
[B]ut that’s the final nail in the coffin of praxeology. If we are morally blind (and science says that we are) for the reasons that I’ve stated (genetics, reproductive strategy, discounting of the dependence upon others for information and opinion, and higher intelligence discounting of transaction costs) then that which is possible to apprehend in the context of voluntary exchange, is open to, and the victim of, cognitive biases – just like all other judgements. As such, the logic of cooperation must forever be empirically and instrumentally derived as a theoretic construct, and can only be treated as theoretic construct, not an axiomatic one. (Given the strict difference between axiomatic-non-correspondent-with-reality and theoretic-correspondent-with-reality systems.) So I have finally put an end to the argument that ethics, and the logic of cooperation are axiomatic, and we can discard praxeology. Have to run now, but I’ll continue with this argument over the next month or two as I refine it further. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev
COMMENTS Eric Field and Douglas Darby like this. Roman Skaskiw This will be big.