[F]acts: 1) Praxeology is a pseudoscience 2) Rothbardian ethics are parasitic 3) Argumentation is descriptive not causal. 4) Private property alone is insufficient to eliminate demand for the state 5) Rights cannot exist without context of contract. 6) Property is what remains when all free riding is forcibly suppressed, meaning that it’s not a binary proposition open to intersubjective verifiability. 7) The Absolute Nuclear Family is necessary for suppression of demand for the state, and therefore liberty is the desire of a permanent minority who practice the ANF. Libertarianism was yet another pseudoscientific failure. Ethical Realism, Propertarianism, and Aristocratic Egalitarianism correct the errors of immoral libertarianism.
Theme: Deception
-
The End Of Ghetto Libertarianism
[F]acts: 1) Praxeology is a pseudoscience 2) Rothbardian ethics are parasitic 3) Argumentation is descriptive not causal. 4) Private property alone is insufficient to eliminate demand for the state 5) Rights cannot exist without context of contract. 6) Property is what remains when all free riding is forcibly suppressed, meaning that it’s not a binary proposition open to intersubjective verifiability. 7) The Absolute Nuclear Family is necessary for suppression of demand for the state, and therefore liberty is the desire of a permanent minority who practice the ANF. Libertarianism was yet another pseudoscientific failure. Ethical Realism, Propertarianism, and Aristocratic Egalitarianism correct the errors of immoral libertarianism.
-
The 'Tells' Of Continental, Cosmopolitan And Enlightenment Arguments
(important) [T]he signature property (the ‘tell’) of continental argument is conflation, in which the purpose of argument is an attempt to construct authority. (German and French) Signature property (the ‘tell’) of cosmopolitan thought is ‘the prestige’ (distraction), in which the purpose of an argument is to distract from the central, more obvious one by means of cunning. (Jewish). The signature property (the ‘tell’) of anglo enlightenment thought is the assumption of universalism. These three ‘tells’ are all means of deception and error in order to justify the metaphysical assumption about what is ‘good’.
-
The ‘Tells’ Of Continental, Cosmopolitan And Enlightenment Arguments
(important) [T]he signature property (the ‘tell’) of continental argument is conflation, in which the purpose of argument is an attempt to construct authority. (German and French) Signature property (the ‘tell’) of cosmopolitan thought is ‘the prestige’ (distraction), in which the purpose of an argument is to distract from the central, more obvious one by means of cunning. (Jewish). The signature property (the ‘tell’) of anglo enlightenment thought is the assumption of universalism. These three ‘tells’ are all means of deception and error in order to justify the metaphysical assumption about what is ‘good’.
-
The 'Tells' Of Continental, Cosmopolitan And Enlightenment Arguments
(important) [T]he signature property (the ‘tell’) of continental argument is conflation, in which the purpose of argument is an attempt to construct authority. (German and French) Signature property (the ‘tell’) of cosmopolitan thought is ‘the prestige’ (distraction), in which the purpose of an argument is to distract from the central, more obvious one by means of cunning. (Jewish). The signature property (the ‘tell’) of anglo enlightenment thought is the assumption of universalism. These three ‘tells’ are all means of deception and error in order to justify the metaphysical assumption about what is ‘good’.
-
The ‘Tells’ Of Continental, Cosmopolitan And Enlightenment Arguments
(important) [T]he signature property (the ‘tell’) of continental argument is conflation, in which the purpose of argument is an attempt to construct authority. (German and French) Signature property (the ‘tell’) of cosmopolitan thought is ‘the prestige’ (distraction), in which the purpose of an argument is to distract from the central, more obvious one by means of cunning. (Jewish). The signature property (the ‘tell’) of anglo enlightenment thought is the assumption of universalism. These three ‘tells’ are all means of deception and error in order to justify the metaphysical assumption about what is ‘good’.
-
Adding Kant To History's Most Destructive Minds
[I]‘m going to add Kant (obscurant anti-realism), to the ranks of history’s most destructive minds: Cantor(obscurant Pseudoscience), Freud(obscurant pseudoscience), Marx(pseudoscience), Napoleon (total war), Constantine(christianization of Europe), Plato (the Republic), Abraham(monotheism), Zoroaster (divine scripture).
Intellectual Sainthood
– Aristotle
– Machiavelli
– Bacon, Newton and Leibniz
– Smith, Hume and Jefferson
– Jevons, Menger, Walras, Marshall, Böhm-Bawerk, Wieser;
– Pareto, Durkheim, Weber and Hayek.
– Poincaré, Mandelbrot, Brouwer, Bishop, Taleb[N]ow, if I could get Hoppe off his Continental and Kantian platonism, then he would have be the first person to succeed in reducing all rights to property rights. Even if his definition of property is incomplete he would have done it. He managed to articulate the morality of states, but not the morality of polities necessary for the voluntary organization of production. And possibly, that was his only goal. Whereas with propertarianism, I’ve illustrated the definition of property necessary for the formation of a polity capable of voluntary organization of production in the absence of a state. But he isn’t a candidate for intellectual sainthood if he’s stuck in Kantian nonsense.
Failing that I’m stuck with doing it myself. And while I feel I have mastered ethics better than anyone else, I do not feel the same for philosophy proper. And while I’m getting there, I’m not there yet. I’m getting there. But the standard of measure is not my own comprehension, but the structure of my arguments. And I am just getting, after a year of solid hard work, to where I feel I can construct those arguments.
Einstein was right (even if a plagiarist) that most of doing something innovative is just working at it longer than anyone else.
-
Adding Kant To History’s Most Destructive Minds
[I]‘m going to add Kant (obscurant anti-realism), to the ranks of history’s most destructive minds: Cantor(obscurant Pseudoscience), Freud(obscurant pseudoscience), Marx(pseudoscience), Napoleon (total war), Constantine(christianization of Europe), Plato (the Republic), Abraham(monotheism), Zoroaster (divine scripture).
Intellectual Sainthood
– Aristotle
– Machiavelli
– Bacon, Newton and Leibniz
– Smith, Hume and Jefferson
– Jevons, Menger, Walras, Marshall, Böhm-Bawerk, Wieser;
– Pareto, Durkheim, Weber and Hayek.
– Poincaré, Mandelbrot, Brouwer, Bishop, Taleb[N]ow, if I could get Hoppe off his Continental and Kantian platonism, then he would have be the first person to succeed in reducing all rights to property rights. Even if his definition of property is incomplete he would have done it. He managed to articulate the morality of states, but not the morality of polities necessary for the voluntary organization of production. And possibly, that was his only goal. Whereas with propertarianism, I’ve illustrated the definition of property necessary for the formation of a polity capable of voluntary organization of production in the absence of a state. But he isn’t a candidate for intellectual sainthood if he’s stuck in Kantian nonsense.
Failing that I’m stuck with doing it myself. And while I feel I have mastered ethics better than anyone else, I do not feel the same for philosophy proper. And while I’m getting there, I’m not there yet. I’m getting there. But the standard of measure is not my own comprehension, but the structure of my arguments. And I am just getting, after a year of solid hard work, to where I feel I can construct those arguments.
Einstein was right (even if a plagiarist) that most of doing something innovative is just working at it longer than anyone else.
-
Adding Kant To History's Most Destructive Minds
[I]‘m going to add Kant (obscurant anti-realism), to the ranks of history’s most destructive minds: Cantor(obscurant Pseudoscience), Freud(obscurant pseudoscience), Marx(pseudoscience), Napoleon (total war), Constantine(christianization of Europe), Plato (the Republic), Abraham(monotheism), Zoroaster (divine scripture).
Intellectual Sainthood
– Aristotle
– Machiavelli
– Bacon, Newton and Leibniz
– Smith, Hume and Jefferson
– Jevons, Menger, Walras, Marshall, Böhm-Bawerk, Wieser;
– Pareto, Durkheim, Weber and Hayek.
– Poincaré, Mandelbrot, Brouwer, Bishop, Taleb[N]ow, if I could get Hoppe off his Continental and Kantian platonism, then he would have be the first person to succeed in reducing all rights to property rights. Even if his definition of property is incomplete he would have done it. He managed to articulate the morality of states, but not the morality of polities necessary for the voluntary organization of production. And possibly, that was his only goal. Whereas with propertarianism, I’ve illustrated the definition of property necessary for the formation of a polity capable of voluntary organization of production in the absence of a state. But he isn’t a candidate for intellectual sainthood if he’s stuck in Kantian nonsense.
Failing that I’m stuck with doing it myself. And while I feel I have mastered ethics better than anyone else, I do not feel the same for philosophy proper. And while I’m getting there, I’m not there yet. I’m getting there. But the standard of measure is not my own comprehension, but the structure of my arguments. And I am just getting, after a year of solid hard work, to where I feel I can construct those arguments.
Einstein was right (even if a plagiarist) that most of doing something innovative is just working at it longer than anyone else.
-
Adding Kant To History’s Most Destructive Minds
[I]‘m going to add Kant (obscurant anti-realism), to the ranks of history’s most destructive minds: Cantor(obscurant Pseudoscience), Freud(obscurant pseudoscience), Marx(pseudoscience), Napoleon (total war), Constantine(christianization of Europe), Plato (the Republic), Abraham(monotheism), Zoroaster (divine scripture).
Intellectual Sainthood
– Aristotle
– Machiavelli
– Bacon, Newton and Leibniz
– Smith, Hume and Jefferson
– Jevons, Menger, Walras, Marshall, Böhm-Bawerk, Wieser;
– Pareto, Durkheim, Weber and Hayek.
– Poincaré, Mandelbrot, Brouwer, Bishop, Taleb[N]ow, if I could get Hoppe off his Continental and Kantian platonism, then he would have be the first person to succeed in reducing all rights to property rights. Even if his definition of property is incomplete he would have done it. He managed to articulate the morality of states, but not the morality of polities necessary for the voluntary organization of production. And possibly, that was his only goal. Whereas with propertarianism, I’ve illustrated the definition of property necessary for the formation of a polity capable of voluntary organization of production in the absence of a state. But he isn’t a candidate for intellectual sainthood if he’s stuck in Kantian nonsense.
Failing that I’m stuck with doing it myself. And while I feel I have mastered ethics better than anyone else, I do not feel the same for philosophy proper. And while I’m getting there, I’m not there yet. I’m getting there. But the standard of measure is not my own comprehension, but the structure of my arguments. And I am just getting, after a year of solid hard work, to where I feel I can construct those arguments.
Einstein was right (even if a plagiarist) that most of doing something innovative is just working at it longer than anyone else.