http://www.kyivpost.com/content/business/expat-to-watch-familiar-face-in-legal-community-promotes-his-plan-to-save-ukraine-383305.htmlhttp://www.kyivpost.com/content/business/expat-to-watch-familiar-face-in-legal-community-promotes-his-plan-to-save-ukraine-383305.html
Source date (UTC): 2015-03-12 16:01:00 UTC
http://www.infowars.com/texas-town-fires-entire-police-department-crime-drops-by-61/
Source date (UTC): 2015-03-11 02:07:00 UTC
https://www.quora.com/How-can-I-become-a-libertarian
https://www.quora.com/How-can-I-become-a-libertarian
EXPANDING FUKUYAMA’S THEORY OF SEQUENTIAL INSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT.
So Francis Fukuyama argues that a professional bureaucracy must form prior to enfranchisement to prevent corruption.
This is slightly different from the thesis that the party and voting conditions determine the quality of policy. Both of which are insignificant from my perspective compared to universal standing, rule of law, and property rights.
But I am fairly certain that Fukuyama’s theory applies to the enfranchisement of women: early enfranchisement of women will have turned out to have been as bad as democracy prior to the professionalization of the bureaucracy.
Worse, early enfranchisement of women, EXACERBATED the problem of an unprofessional bureaucracy.
Why?
Because the labor movement didn’t work. They couldn’t get the working classes to adopt cosmopolitan immoralism (socialism). However, they COULD get women and minorities to adopt it.
And then use it to populate the bureaucracy.
I wonder if I could get the good professor to answer that one.
Source date (UTC): 2015-01-25 11:18:00 UTC
Well, the consensus is settled.
They will not reform the courts.
They will not perform lustration on the bureaucracy.
The revolution is over.
Maydan failed.
Source date (UTC): 2015-01-25 03:44:00 UTC
[H]e was that close.
I have more important things to do with my life, but if I had the time I could rewrite his tome Human Action as Human Operationalism, and instantly reform the debate from one between science and pseudoscience in which he has been outcast, to one that unified all fields, and restored his position in intellectual history.
Damn. He was SO CLOSE. So close. It’s taken me years. And in retrospect it’s tragic. Terribly tragic. He *almost* reformed economics and saved us from a century of destructive Keynesian policy.
[H]e was that close.
I have more important things to do with my life, but if I had the time I could rewrite his tome Human Action as Human Operationalism, and instantly reform the debate from one between science and pseudoscience in which he has been outcast, to one that unified all fields, and restored his position in intellectual history.
Damn. He was SO CLOSE. So close. It’s taken me years. And in retrospect it’s tragic. Terribly tragic. He *almost* reformed economics and saved us from a century of destructive Keynesian policy.
BAFFLED BY PROPERTARIANISM? STUCK ON SCARITY?
It’s OK, I understand if you are baffled. it happens. If this wasn’t hard it wouldn’t have stumped Hoppe. He’s no dummy. I just got lucky. He learned under justification, rationalism and marxism, and I learned under criticism, science, and computabilty. It is only logical that he would invent a justificationary, rationalist, and cosmopolitan argument, and that I would be puzzled by it, and restate it as a critical, scientific, and operational method. It’s just mental modeling. He was from an earlier generation that wasn’t aware of these problems. Even my work is only the result of his creating a ‘problem’ that I could understand was false. And it’s just deterministic that someone would finally understand Mises’ error, and combined Mises in economics, Brouwer in physics, and Bridgman in mathematics, with the failure 20th century analytic philosophy, as mere tautology – a problem of linguistic operations.
So, I am not ignoring the distinction between physically scarce and physically non-scarce goods. I am stating that with this argument, Hoppe wants to attribute causality to that distinction in order to justify his priors. In other words, he is unknowingly (I assume), constructing a straw man argument to justify priors, rather than determining causality. This is a common philosophical error.
Instead, I’m saying that your argument is false because it is impossible. It is impossible because your conclusion that we face a problem of scarcity, is irrelevant, since scarcity is only perceivable, experienceable, and therefore knowable by price (cost). it is operationally impossible for humans to have developed concepts of scarcity, and it is impossible for us to act because of scarcity. What we act upon, and what we know, is what we measure: cost. Our measurements exist. Our knowledge originates in measurements. Our subjective value of different choices is determined by those measurements.
So what I think everyone on the libertine side is missing, is that Hoppe is assuming a conclusion that justifies what he claims to deduce from it. Rather than using praxeological (existentially possible), internally consistent, externally correspondent, and falsified criticisms.
SCARCITY VS COST
Scarcity is a universal, unknowable, marginal indifference. It is praxeologicaly non-existent. I cannot know and act on it. Cost is particular, knowable, and decidable because of marginal differences. It is praxeologicaly existential. I can know and act on it.
Scarcity is important between states, that need not reduce local transaction costs, but which must avoid conflict despite differences in local rules.
Morality is important between individuals, because they must reduce transaction costs sufficiently to engage in production in a division of knowledge and labor.
Polities must form laws (rules) of cooperation, that mix the necessary rules of morality (prohibition on free riding), with the rules necessary for the production of commons, with the utilitarian allocation of privileges (norms) that assist in either parasitism or the organization of production or both.
Rothbard, as a cosmopolitan, was trying to justify separatism. Not describe necessary properties of cooperation, nor the necessary properties of rule of law, under which a group of people can cooperate without allocation of discretion to individuals with authority.
Not sure why this isn’t terribly obvious. But then I have been working on the problem a very long time.
Curt Doolittle
Source date (UTC): 2015-01-17 11:25:00 UTC
(A Call To Classical Liberalism)
[R]on Paul committed political suicide, in an act of profound moral cowardice, joining the Mises Institute in their decades of ideological suicide, by using the hardship of real people as an excuse to produce propaganda against the monopoly bureaucratic state – a fight in which the Ukrainians themselves are more the victim of than any other people.
It was an act of unconscionable immorality, demonstrating the immorality of libertine free rider libertarianism – But moreover it violates the western aristocratic moral imperative that is the source of all liberty: that any who desire to be free of tyranny in pursuit of property rights, shall have our alliance, if we obtain their alliance in return. The west was constructed using this ethic.
The low-trust, free riding, Rothbardian ethic of the Ghetto mandates that we walk away from all fights that are not directly initiated against us. But under this ethic, not only would the west never have arisen, but neither would have liberty, because liberty was the result of this system of ever-expanding alliances between families, tribes, city states, and nation-states: the reciprocal grant of sovereignty over life and property in exchange for reciprocal insurance in the defense of life liberty and property. This exchange is the origin of liberty and property rights, and all men sought this status, and the prosperity it gave them, by demonstrating their commitment in martial service to one another. This is the only source of rights that is existentially possible – every alternative justification is a mere verbal excuse to escape the high cost of constructing a condition of liberty by taking responsibility for using, and spending, your wealth of violence, to construct and preserve it.
The war for liberty is not against the nation state – if anything we must re-nationalize liberalism to save the west – but instead, libertinism, like marxism, socialism, postmodernism and neo-conservatism, are a war intentionally produced by cosmopolitan separatists against western solidarity, for the purpose of preserving their dual-ethical social model, and its dependence upon free riding on the martial strength, martial expense, and martial risk, of others. There is no possibility for one to claim moral righteousness by free riding upon the costly defense of others, and no moral righteousness not coming to the martial aid of all those who seek to join the alliance of free men. It is merely free riding: theft. An act of fraud by which one seeks to obtain the expensive liberty at a discount. If this escapist strategy is followed to its end, it will leave a people homeless, diasporic, and dependent upon the kindness and charity of host people, nations, and civilizations. It has. It does.
What differentiates the west from the west is not the six apps that Nial Ferguson compliments us for – they are effects, not causes. The source of those six apps, and the west’s ability to innovate faster than all other civilizations combined, despite our poverty, small numbers, and distance from the origin of the bronze age, is that we discovered the truth, we speak the truth, we trust because we speak the truth, we hold each other accountable for speaking the truth, and we exchange the promise of our ready and willing hand of violence in the defense of the life liberty and property of our allies. Western excellence is the result of the unique western reliance upon truth as the most expensive, and most disciplined commons ever constructed by man.
Reality intervenes on all ideals, but the west, western ethics, western prosperity, and western liberty, evolved because more often then not, we preserved sovereignty with the reciprocal commitment for truth and violence, and we appeal to the jury of our peers as a test of both.
So, leave Ron Paul, and his marxist-inspired allies. Return to classical liberalism and abandon the immoral ethics of the Ghetto. Unless you prefer to live in one. Because the ghetto is the result of those ethics libertines espouse.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev Ukraine
WEB SITE
http://idontsupportronpaul.com/
LOU ROCKWELL GETS OFFENDED
http://www.lewrockwell.com/…/troika-seeks-to-purge-ron-paul/
TARGET LIBERTY GETS OFFENDED
http://www.targetliberty.com/…/sfl-faction-starts-website-t…