-
And as far as "eliminating the unfit", it is just a descriptive matter of fact that is unavoidable as well...no matter how many ways you try to contextualize a form of shared objective factual reality, this term can always be used and in doing so will be a "law of logic". If there is a difference in a rule of thumb overall approach
-
Social engineering is basically a cornerstone of civilization. It is not a bad thing or dishonest thing. It is merely any attempt to influence behavior or attitudes in a society. Anything from positive (money) to negative (prison/ostracism) conditioning can be considered as social engineering. As well as various types of propaganda: books, campaigns
-
And once again all the morality talk will just lead to confusing "meta" arguments where people talk past each other so it is best to discard them. If anything focus on what can and can not be said in the real world that we can describe and actual consequences of those actions
-
An individual may become incredibly wealthy without ever producing a product Production is an ontological subjective evaluation, there is no such thing as "obective production". This is the whole point of the market mentality. When I say affluence, I mean prefered by obvious choice of actions, not anything like food = wealth. Or "what
-
Thanks Schnapps, I never heard of Smith or Younkins. From the link you provided the Younkins article on Menger looks like a good read as well. I'm probably going to avoid all the Rand/Objectivist stuff though, I keep forgetting she was an Aristotelian too.
-
We are not talking about "oughts", we are talking about the mechanics of society and what can be said about their operations - likewise with what is set up we can even talk about the consequences of hampering any such operation. Whether a worker ought to be able to own or whether I ought or ought not buy one more martini, is not a question
-
Great article I found that I don't think is on Mises.org: http://ontology.buffalo.edu/smith/articles/menger.html
-
Flat out "playing the odds" wouldn't it be some shit African regime Rawanda, Ethiopia or whatever? Some place that had lttle or no wealth, sanitation, or good custom to sap from the get go (even worse than Cambodia or Maoist China) and further away from a richer pastors to immigrate to/ hope for some "trickle down" wealth to
-
That's why I prefer to call them "rules regarding property" or some such. Those declarations can then be translated to, "These should be the rules regarding property." The liberal rules regarding property remain few, simple and general, satisfying the Humean/Hayekian test, whereas the socialist or mutualist or social democrat
-
This kind of depends on what group you are in that gets targeted. If you were in a decent position in the USSR, it was probably a pretty cool place to live. You got to travel around the world and all the cool people in the West treated you with mass respect. That would be a pretty sweet gig. If you are a lowly Palestinian in a pretty free Israel, that