The difference is that political liberalism produces more honest negotiations but less consistent policy.
For this reason political liberalism is a luxury, not a utility.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-economic-liberalism-and-political-liberalism-in-the-context-of-international-relations
The difference is that political liberalism produces more honest negotiations but less consistent policy.
For this reason political liberalism is a luxury, not a utility.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-economic-liberalism-and-political-liberalism-in-the-context-of-international-relations
RULE OR BE RULED
—“Men should rule because men can rule. And anything that can, with advantage, happen, sooner or later does. Simple as that really.”— Eli Harman
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-18 07:36:00 UTC
ON WOMEN VOTERS
(from elsewhere)
Only thing I tend to suggest is that women need a separate house of government limited to short term decisions, and men to focus on the long term.
This creates a market between the genders just as marriage and mating create a market between the genders.
The problem with our government is that it was a market between men of different classes each who represented families and extended families and manors. It was an extension of the family.
We violated the family by giving women power over the destruction of the family in favor of short term wants.
No one is really at fault here. We just didn’t know and as westerners we were utopian in the first place, and secondly, we were wealthy from the new era of atlantic trade, and expanding colonies.
Wealth makes us less risk averse. We needed to be more cautious.
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-18 07:05:00 UTC
http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2014/08/26/liberty-in-modernity-isnt-for-simpletons/LIBERTY IN MODERNITY ISN”T FOR SIMPLETONS
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-18 05:14:00 UTC
“Take comfort from the gasoline price. It indicates that the powerful aren’t really what they believe they are. In the long run, decentralized markets always outpace and outwit the ability of elites to dictate and manipulate them. Every penny by which the price drops signals to the world: freedom can prevail even in a world in which the powerful are conspiring to destroy it.” – Jeffrey Tucker
—“Once you reject the Hayekian insight of the spontaneous nature of the social order, everything looks like a consequence of deliberation and war. All social and economic effects have a powerful, volitional, intentional cause. It’s a fundamental error.” –Tucker
Well the first statement is a psychologism.
It is not necessary to reject spontaneous order.
It is always possible for asymmetries – particularly state asymmetries – to distort that order.
Ergo there is no incompatibility between the self organising market and asymmetric influence that distorts it.
As such, as far as I know, the current price is a reflection of intentional distortion of the price through sale at below necessary return rate in order to achieve aforementioned ends.
So the source of your error is the intentional use of the pretence of rule ethics outside of the discipline of rule of law, applying it to truth propositions.
This is the source of Rothbards and mises errors, the source of Hoppe’s error of argumentation, and the source of kinsella’s error.
That this is nothing but justificationary excuse making is logically obvious.
That does not mean that a generation or two of useful idiots didn’t fall for it. They did.
The reality of the current state of affairs is that your era’s gentlemen should stick to advocacy of Liberty and leave philosophy to those of us who practice social science.
It seems that molyneux has learned and therefore move to advocacy after failing at philosophy.
I defend you as a moral man. I know you well enough.
But the difference between your eras use of justificationary rationalism and my eras use of ratio-scientific testimonialism is as great a difference as that between accounting and calculus.
Better to learn from my work and ask questions than think ones self able to participate in philosophical discourse of this magnitude.
“Curt how did you come to that conclusion?” is a great way to start. 😉
Affections. Always.
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-16 09:13:00 UTC
Put Ukraine in receivership. 🙂
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-16 06:36:00 UTC
[D]rones Hovering 1) We probably need to maintain a right of Transitus (transit) but not a right of Observo(observation) or Usus (use) for drones. I can’t see how to get around this. That means that you must have the ability to navigate but not the ability to observe. (this is pretty easy. we put blinders on horses, we can put a horizontal blinder on transiting drones. 2) Rights of Observo(observation) into human activity(not territory alone) require either permission or warrant. In other words, if you have a big ranch, or a territorial view, and the drone is silent, and in transit, it is hard to say that this infringes on your actions. However if your actions are being observed,such that you are put at risk of either embarrassment for normal activities (sex, affection, emotional release, play), or put at risk for predation (gathering information with which to engage in the imposition of costs), then 3) What I would expect to see otherwise is the equivalent of camouflage netting, designed to defeat drones, or active repulsion systems designed to blind them when attempting to observe homes. 4) What I hope someone creates is drones that kill other drones. These are very cheap to make, and a ‘necessary’ defense mechanism against the possibility of predation enhanced by observation (spying). As a criminal endeavor it is quite easy to use drones to look for homes to rob. It is also easy to use drones to attack power lines. So a drone in motion at altitude is somewhat hard to criticize. While a drone hovering or exploring private property is not.
[D]rones Hovering 1) We probably need to maintain a right of Transitus (transit) but not a right of Observo(observation) or Usus (use) for drones. I can’t see how to get around this. That means that you must have the ability to navigate but not the ability to observe. (this is pretty easy. we put blinders on horses, we can put a horizontal blinder on transiting drones. 2) Rights of Observo(observation) into human activity(not territory alone) require either permission or warrant. In other words, if you have a big ranch, or a territorial view, and the drone is silent, and in transit, it is hard to say that this infringes on your actions. However if your actions are being observed,such that you are put at risk of either embarrassment for normal activities (sex, affection, emotional release, play), or put at risk for predation (gathering information with which to engage in the imposition of costs), then 3) What I would expect to see otherwise is the equivalent of camouflage netting, designed to defeat drones, or active repulsion systems designed to blind them when attempting to observe homes. 4) What I hope someone creates is drones that kill other drones. These are very cheap to make, and a ‘necessary’ defense mechanism against the possibility of predation enhanced by observation (spying). As a criminal endeavor it is quite easy to use drones to look for homes to rob. It is also easy to use drones to attack power lines. So a drone in motion at altitude is somewhat hard to criticize. While a drone hovering or exploring private property is not.
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-14 04:01:00 UTC