News & Analysis
Mises Shakes the World?
At the very least, the Journal is guilty of extremely uninformative and selective editing. One could also read this article, however, as an attempt to cast the Rothbardian school as irrelevant while propping up the Hayekian school as the "respectable" kind of Austrian Economics. This would be perfectly in line with the Wall Street Journal's generally conservative slant, and the Journal has shown itself to be a friend to neither Ron Paul nor any other serious or trenchant critic of the current kleptocracy. As Wenzel notes, the failure to mention Mises is odd at best. If there is a deliberate effort to obscure the importance of Mises or Rothbard, it is also certainly unlikely that a mere beat reporter sent to interview Boettke would insist on such a thing. Such a policy is far more likely to originate at the editorial level, where it can be absolutely guaranteed that a discussion of Austrian Economics will mention neither Mises nor Paul nor Rothbard nor anyone else who is presently central to the real-life political milieu surrounding the Austrian School today. ... So either the Journal is incompetent, or it has deliberately tried to disparage Ron Paul's Rothbard wing of the libertarian movement. I suspect the latter, although the former is always a possibility. None of this should surprise anyone who is familiar with the debate between the Hayekian branch and the Rothbardian branch. Twenty-eight years ago, Lew Rockwell was told in no uncertain terms that his efforts would be sabotaged by the existing libertarian establishment if he tried to name his new institute after Ludwig von Mises (left) who was labeled as "too radical." Rothbard's eventual inclusion in the effort only solidified the animosity toward what is now the Rothbard school. So ... the first question that crosses my mind with controversies like this is: "Should I even care about this?" – The Rothbardian School / LewRockwell.com/Ryan McMaken
Dominant Social Theme: Ignore 'em and they will go away.
Free-Market Analysis: We are returning to the "Spreading Hayek, Spurning Keynes" Wall Street Journal article to answer the question that Ryan McMaken asks in his fine article at LewRockwell.com (and then answers judiciously as well). We are returning as well because this is an incredibly important issue from our point of view as a periodical that analyzes power-elite dominant social themes from a free market perspective. We do have a slightly different take on the answer; in fact we feel, collectively, a tad passionate about the article from a libertarian standpoint.
The question, again: Why did the Wall Street Journal write an article about the history of Austrian finance without mentioning the Mises Institute or Lew Rockwell? Our answer to the question is not so eloquent as Mr. McMaken's but is almost as heartfelt. Our answer would be that "people who are interested in freedom should care very much about this article and the surrounding debate." Why? Because we think the Austrian economic movement is one of the longest-lived and most important intellectual and ideological conversations in history. And whatever misrepresents it is of similar import, especially if it represents a larger trend.
Here's an anecdote ... One of us walked into an Austrian "conference" in the late 1980s, perhaps. At the time, it consisted of a fairly rundown room, perhaps rented for the day. At a fold-out table, Joe Salerno was sitting next to Murray Rothbard who was cackling. Lew Rockwell was shaking hands with a deep-pocketed individual who had happened to drop by. Later on, Rockwell spoke and then Rothbard spoke. It wasn't anything special. It could have been a humid venue for selling vacuum cleaners. But for an hour or so all the truth in the world, relatively speaking, was suddenly confined to one room – one "phone booth" as Jonah Goldberg so eloquently put it a few years later (and he didn't mean it kindly).
Out into the sun to walk through a city crowded with lies. There is no way to describe the impact of the Austrian school on someone who wanted to know more and had the (mis)fortune of running into the Institute in the late 1980s or early '90s. It was a virtual out-of-body experience. The movie the Matrix is about as close as you can get. It was the red pill, only you had to swallow it without any support group and live the rest of your life, or so it seemed then, as an intellectual schizophrenic.
You begin to follow the argument. You see how the Institute is ignored and misrepresented. Gradually you realize the ambit of a conspiracy so gigantic it's hard to fathom. It ignores and misrepresents the entire history of human ideas. It is a fully manufactured world. What is black is white. What is up is down. When the Internet comes along you start to see how far back in time the conspiracy goes and how deeply it runs.
You notice with some surprise that for a while everything is labeled, so the paper trail is fully available. This is because the power elite did everything in the open so no charges could be laid. The names are all there on the annual reports, on the legislation, on the funding. Nobody ever expected all of it would show up in one place on the Internet. (And now, of course, it is being taken down and the paper trail is not quite so easy to follow. But if you know where to look, it's obvious.)
You understand it is a familial conspiracy. Eventually, you begin to believe it goes back to Venice, and then to Rome and even farther than that. Today, you decide, it is structured a little bit like the mafia. There are ties of blood and allegiance. But the ties don't extend to everyone and nobody talks – except to lie. It is the misleading methodology of Money Power. And the conspiracy floats a promotion that tars an entire religion when in actuality only a few benefit. That's the core, baseline misinformation. Even the religion itself may be different than what is purported. (And how can a family worth a reputed US$50 trillion be considered in any way normal?)
You observe that the intellectual currency of repression is built from dominant social themes relentlessly pounded into the public ear. You keep watching the patterns build and you keep getting headaches because after watching the patterns for 20 years, you've come to believe that it encompasses, or tries to encompass every country, every state, every individual on the planet, binding them to invisible chains of ignorance and servitude.
This is one "take" on the power elite and their methodologies. Even if you don't believe it, dear reader, you may have to grant that certain ideologies are promoted in the mainstream press and others are not. One of the ideologies that is NOT promoted is that of the Mises Institute. There is a virtual blackout on the Institute in the mainstream press. Not that it matters. The Internet has created a whole new world. But the way the elite deals with free-market thinking is still by ignoring it. So why this WSJ article now? All we could come up with initially was willful ignorance (bias) or antipathy.
Other information has emerged – much of it thanks to the fine bloggers at LewRockwell.com. The consensus seems to be that editors at the Journal conspired to leave out the "harder" and more uncompromising Misesian school. Meanwhile feedback conversations with such estimable GMU commentators as Steve Horwitz reveal that the author of the WSJ article had set out to write a profile of Austrian academics. The confusion is then seemingly the Journal's fault as nowhere in the lead of the article does the Journal make clear what the article is about. Thus, the entire article becomes confusing. It leaves out Mises with a seeming arbitrariness. Once the lead is muffed, the article degenerates.
What should the lead have been? Apparently it should have been something along the lines of: "Peter Boettke might seem an odd sort to be leading the charge for free-market academic purism." You would have to make the argument for a certain kind of purism as the Mises Institute has plenty of academics themselves who are noteworthy. The difference, as Peter Boettke pointed out in his blog, is that he and his department are focused relentlessly in publishing in certain mainstream academic journals. This sounds like a differentiating factor, or at least could be construed as one.
The estimable Lila Rajiva (who would be an ornament to any blogsite let alone her own) has been working day and night to compile a running commentary on the Wall Street Journal controversy. While we have had disagreements, her take on the article is that it was a willful attempt to set the parameters of the free-market conversation in such a way as it can be controlled by mainstream academia. In other words, (as we understand it) the relevant conversation is taking place amidst gatekeepers and no one else is to be allowed in.
This is a most credible observation. But we will stick to our analysis for now, as we have indicated previously: willful ignorance and/or antipathy. Until we know better, we will not believe the CIA had a hand in the article or even that the topmost editors at the WSJ micromanaged in it. (If they did, they sure did a lousy job.) We're not even sure the Kochs are directly involved. No, the larger elite strategy of message control aimed at the Mises Institute is evidently and obviously one of omission rather than commission – and we have not yet observed any change in that weather. (Or not until Lila finishes her compilation of links.)
These are generally well-thought and substantive promotions. They employ the massive, global power of the elite's tremendous resources. They are logical and evidently and obviously preplanned: The global warming promotion was very obviously strategic and thematic. In fact, they have a pattern as we have indicated – and once you understand it, you can begin to predict manifestations.
They (the promotions) begin in think tanks and academia and then migrate to the mainstream press. Eventually specially built NGOs and other sorts of organizational structures advance these promotions. As the rhetoric heats up, legislation is developed and authoritarian solutions are generated via the tools of modern-day regulatory democracy.
We don't see this happening yet as regards free-market thinking. We observe the promotional pattern is still one of negation. But if it does change; if the promotion becomes one of commission, promoting the idea regularly and in various mainstream avenues that Austrian economics is the provenance only of certain academic forums, then it will become obvious that the rhetoric has changed and that a promotion of omission has morphed to one of commission. That is a very big deal, we would argue. It has tremendous ramifications. In no way is it unimportant.
Conclusion: Lew Rockwell and his colleagues have done what few others in the history of the world have accomplished. They have led a modern thought revolution that has stabbed a vital empire. If Leviathan groans and gropes in response, it is no trivial matter. What began in a room now shakes the world.
Latest Daily Bell Articles
Feedback
 |
Posted by Weeble on 09/09/10 10:12 AM
....so eloquently put it a few years later (and he didn't mean it kindly).
I was taught period, close parenthesis in the UK, but my smart friend said it was the other way around. I need a grammar refresher.
|
Posted by Lila Rajiva on 09/06/10 08:22 PM
Mises was Right, Part 2: Feulner, Neocons, Heritage, Georgia, Mont Pelerin
by Stephan Kinsella on August 21, 2008
in Uncategorized
"It turns out, of course, that Mises was right."
"Robert Heilbroner (1990), "After Communism", The New Yorker, September 10: 92 (1, 2, 3)
Regarding Paul Craig Roberts's "I Resign from the Mont Pelerin Society":
Interesting connected facts:
1. Formerly libertarian Mont Pelerin Society (which lists Hayek, Friedman, "Coase," and others as "Notable Members", but not Mises): its Treasurer is one "Edwin Feulner."
2. Feulner is President of Heritage.
3. In "Saving Georgia," Heritage Web Memo #2021, and The Russian-Georgian War: A Challenge for the U.S. and the World, on "Ariel Cohen, Ph.D." buys into the Bush administration's propaganda that uses "the Russian invasion of Georgia" as an excuse for further American hegemony.
No wonder Hans-Hermann Hoppe founded the Property and Freedom Society to take up the reins that MPS has dropped.
As Guido Hulsmann noted in "Ludwig von Mises and the Mt. Pelerin Society. Strategic Lessons" a speech delivered at the inaugural meeting of the PFS in 2006 (summary; program):
As classical liberal economists were usually not employed in institutions of higher learning (the teaching of economic science was not primarily organized within the universities), they built other institutions, from loose networks to political parties. By 1860 governments realized the danger to themselves that the classical economists posed. Their answer was to create their own economists and thus control the market of ideas. This strategy was first applied in Germany with the German Historical School or "Schmollerism" and soon spread to other countries, each with its own specific national feature. John Stuart Mill in Britain for example changed the meaning of liberalism into interventionism, while the Russian government thought that Schmoller was too tame and hired Marxist economists instead.
This trend continued into the 20th century, with Ludwig von Mises being one of the very few setting himself against it. After demolishing the case for socialism and putting the case for radical liberalism, he insisted that no "third way" was possible, as this would invariably lead to a loss of prosperity and in the end, socialism.
In the first half of the 20th century, a number of societies were founded by liberals to counter the trend towards socialism. By 1938, four schools of thought were represented:
Neoliberalism, i.e., practical and theoretical compromise with socialism; F.A. v. Hayek, for whom a small amount of intervention was permissible; Alexander Rstow, who considered natural hierarchies as necessary for society; and Ludwig v. Mises, who stood for complete laissez faire.
Nine years and one World War later, these groups convened to form the Mont Plerin Society (MPS). At the same time, Leonard Read's FEE in America was publishing leaflets explaining the ideas of Mises and organizing seminars and speeches for Mises and others. These activities were extremely important for spreading Mises' thoughts, especially to young people. Ralph Raico, George Reisman and Murray N. Rothbard were among those influenced by the FEE papers. Without the FEE, the Chicago School would have totally dominated the field of free market ideology.
Mises was skeptical about the MPS right from the start; he was particularly concerned because of the participation of certain people. In 1947, he stormed out of a meeting, saying: "You're all a bunch of socialists."
Today, the MPS, a society of eminent scholars, mainly represents Neoliberalism. Therefore, the PFS could play the role that the MPS was originally designed to play: spreading the uncompromising intellectual radicalism of freedom.
(See also Hulsmann, Mises: The Last Knight of Liberalism, pp. 871, 989-90, 1003-10, 1032, et pass.)
This helps place in context the principles for the PFS as announced by Hoppe at its founding in 2006:
The Property and Freedom Society stands for an uncompromising intellectual radicalism: for justly acquired private property, freedom of contract, freedom of association .... It condemns imperialism and militarism and their fomenters, and champions peace. It rejects positivism, relativism, and egalitarianism in any form .... As such it seeks to avoid any association with the policies and proponents of interventionism, which Ludwig von Mises had identified in 1946 as the fatal flaw in the plan of the many earlier and contemporary attempts by intellectuals alarmed by the rising tide of socialism and totalitarianism to found an anti-socialist ideological movement. Mises wrote: "What these frightened intellectuals did not comprehend was that all those measures of government interference with business which they advocated are abortive. ... There is no middle way. Either the consumers are supreme or the government."
|
Posted by Lila Rajiva on 09/06/10 08:22 PM
Mises was Right, Part 2: Feulner, Neocons, Heritage, Georgia, Mont Pelerin
by Stephan Kinsella on August 21, 2008
in Uncategorized
"It turns out, of course, that Mises was right."
—Robert Heilbroner (1990), "After Communism", The New Yorker, September 10: 92 (1, 2, 3)
Regarding Paul Craig Roberts's "I Resign from the Mont Pelerin Society":
Interesting connected facts:
1. Formerly libertarian Mont Pelerin Society (which lists Hayek, Friedman, "Coase," and others as "Notable Members", but not Mises): its Treasurer is one "Edwin Feulner."
2. Feulner is President of Heritage.
3. In "Saving Georgia," Heritage Web Memo #2021, and The Russian-Georgian War: A Challenge for the U.S. and the World, on "Ariel Cohen, Ph.D." buys into the Bush administration's propaganda that uses "the Russian invasion of Georgia" as an excuse for further American hegemony.
No wonder Hans-Hermann Hoppe founded the Property and Freedom Society to take up the reins that MPS has dropped.
As Guido Hu¨lsmann noted in "Ludwig von Mises and the Mt. Pelerin Society. Strategic Lessons" a speech delivered at the inaugural meeting of the PFS in 2006 (summary; program):
As classical liberal economists were usually not employed in institutions of higher learning (the teaching of economic science was not primarily organized within the universities), they built other institutions, from loose networks to political parties. By 1860 governments realized the danger to themselves that the classical economists posed. Their answer was to create their own economists and thus control the market of ideas. This strategy was first applied in Germany with the German Historical School or "Schmollerism" and soon spread to other countries, each with its own specific national feature. John Stuart Mill in Britain for example changed the meaning of liberalism into interventionism, while the Russian government thought that Schmoller was too tame and hired Marxist economists instead.
This trend continued into the 20th century, with Ludwig von Mises being one of the very few setting himself against it. After demolishing the case for socialism and putting the case for radical liberalism, he insisted that no "third way" was possible, as this would invariably lead to a loss of prosperity and in the end, socialism.
In the first half of the 20th century, a number of societies were founded by liberals to counter the trend towards socialism. By 1938, four schools of thought were represented:
Neoliberalism, i.e., practical and theoretical compromise with socialism; F.A. v. Hayek, for whom a small amount of intervention was permissible; Alexander Rüstow, who considered natural hierarchies as necessary for society; and Ludwig v. Mises, who stood for complete laissez faire.
Nine years and one World War later, these groups convened to form the Mont Pèlerin Society (MPS). At the same time, Leonard Read's FEE in America was publishing leaflets explaining the ideas of Mises and organizing seminars and speeches for Mises and others. These activities were extremely important for spreading Mises' thoughts, especially to young people. Ralph Raico, George Reisman and Murray N. Rothbard were among those influenced by the FEE papers. Without the FEE, the Chicago School would have totally dominated the field of free market ideology.
Mises was skeptical about the MPS right from the start; he was particularly concerned because of the participation of certain people. In 1947, he stormed out of a meeting, saying: "You're all a bunch of socialists."
Today, the MPS, a society of eminent scholars, mainly represents Neoliberalism. Therefore, the PFS could play the role that the MPS was originally designed to play: spreading the uncompromising intellectual radicalism of freedom.
(See also Hu¨lsmann, Mises: The Last Knight of Liberalism, pp. 871, 989-90, 1003-10, 1032, et pass.)
This helps place in context the principles for the PFS as announced by Hoppe at its founding in 2006:
The Property and Freedom Society stands for an uncompromising intellectual radicalism: for justly acquired private property, freedom of contract, freedom of association .... It condemns imperialism and militarism and their fomenters, and champions peace. It rejects positivism, relativism, and egalitarianism in any form .... As such it seeks to avoid any association with the policies and proponents of interventionism, which Ludwig von Mises had identified in 1946 as the fatal flaw in the plan of the many earlier and contemporary attempts by intellectuals alarmed by the rising tide of socialism and totalitarianism to found an anti-socialist ideological movement. Mises wrote: "What these frightened intellectuals did not comprehend was that all those measures of government interference with business which they advocated are abortive. ... There is no middle way. Either the consumers are supreme or the government."
 |
Posted by Onebornfree on 09/04/10 09:18 AM
@Onebornfree comment on 9/2/2010 6:17:44 PM
Capt. A.: "I've been a PT going on nearly thirty-one years. I'm too familiar with both 3-5-flag setups! The State, its government(s) detests sovereign individuals and or PTs. In my experience with the rara avis, the true individual who acts to procure those things we've mentioned in other comments Onebornfree, I'd note that the majority of PTs both in Monaco and other equal venues e.g., Campione d'Italia, San Marino et al.,"
onebornfree: I suspected as much :-) . I have visited Switzerland, but not Monaco, Campione d'Italia, or San Marino. They sound "interesting" as does Andorra, Liechtenstein, China, Korea, Japan etc. etc.
Of course, I have read most , if not all , of the original W.G.Hill books, as you probably guessed.
Thank you for the wonderful [aren't they all?]Mencken quote.
Capt. A.: "To become a true renegade, joining the ranks of the disreputable minority! Wonderful stuff! It's glorious stuff when you actually do it! It's not even a thought in the minds of most."
onebornfree: Yes, or as you said elsewhere, an "outlaw".
Capt. A:"To become a PT is to finally understand the paramount importance of being as free as you can possible be in this world at large today. You already know this. At venues on the Internet you sometimes stumble on a site such as The Daily Bell, finding critical thinkers, a cut or two above the average and then some ... maybe. It's fun to drop a hint! Maybe, just maybe a PT's comment might create a stir, enough to get an individual to consider fleeing the collective. Usually not though! Behind sustenance and sex in this captain's opinion comes "tribal inculcation—culture, religion etc., control from birth to death!" It (tribal inculcation) is horrendously powerful in its setup to protect the collective. To think otherwise ... is to not think! And that is precisely what State and government schooling strives to achieve—the voting booboisie! "
onebornfree: In my own experience, people who review PT information usually bring a lot of psychological baggage to the table. That baggage being unquestioned assumptions. [Many, many, unquestioned assumptions!]
Those unquestioned assumptions prevent them from proper unbiased review of PT information, in my opinion.
For example, 2 common assumptions I frequently run across with clients and friends are [you are undoubtedly already familiar with these]:
[1] governments are powerful enough to prevent an individual from becoming freer.
[2] that an individual must create better conditions in society before he/she can be free.
Obviously, anyone welded to these assumptions [and others that are similar] is not going to even "get" PT theory, but will instead choose to stay where they are and "fight the system" or similar.
Oh well. If sincerely interested they must either spend the time and thought in questioning their unquestioned assumptions, or pay someone like myself to help them work through them. C'est la vie!
Capt. A.:"Again, thank you Onebornfree for the websites. This old PT codger "knows" the facts, just the facts! Here's the best to you Onebornfree in your trek toward greater happiness."
onebornfree: And thank you Capt. A. for your eloquent post. You are obviously very well read and educated, perhaps even a published author [?] I'm sure you have a lot of stories to tell!
Good luck in the future- "live long and prosper!"
Regards, onebornfree.
onebornfree at yahoo dot com
|
Posted by Lila Rajiva on 09/04/10 07:32 AM
When the climate emails came out and it was called climate gate..
and I rushed to the wiki page and sure enough they had written a very slanted piece in which the term climate-gate was not used at all. The article had also been locked so no further edits could be made while the climate conference was going on. I blogged it at the time and fortunately, other editors caught it and opened the page for further edits.
|
Posted by Lila Rajiva on 09/04/10 07:30 AM
Yes. I know. That's not the point. It's the wiki redirect that I was pointing out. Wiki shouldn't be redirecting from the page on austrian economics and wiki being the first return is highly suspect. Mises used to be always on top.
|
Posted by Weeble on 09/04/10 02:23 AM
After a little pondering on your view of the power elite and the way they think:
....making the same mistake as elites: Reality is what you want it to be, contrary to natural law......
Try to believe this for a few minutes, Please try.
....Reality is what you want it to be, in keeping with natural law......
I know, it sounds ludicrous, but that is how I change my mind. I believe something, just for a minute.
If it is true, it will stand the test of time. If it is not true, then I throw it away (but keep it in my mental data bank for comparison purposes).
Good night.
|
Posted by Weeble on 09/03/10 09:51 PM
Not trying to insult. If you seek understanding, you need a stable frame of reference (besides Lucid). That reference is physical reality and the laws thereof. This represents thousands of years of work by mankind and underlies the basis of operation of civilization and all of our tools.
Weeble: Lucid, my nom de plume wife, Lucy, has been an ongoing source of amusement for you hasn't it? Glad you like it. My frame of reference is quite well formed, but adjusts daily to new events, new knowledge. I am not embarrassed about yesterday. It was necessary to be where I am today.
Thousands of years ago, people had much knowledge, but knowledge can be lost, and it happened.
You seem to have latched onto something of which you cannot let go. Math. Like your tongue on a steel pole in absolute zero weather. Absolute zero. Ab-so-lute-ly.
Have you read the article you recommended to others the other day? Methinks not. You were the subject that someone else brought up at the end, but it was not you, it was some guy who talked about you, but I defended you (in a way).
I like the way you think, even though it is not exactly the same as me. Bill, you're a good guy.
|
Posted by Lila Rajiva on 09/03/10 09:29 PM
Reply from The Daily Bell
Mises Institute is actually the second mention.
|
Posted by Weeble on 09/03/10 08:43 PM
BR: Trust me. Reality exists. There are rules. Disobey them and, you will be smited [sp: smote is correct]. You seem to be making the same mistake as elites: Reality is what you want it to be, contrary to natural law.
Weeble: Unusual choice of words on "reality is what you want it to be", yet uncannily contrary to your conscious definition. I like the way you think (under the surface). Reality is what you want it to be. But is it contrary to natural law? Are you the master of knowledge on this subject, or can you let yourself be swayed, or bent back on yourself on this issue?
BR: [citing Weeble] :"Care to revise and re-submit based on new information?" [end cite] Just did. The new information is you think the inarguable (fully proven by verified facts and knowledge) can be argued in the absence of facts. No thanks.
Weeble: I have shown you no facts, no numbers, nothing, yet I have spoken quite a lot. You may say it was nothing, but I think it was something. Oh God, not this topic again!
BR: You let me "win" an argument regarding whether natural law tolerates "something from nothing", with zero evidence in support? I give you this: your opinion seems to be based on nothing, which I am sure you believe is something.
Weeble: Oops, I spoke too soon. Negation is not argument. If I had something concrete, then you could see it. I have nothing concrete. That is why the PE are going to fail in their endeavours, because they only see concrete.
End part 2
|
Posted by Weeble on 09/03/10 08:37 PM
BR: Does your car behave in a predictable manner, meaning obey some rules?
Weeble: Most of the time, yes, but the unpredictability of any mechanical device means it is following the rules of breakdown when it breaks down. These breakdowns are easy to define. Are you insinuating we are machines?
BR: And; if it does not, do you argue with it or take it to a mechanic to see why it is not obeying the rules?
Weeble: I would not use the word "argue", just so you can insert a convenient word to imply that you are arguing; with a machine? Some problems, I fix myself. Some problems need to be repaired at the dealer, and is due to the proprietary repair direction that vehicle manufacturers have taken with respect to computers and costing too much for no good reason. I use an independent shop as much as possible. Sorry, but what is the point of this? We, the machines need occasional repair?
BR: These rules are physical reality, the basis of all science and ALL predictable technology around you. These PRODUCTS of fact, reason and natural law MUST behave according to the rules of reality. When they do not, that means some component is broken and not functioning, leading to behavior according to a [delete a] the same set of rules, in a manner which accommodates (adapts to) the malfunction.
Weeble: Physical "reality", as you call it, does in fact explain physical mechanics. When they are broken and not functioning, they are still within your "reality", as you call it. This is the crux of the matter, leading to a false premise. I shall repeat the false premise, so it stands alone.
"....leading to behavior according to [sp] the same set of rules, in a manner which accommodates (adapts to) the malfunction."
My vehicle does not adapt to anything. I adapt to it, so I can take curves faster, stop at the right time... If my car needs repair, I fix it or get it fixed. It does not fix me. It does not adapt to the fact that the left rear tire is ½ a mile back down the road, I replace it with the spare. Dang, the car lost it. What do I do now!
Humans use what is called ingenuity to "think outside the car", I mean box. This is radically different than thinking according to rules. We are the masters of rule bending. The PE do it to us., and we compensate or adapt. Aw shucks, we bend anyway, just for fun.
BR: Call me "determined to win", or whatever, this is sounding like another "something from nothing" argument, where facts are a malleable opinion.
End part 1
|
Posted by Javawerks on 09/03/10 08:28 PM
Reply from The Daily Bell
"So your answer is that you don't have an answer. Nice."
Hm-mm. Here is our answer as previously provided (in case you missed it) and is the result of combined decades of scrutiny of such issues:
"Ha - it is not complex. It is, in our view, an intergenerational, familial conspiracy led by Anglo-American and European families that trace their roots back a long ways - perhaps to Venice, Rome or beyond. If you want names, there are about 10,000 sites and blogs that will provide them. Good luck."
We provide a specific service - analysis of elite fear-based promotions. People such as yourself who may believe in global warming, peak oil, central banking, etc., will have to let "fingers do the walking."
There is much out there that you can educate yourself on if you wish to do so. But that is up to you. We are not in the business of taxonomy (classification of organisms in an ordered system that indicates natural relationships) abstract or otherwise. (Though "abstract taxonomy" might be construed as a somewhat repetitive phraseology for our point of view.)
|
Posted by Javawerks on 09/03/10 07:14 PM
Reply from The Daily Bell
Ha - it is not complex. It is, in our view, an intergenerational, familial conspiracy led by Anglo-American and European families that trace their roots back a long ways - perhaps to Venice, Rome or beyond. If you want names, there are about 10,000 sites and blogs that will provide them. Good luck.
|
Posted by Lila Rajiva on 09/03/10 05:58 PM
|
Posted by Weeble on 09/03/10 04:28 PM
I have to interview 2 people for a job right now, so I will "get you back later", as Arnold would say.
You said a lot of juicy stuff, so I would not be doing you justice with a speedy reply. I have to work till 2AM tonight (17 hr day), so I will be able to work with my hands and think with my head, then write up a storm later on.
Be seeing you!
|
Posted by Bill Ross on 09/03/10 03:38 PM
Does your car behave in a predictable manner, meaning obey some rules?
And; if it does not, do you argue with it or take it to a mechanic to see why it is not obeying the rules?
These rules are physical reality, the basis of all science and ALL predictable technology around you. These PRODUCTS of fact, reason and natural law MUST behave according to the rules of reality. When they do not, that means some component is broken and not functioning, leading to behavior according to a the same set of rules, in a manner which accommodates (adapts to) the malfunction.
Call me "determined to win", or whatever, this is sounding like another "something from nothing" argument, where facts are a malleable opinion.
Trust me. Reality exists. There are rules. Disobey them and, you will be smited. You seem to be making the same mistake as elites: Reality is what you want it to be, contrary to natural law.
"Care to revise and re-submit based on new information?"
Just did. The new information is you think the inarguable (fully proven by verified facts and knowledge) can be argued in the absence of facts. No thanks.
You let me "win" an argument regarding whether natural law tolerates "something from nothing", with zero evidence in support? I give you this: your opinion seems to be based on nothing, which I am sure you believe is something.
Not trying to insult. If you seek understanding, you need a stable frame of reference (besides Lucid). That reference is physical reality and the laws thereof. This represents thousands of years of work by mankind and underlies the basis of operation of civilization and all of our tools.
|
Posted by Weeble on 09/03/10 03:00 PM
|
Posted by Weeble on 09/03/10 02:56 PM
Finally, something I can sink my teeth into. But before I begin, I would just like to comment on your derisive comment on the quality of the Canadian Educational System. From what I have gathered from you, you are a 100% product of that system. I, on the other hand, have only 4 years (26.66%) Canadian, and 11 years (73.33%) UK schooling. Post secondary, I will not get into, for fear that me saying anything beyond me being accepted and entered into a program where 2200 people applied, 120 got interviewed and 30 entered the program, would reveal too much.
Also, before I begin, Captain Ahab jut said that most slaves think they are free.
OK, here we go:
Bill Ross cite: Action: some physical act that has an effect on the physical environment (eg: dropping a rock in a pond; dropping an irrefutable idea among objective thinkers)
Weeble: If an idea is irrefutable, then who can argue with that?
Bill Ross cite: Consequence: how the environment responds to the action (energy of rock fall creates dissipating ripples; all future choices of the objective align to accommodate irrefutable truth)
Weeble: Again, all roads lead to not being able to argue. If you can't argue, how do you learn? Do you have to "go it alone?" That must be lonely.
Bill Ross cite: Reality: the immutable relationship between action and consequence as constrained by environmental conditions (dominant forces / physical laws which determine new equilibrium state)
Weeble: So, your reality is that no-one can argue anything with you, therefore you cannot learn anything from anyone else, so therefore only they can learn from you? These "dominant forces" seem to be the only thing that would cause a new "equilibrium state." No dominant forces would mean a "flat line" state? Code Blue? Are you the dominant force we need to ........argue with, but cannot?
I seem to remember one time, when I was arguing "something from nothing" with you. It was quite enjoyable, until you HAD to win. I let you, because it is not that meaningful for me to win. You had to be dominant.
I, on the other hand, just laid back and thought of England.
Care to revise and re-submit based on new information?
|
Posted by Bill Ross on 09/03/10 02:11 PM
"If you show them freedom, they will free themselves."
NO, we are ALREADY FREE.
I am tempted to comment on the quality of Canadian "education", but will refrain for the simple reason I am attempting to learn DB's "tact".
action: some physical act that has an effect on the physical environment (eg: dropping a rock in a pond; dropping an irrefutable idea among objective thinkers)
consequence: how the environment responds to the action (energy of rock fall creates dissipating ripples; all future choices of the objective align to accommodate irrefutable truth)
reality: the immutable relationship between action and consequence as constrained by environmental conditions (dominant forces / physical laws which determine new equilibrium state)
@PT's
I agree that some freedom friendly jurisdictions exist if you manage to extricate your wealth and get there. I would submit, given PTB's planetary government plans, that:
a) A significant amount of wealth exists in offshore jurisdictions. From a preditor's perspective: yum, yum, tasty prey. The only thing protecting you is national sovereignty (you do have politicians who can be bribed, right?) and legal integrity (ditto for judges).
b) The whole point of planetary governance is a uniform regulatory structure. What makes you think you will not be "harmonized"?
IMHO, the only thing that the PT approach does is move your position on "the list" down (easier prey first). The beast is voracious. You have what it wants. Enjoy the illusion of freedom and security while it lasts.
Then, you will be joining the rest of us.
|
Posted by Nyc on 09/03/10 01:56 PM
Reply from The Daily Bell
Thanks.
|
|
