South Carolina Church Shooting

[william.scherk]

A sobering article from the Atlantic that features the comments of a former federal judge -- and her experience of the War on Drugs, "Federal Judge: My Drug War Sentences Were ‘Unfair and Disproportionate’" ...

Former Federal Judge Nancy Gertner was appointed to the federal bench by Bill Clinton in 1994. She presided over trials for 17 years. And Sunday, she stood before a crowd at The Aspen Ideas Festival to denounce most punishments that she imposed.

Among 500 sanctions that she handed down, “80 percent I believe were unfair and disproportionate,” she said. “I left the bench in 2011 to join the Harvard faculty to write about those stories––to write about how it came to pass that I was obliged to sentence people to terms that, frankly, made no sense under any philosophy.”

[...]

“This is a war that I saw destroy lives,” she said. “It eliminated a generation of African American men, covered our racism in ostensibly neutral guidelines and mandatory minimums… and created an intergenerational problem––although I wasn't on the bench long enough to see this, we know that the sons and daughters of the people we sentenced are in trouble, and are in trouble with the criminal justice system.”

She added that the War on Drugs eliminated the political participation of its casualties. “We were not leveling cities as we did in WWII with bombs, but with prosecution, prison, and punishment,” she said, explaining that her life’s work is now focused on trying to reconstruct the lives that she undermined––as a general matter, by advocating for reform, and as a specific project: she is trying to go through the list of all the people she sentenced to see who deserves executive clemency.

She spoke at Ideas 2015: Dispatches from the Aspen Ideas Festival. Her remarks in full are cued in this video.

[Selene]

A fine film about Ali is very penetrating in one of the fundamental tension lines between black and white in a short quick snapshot of the late 1960's and the tearing of generations and race.

Richard Kiley does the narration and he is quite good at it, even though he is expressionless in his delivery.

Ali is a great man who never shirked standing for his religion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A.k.a._Cassius_Clay

I saw this void expanding in Harlem in the '60s. Also in Philly, S. Jamaica and other "ghettos."

We are still not being direct with each other.

A...

[Selene]

Ah, the rattlesnakes are beginning to commit suicide!

But this year a man tried to drive into the parade route, ramming his car into some bystanders — but not hurting anyone seriously.hurt [incompetent white man can't even hurt someone in crowd with a damn car!!]

Police swarmed the vehicle, smashed in the rear window and yanked out the driver, a middle-aged white man, and arrested him. Chicago police have released no details on the man’s identity nor his motivations for ramming the barricades for the parade.[Anyone want to bet this goes down as a hate crime?]

But by far the biggest disruption was from a large group of “black lives matter” protesters. The group was joined by members of the black queer community of Chicago who announced the disruption on their website.

After noting that they had “purposefully disrupted the Chicago Pride Parade,” the queer group explained their reasoning.

“We do so,” the group said, “because our people are dying at the hands of police, military and state-funded militias around the globe. We do so because we refuse to be tokenized by the same corporations that sponsor state violence, refuse a living wage and profit off our poverty. We do so because young queer people need a better outlet to celebrate themselves than a mire of consumption and sexual violence.”

Actually quite hilarious.

A...

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/29/black-lives-matter-protesters-disrupt-chicago-gay-pride-parade/

[Peter]

Greg wrote: The values I live by and promote are American values . . . and they're colorblind. end quote

As do I, so I award you with a quote.

Bill Gates wrote: I'm a great believer that any tool that enhances communication has profound effects in terms of how people can learn from each other, and how they can achieve the kind of freedoms that they're interested in. end quote

The internet can be such a tool. I think we do learn from each other. What is my evidence? Observation, sorting through the data, and reason. Lets define a term. Dictionary.com starts out by saying evidence is that which tends to prove or disprove something; grounds for belief; proof. Can there be evidence tending to prove an assertion yet the assertion still be invalid? Of course. Some things are frequently debatable because outside of the laboratory people sort and weigh evidence differently. Anthropomorphism (The attribution of human motivation, characteristics, or behavior to nonhuman organisms or inanimate objects) can taint data. Culturalism, and Species-ism also occur even if only subconsciously. So, a rational mind needs more than evidence. It needs reason to be correct about reality.

[Peter]

So, what is proof? Dictionary.com shows several answers: the act of testing or making trial of anything; test; trial: to put a thing to the proof. the establishment of the truth of anything; demonstration. Law. (in judicial proceedings) evidence having probative weight. The effect of evidence in convincing the mind.

RobinReborn wrote: Actually, it's because most people are so stupid that they trust the news, and therefore the journalists get to create reality rather than report it. end quote

There is some truth to that but I think media watchdog groups and American news studio standards do keep the propaganda in check. I watched a bit of a captioned Russian news cast and a French news cast about a year ago and I was astonished at how dishonest both were. The BBC is better. Israeli news media is even better. Ours is the best but I still see bias through the selection of stories and the infrequent plug for a candidate or position.

What can we know for sure? what can we *presume* to be true? I am currently reading a book that is gruesome but informative.

From Memory Man by David Baldacci, hard cover, pages 198 and 199. The protagonist Decker is a policeman, and as you may know from the title, he has a perfect memory of things he hears and sees. Begin quote:

Decker fixed his gaze on the other man. You were at Quantico? BAU?

Behavioral Analysis Unit, yes. I was what the movie and TV folks would call a profiler. And I was pretty good at it.

There are no profilers in the FBI.

You're right. Technically, we're referred to as analysts. And sometimes we're right and sometimes we're wrong. Some say psychological profiling lacks empirical validation, and they may be right. But I don't really care. All I care about is catching the bad guys before they can hurt someone else, and I'll use whatever tools I have at my disposal to do so. He peered more closely at Decker. And I am considering you to be one of those tools.

Meaning what exactly?

Meaning I would like you to work more closely with us. Together we may be able to make headway. end quotes

It's a good book and it illustrates how hunches and observations can lead to the truth or they can lead to a falsehood but theories and hunches do advance knowledge. Who does this professionally? Actuaries. Statisticians. FBI Profilers. Psychiatric Analysts. Sociologists. Military Strategists. Meteorologists. Hunters. Observers of all persuasions. Many professions are not scientific but they compile facts, arrange them, look for patterns, and then they act on their best judgements.

[Peter]

This blast from the past is not entirely moot and it is a bit long, but I thought I would give Allen Weingarten a plug. Peter

From: allen allen23@optonline.net To: Objectivism@wetheliving.com Subject: OWL: The Moral A Priori Date: Sat, 06 Sep 2003 11:02:30 -0400

In my posting on the mind-body problem, I proffered the dichotomy of knowing from within, and knowing from without. Afterward, I received several emails maintaining that since brain activity is a prerequisite for thinking, thought can be reduced to it. I recalled "Human Action" where Ludwig von Mises differentiated between the physically and logically prior. This seemed apt, because it presented thought as logically prior to existence. (Hence it is the mind that reasons, and not the body.) I was going to post this, and recommend pp. 32-41 of "Human Action". However, it became clear that the deeper issue was Mises' use of aprioristic analysis. I found this cogent although it conflicted with O'ism. So I planned to describe his approach, and address the O'ist objection. Yet in the course of doing so, it struck me that Mises did not go far enough in beginning with what is logically prior (and would have benefited from AR's concept of teleological measurement). Consequently, I shall conclude this posting by advocating the notion of a moral a priori, which I submit constitutes the logical starting point for reasoning and behavior.

Many of us appreciate Austrian economics because it advocates the free market and noninterventionist policies. However, its superiority stems from a fundamental departure from all other schools of economics, namely its logical deduction from antecedent axioms. This derives from a philosophical outlook which contrasts with the scientific method (of testing hypotheses obtained by observations). Unlike science, economics has neither constants nor controlled experiments. Austrians, and their doyen Mises, attribute the economic process to intentions and reason.

Mises discusses empiricists who show that reasoning evolved by our ancestors in an historic process. They view logic as a continuation of empirical methods. Mises, in contrast, considers reasoning in terms of the logical structure of the human mind. Logical relations are not subject to proof or disproof, but cannot be denied. He argues that reasoning and human action are not based on findings of experiments or on approximations to reality. Rather they contain exact and precise knowledge of real things. Mises affirms that this knowledge evolved within reality, and incorporates the results of experience and language. However, it presents a new quality, to be understood in its own right (along with apperception). He disclaims any tabula rasa, and states that although experience has been incorporated, reasoning emerges as tools that are logically prior to any experience.

Mises avers that people innately comprehend the rules of logic, which he calls the "analytic a priori". Moreover, they comprehend how others act and think, which he calls the "synthetic a priori". This is known from within, and cannot be learned by sense impressions or experiments, because they must be possessed to interpret what comes from without. We understand causality, purpose and market exchange, from within, and not as a result of experimentation. Observation can show movement or physical properties, but can never demonstrate human action or thought. Using the a priori, Mises reasons how people will use means to attain ends (which he calls "praxeology" for the logic of action) and how they will do so in the economic arena.

It is pointed out that the a priori can go awry in practice, where wrong conclusions are drawn. One drop combined with another drop need not result in two drops. Similarly when we presume that someone aims at profiting from a given transaction, we may err. This does not refute or falsify the analytic a priori, but indicates a mistaken correspondence with reality. Also note that an animal can understand the intent of another, because it possesses intent (such as for hunting or drinking). Yet it too can mistake intentions when there is a false correspondence with reality. (As an aside, Mises refers to primitive man, who thought that prayer would grow crops; he points out that primitive man had the concept of cause and effect, but applied it falsely.)

Oists differ with Mises for several reasons. They oppose the analytic-synthetic dichotomy, because it has been used to deny certainty. This however cannot apply to Mises, since he affirms certainty. They also claim that one applies logic to experience, which prevents conflict between them, with which Mises would again agree. Some have argued that one cannot construct a pure definition or test of analytic that partitions it from synthetic. That however can be done by testing whether it can be captured by a computer program, or by reasoning alone. (Although the analytic and synthetic are metaphysically inseparable, they are epistemologically distinct.) So I find no cogency in arguments against the analytic-synthetic dichotomy as defined by Mises. It is simple reality that there is a difference between showing that a bachelor is unmarried by definition, and demonstrating that he has never taken out a marriage license. Similarly, consider the statement One finds what is missing in the last place he looks. It is analytic when it means that one stops looking once it is found, but synthetic when it means that given n places, one finds it in the nth.

O'ists also object to the a priori since they deny knowledge that did not derive from perceptions. However, Mises does not claim that this knowledge arose in some mysterious fashion, but that it was incorporated through evolution. That process recurs in the fetus and in the child (who learns language and other civilizational structures). Yet, once the a priori is formed, it is understood in its own right, and is logically prior to experience. Consequently, the O'ist requirement that knowledge grows out of reality is not quite contradicted by Mises, who submits that what stemmed from past reality has taken on a new feature (just as life took on a new feature from within reality).

The most fundamental objection to the a priori is due to requiring validation for concepts. Whereas praxeology can err when attributing motives and intentions, O'ism guarantees (barring hallucinations) that sense impressions correspond to reality. It is only O'ism that provides final validation. When one sees a tree it is there, and when O'ism invalidates a concept for contradicting reality, that concept is invalid. Economics and Praxeology lack such a guarantee, because their theories need not correspond to reality. Moreover, although Austrian theories are logically deduced, they are not absolutely so. There are assumptions and some reliance on historical data. Moreover reasoning about human intentions can be ambiguous, and Austrians sometimes differ.

Consequently, the a priori cannot guarantee validation. However, that does not render it invalid or without utility. Let us note the disparity between what is useful and what is validated. Concepts might be useful because they are wholly or partly true, long before they are validated. (As an aside, Godel and Heisenberg demonstrated that certain concepts preclude validation.) Historically, notions were useful long before they fit into science proper. Concepts are often effective before they are validated or perfected, even when containing contradictions. (Can one truly object to the Founder's notion of "inalienable rights"?).

Do we not gain more by including concepts that rarely err, than by exclusion? Do we not gain more by using generally correct concepts, than we lose by their occasional misapplication. Would we preclude the use of addition, since it might not correspond to what is being combined? O'ism is perfect for validation and for what derives thereof. However, much can be imagined that is useful beyond what O'ism provides, as Austrian economics illustrates.

Moreover, note that when AR established axioms of existence and consciousness, she employed the a priori, and expected us to do so as well. We comprehend similarities and differences, and understand that A is A, in contrast with A is B. To deny these notions would be contradictory. It is true that once axioms are formulated, they can be used without reference to any antecedent a priori. Nonetheless, in practice, the a priori are continually employed, especially when formulating new concepts. Here, the concepts of causality and purposeful behavior are taken as given, rather than derived from sense impressions.

I submit that there are things that we know from within that are certain, although we can err in application. This raises an issue that Mises disregards, namely morality. Economics, as he defines it, is a science independent of values (or Wertfrei). He is a utilitarian, and considers economics strictly in terms of material outcomes, rather than as right or wrong. (Mises was asked if he would support Socialism if it improved the standard of living; he evaded, saying But it doesnt improve the standard of living.) However, when people propose a market exchange they can engage in theft or fraud. There is a sense of right and wrong, which if not adhered to will impede exchange. Let us then consider morality that is known from within, including: truth, justice, responsibility, fallibility. The import of these moral precepts is that they guide our reasoning toward what is important. Generally, when people differ about issues, they harp on particulars. However, what turns out to be central are the fundamental principles that guide their reasoning, and these are essentially their moral views. It is true that reality came first, then our perceptions, theories and what is internalized. Yet that being given, one approaches challenges from within, using his morality and the principles for ensuring it. Note that when faced with a challenge (such as a house on fire) our first concern is with what we value. It is on this basis that we formulate what to do. Similarly, when we are not challenged, it is our values that determine what to do. Consequently, morality is not merely one of the components of rationality, but is logically prior to the rest of the reasoning process.

What conclusions can be drawn about economics? There are two classes of definitions for economics: the catallactic which is independent of values; and common usage that views it purposefully. When economics is dealt with in a normative manner it presumes the latter. I believe that most of us are concerned with economics as an extension of our moral vision. We view intervention as wrong, and the free market as right. Moreover, there is a relation between technical and normative economics. The moral precept Do not earn by theft or lies, but by conscientious behavior results in the same policies as volumes of Austrian economics. (Thus, wealth distribution and minimum wages are out, while free market and piece work are in.) I aver that the moral view goes further than the catallactic. For example, the moral perspective indicates that an immoral policy demoralizes people, since it hampers their sense of what ought to be, while a moral policy invigorates them, since it calls upon their integrity. Thus, a moral orientation is causal to economic performance. It may also be noted that the Statist arguments for intervention consistently obfuscate the issue, and are not honest mistakes corrected when shown wrong. So here too what is at issue is morality. So I asseverate that reasoning is not only innate, but that it includes moral guides that constitute the ultimate desideratum for human action.

Now what do we know morally? Each of us is aware that there is truth, justice, and responsibility (although our conceptions of these can surely be false). We know that we possess animal drives, and that there are things we must or must not do. We also know that the analytic and synthetic a priori are necessarily true (but might not correspond to our representation of reality). The axioms of AR are also known to be true, and to correspond to reality (yet while its stated principles are absolute, their application can err.) Perhaps it would seem that moral insights are merely aspects of human action (or praxeology) where man has innate knowledge. However, the moral dimension *directs* human action, because we act to achieve what we value. That which constitutes our highest value is our moral primary. (Thus if we reason and act for our personal enhancement, it constitutes our moral primary.) Human action presupposes purpose, which is therefore logically prior.

AR was well aware of the hierarchy of values, since she wrote about teleological measurement which serves to establish a graded relationship of means to ends. Since mans actions have to be guided by a process of teleological measurement values are logically prior to behavior. That is, one acts to achieve what he values. The individual finds something that brings out the best in himself. It is idiosyncratic and need not matter to another. The important thing is that he be true to himself.

However, there is also an objective aspect to values, in that some are more fundamental than others. Thus algebra is a part of mathematics, which is a part of science, which is a part of understanding. Consequently, when it comes to understanding, the highest value is to develop a Weltanschauung. (Note that Mises' primary was to develop economics, which is a lesser unit than AR's development of philosophy.)

Given the values of truth, justice, responsibility, what constitutes their hierarchy? I would place truth as higher than justice, for I view justice as truth in action; I would place justice as higher than responsibility, for I view the greatest form of responsibility as serving justice. Yet the search for truth does not constitute the primary, since there are underlying attitudes that direct and govern the search, such as conscience and integrity. IMHO the primary is a sense that I call "sincerity" which constitutes a state of being open to life (and ensures truth, justice, and responsibility). Establishing the objective hierarchy of values is a contentious and unfinished job. Still, it is important to recognize that there is a moral a priori which contains absolutes.

How can we take advantage of such absolutes? Let us differentiate between the moral primary of the individual and the species. I propose that the outlook for each individual follow from his moral primary. One defines his primary, determines his objective, develops a strategy for achieving it, and carries it out as systematically as is feasible. (If one did not begin with his highest value, and act to further it, what would he begin with?) Among individuals it enhances moral guides by competition. Those who succeed are furthered by their philosophy, while those who fail are hampered. Thus, the more effective moral guides would predominate.

The broader question concerns the moral guide for a nation, or for mankind. This requires survival and liberty. That is a prerequisite, but cannot be the whole story or even the primary. It is not always clear what aids survival. The Jews who were a religious body survived for millennia under devastating losses, while the atheist Soviets lasted about 70 years, with fewer losses. Mohammedans have lasted for 15 centuries, despite killing and being killed, and are now a billion strong. Liberty is indispensable, but cannot be the sole moral guide since it must be balanced by security and survivability. Moreover, liberty is a means, which must be for the sake of some end (such as mom and apple pie). In sum, the moral guide remains to be established.

As an aside, it was mentioned that using the moral a priori achieves something not found in Austrian economics. The single statement "Do not earn by theft or lies, but by conscientious behavior" derives the same policies as does the voluminous "Human Action". The statement even develop more, since it predicts success by unleashing sound motives while restraining others. Now, unless one starts with the recognition that the moral a priori is the basis for human action, it is a mystery why a moral statement (or even a moral treatise) would lead to the same conclusions as Wertfrei analyses. (I continually ask Austrian economists why the conclusions are the same, and never receive any purported explanation.)

In sum: the a priori is useful and valid, although only O'ism provides final validation for concepts; the moral a priori constitutes the logical starting point and desideratum for behavior, but the moral primary remains to be worked out, using the guide of teleological measurement.

Weingarten

[Brant Gaede]

"Tends to prove or disprove something" is not a proof.

Proofs are logically deductive from X facts. Add in facts to get another proof.

--Brant

[Peter]

I will stop with the old history after this letter and Allen's rebuttal. Peter

From: Rafael Eilon To: Objectivism@wetheliving.com

Subject: Re: OWL: The Moral A Priori Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 08:09:51 -0700 (PDT)

When Allen Weingarten writes of knowledge acquired through evolution of the species as a-priori knowledge, I think he is using the term "a-priori" in a meaning quite different from common philosophical usage. I would say that knowledge thus acquired is just another kind of _a-posteriori_ knowledge, _because_ it is "learned" through the evolution of the species. Like knowledge learned through individual experience, knowledge acquired through evolution is based on reality, at least in the sense that in both cases the results are _tested_ against reality. In other words, both these different concepts of "learning" are a-posteriori, and they both belong in a primacy-of-existence epistemology.

In contrast, the common philosophic usage of the term "a-priori" occurs in a context of a primacy-of-consciousness epistemology. It tells of truths that are found ready-made in consciousness without having any source in reality whatsoever. It thus claims for such truths the power to become _constitutive_ of reality "as we know it," as opposed to reality "in itself." In other words, the common usage of the term "a-priori" in contemporary philosophy reflects a strong Kantian influence, and has little to do with Allen's concept of '"learning"-through-biological-evolution.'

That said, Allen's concept does contradict the theory that the individual at birth is "tabula rasa." My point is that the common usage of "a-priori" claims something quite different than a mere negation of that theory based on acknowledging the role of biological evolution.

Rafael

From: allen To: Objectivism@wetheliving.com Subject: Re: OWL: The Moral A Priori Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2003 10:09:26 -0400

Rafael Eilon believes that I use the term "a-priori" in a meaning quite different from common philosophical usage. The term has been used in various ways, including as he mentions without having any source in reality whatsoever. It is also often used in the manner I mentioned, such as by Mises in Human Action where it not only includes the evolved individual at birth, but incorporates his childhood education (Every man in his youth, starting from the depths of darkness, proceeds through various states of the minds logical structure.) Since there are different ways in which the term is used, we might seek the proper lexical definition for philosophical usage. However, that would not be helpful to the current discussion, since we are using Austrian economics as the springboard, and since I have already stipulated the dictionary definition as existing in the mind, prior to and independent of experience (where the focus is with what is *logically* prior, rather than with what is historically or physically prior.)

Yet let us consider an objective theoretical definition. To define the a-priori as lacking any source in reality whatsoever, would be silly, since the human mind evolved, and so did language. Conversely, there are logical and actual processes that form natural categories of prior-to-experience, and consequential-from-experience. This differentiates the aprioristic methods of Austrian economics from those of the natural sciences. It similarly differentiates the techniques within mathematics from those of archeology. Consequently, I aver that an objective definition of a-priori cannot deny any source in reality. Moreover, the characterization should be less a matter of the source, than its logical state. So I reiterate my previous definition. (As a technical aside, Mr. Eilon claims that what is called a-priori is but a form of a-posteriori. Yet if there is no difference, neither term ought be used. If a-priori knowledge does not exist, neither does a-posteriori knowledge, but only knowledge.)

Mr. Eilon's approach addresses the a-priori as though it were a physical process, whereas Mises offers it as logically prior to any experience. It is less a metaphysical entity, than an epistemological form. One reasons before he acts in reality. This is not refuted by pointing out that reasoning occurs in reality (for it is logically prior). Moreover, it might be recognized that my application of the a-priori has been strictly with its logical form, without in any way dealing with its physicality or source. The source is not pertinent, when we are concerned with its function. The counter argument proceeds as though one were addressing the reasoning about a syllogism, by answering with how the neurons in the brain are activated.

How is it that intelligent philosophers can think about things that have no reality? My opinion is that they are attempting to explain the nature of the mind, and find it helpful to represent it by mystical forms. For example, Plato speaks of forms that are perfect, of which reality is a reflection. There is then pure truth, perfect justice, and ideal beauty, none of which appear in the world. Yet these are used in reasoning. Let us note that when we measure a table, the ruler is viewed as perfectly straight, and infinitely divisible, even though we know that it cannot be that way in reality. Thus, it is as if the mind embodied Platonic forms, where the ruler was a reflection. The contents of the mind are not only those of their real referents (such as tables) but of the forms that represent them. Yet nobody believes that one can sail a boat to a land where Platonic forms will actually exist.

Similarly, the Kantians attempt to describe the operations of the mind. Here, there is recognition of when it functions: by conceptions that drive ones treatment of reality; and by realities that drive ones conceptions. The intent is to represent these logically separable functions. It is not that the motivation is to find their physical source. It may be noted that once a reality is received by the mind, the mind functions with it in an a-priori manner. Consequently, to Kantians, a-posteriori logic is actually a-priori.

Monart Pon similarly takes Rafael Eilons position, and further writes that all knowledge is derived from and reducible to one's experience and perception of reality. So apparently, he would disavow the distinction between our knowing-from-within that people have intentions, and finding-from-observation that actions are caused. Perhaps he would not mind the concepts, but would prefer that different words were employed, such as the a-posteriori before-new-experience and the a-posteriori after-new-experience. However, focusing on such rules evades the concepts at issue. There are things that must be taken as given, which are different from what can only be determined after experience. If someone prescribes rules which aid the analysis of concepts, that is helpful. Yet if rules merely preclude addressing the concepts, that is not helpful. I recommend that if one dislikes the terminology in an argument, he reword it using different terms, thereby ensuring that the concept is addressed.

Here too, I believe that Mr. Pon is addressing what is physically prior, whereas the concept addresses what is logically prior. It is as though he denied that planning precedes dealing-with-reality, because planning has resulted from dealing-with-reality. (He treats the separable epistemological as though it were the inextricable metaphysical.) Would Mr. Pon disavow the axiomatic system of geometry because it takes the axioms and rules of inference as given? He might argue that the system violates the fact that its components have been derived from and are reducible to one's experience and perception of reality. Also, when the axioms are taken as prior to the rules of inference, he might demur, saying that these rules were instrumental in the historic development of the axioms. Thus, if one treats the logical as though it were physical, it is easily proven wrong.

He states that I should replace the moral a-priori by the moral hi-priority, the ultimate "that for which" we act morally. It is true that we seek the moral hi-priority, as the logical starting point for human action. The issue is how to get there. I submitted that just as the Austrians developed their discipline on the basis of synthetic a-priority axioms, we ought to develop a discipline on the basis of moral a-priori axioms. This does not contradict the necessity of employing Oism as the means of validation.

Finally, let me address the problem of Mises disregard of the moral component, and why it occurs. Mises employs the a-priori to address economics. He confines his attention to the scientific and value-free (Wertfrei) component of economics, which he calls catallactics while disregarding normative economics. This is fine when formulating laws (e.g., an increase in demand causes an increase in price). However, when addressing policy, it is incumbent on the economist to include normative factors. To wit, the consequences of punishing performance and rewarding sloth, undermines morality, and consequently the productive process. Why then does Mises disregard such factors?

He mistakenly writes There is no such thing as a perennial standard of what is just and what is unjust. Nature is alien to the idea of right and wrong. Thou shalt not kill is certainly not part of natural lawThere is no such thing as an absolute notion of justice not referring to a definite system of social regulation. It is not justice that determines the decision in favor of a definite social system. It is on the contrary, the social system which determines what should be deemed right and what wrong. So his decision to keep economics value-free stems from his view that life is value-free (save as rationalizations of desires). To Mises, the fact that there is nothing wrong in a lion killing a deer, shows that there is nothing wrong in one man killing another.

AR provides the proper alternative by necessitating an objective morality. Mises could well have used that orientation, to not only include moral factors in economic policy, but to have treated them as the logical starting point within his aprioristic system of praxeology.

Weingarten

[Selene]

This is going to get someone killed this Fourth of July:

US
Activists Plan to Burn American Flags in New York City Ahead of Fourth of July
Jun. 30, 2015 3:31am Oliver Darcy

A group calling for the immediate disarmament of the New York Police Department plans to burn American flags in a Brooklyn park on Wednesday, just days before the Fourth of July holiday.

“Disarm NYPD” announced the “Burn the American Flags” event on Facebook, inviting individuals to join the organization at Fort Greene Park to “set fire to this symbol of oppression.”
Organizers said accused Charleston shooter Dylann Roof wasn’t an “isolated actor,” but a “product of a consistent pattern of state-sponsored terrorism and radicalized dehumanization in America.” The event originally was aimed at burning the Confederate flag, but later changed to focus on the stars and stripes.

“There will be no peace until we tear down this system of oppression,” the group wrote on Facebook. “It isn’t enough to take the flag down; we must put an end to white supremacy once and for all.”

After the event attracted online attention, “Disarm NYPD” defended the event in an online statement.

“We find it a sign of the times that people can care so much about a piece of cloth, while at the same time be so quiet about black churches being burned all over the country,” a post on Facebook said. “Perhaps this is the great difference between us and the so-called ‘patriots’. While they express their loyalty to symbols, we express our loyalty to the lives of the oppressed.”

“We do not believe the ideals of America are anything to be revered.”

It continued, “We do not believe the ideals of America are anything to be revered. We are building something that will be much better than America. While the so-called patriots yell that we should just leave, we instead choose to dream. We dream of what real freedom looks like: freedom from paramilitaries occupying our communities, beating and killing our sons and daughters; freedom from our communities being destroyed by the speculative capital of gentrification; freedom from mass surveillance; and freedom from systemic racism.”

“So, we will burn the American flag, a symbol of oppression and genocide, and in the same action, dismantle our stunted, cynical expectations of what is possible in the world,” the group’s statement concluded. “The current trajectory of history is unsustainable. It is completely unrealistic to desire things stay as they are, and more unrealistic, even abominable, to desire to ‘go back to our roots’. We, the dreamers, are the true realists. We know things can’t continue this way, so we commit to building a better world. A world better than America.”

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/06/30/activists-plan-to-burn-american-flags-in-new-york-city-ahead-of-fourth-of-july/

[Brant Gaede]

What they really mean is ending legal supremacy. It's anarchism at the best, Marxism at its worst. I see Marxism or they'd merely be using bombs. Marxists want power. If you'd actually disarm a NYC police office and don't put him behind a desk, he'll quit. They'll all quit. So the whole thing is a wagon load of blather that maybe comes with the hope someone, preferably a lot of someones, gets hurt or killed (like a bomb?).

--Brant

[Peter]

Arrgh! I just cant stop quoting history. Disarm the police department? Back on Topic. Brantus wrote in 66 BC: "Tends to prove or disprove something" is not a proof. Proofs are logically deductive from X facts. Add in facts to get another proof. end quote

Says you! A bomb, Brantus?

Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: Colonel... that Coca-Cola machine. I want you to shoot the lock off it. There may be some change in there.

Colonel "Bat" Guano: That's private property.

Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: Colonel! Can you possibly imagine what is going to happen to you, your frame, outlook, way of life, and everything, when they learn that you have obstructed a telephone call to the President of the United States? Can you imagine? Shoot it off! Shoot! With a gun! That's what the bullets are for, you twit!

Colonel "Bat" Guano: Okay. I'm gonna get your money for ya. But if you don't get the President of the United States on that phone, you know what's gonna happen to you?

Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: What?

Colonel "Bat" Guano: You're gonna have to answer to the Coca-Cola company.

President Merkin Muffley: Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room.

On the way to The Forum, Emperor Marcus Aurelius responded to Brantus Augustus Gaede: If anyone can show me, and prove to me, that I am wrong in thought or deed, I will gladly change. I seek the truth, which never yet hurt anybody. It is only persistence in self-delusion and ignorance which does harm. end quote

Andrew Taranto, nicknamed Cato, once responded to that by mentioning that: One can convince someone of something by a means other than proof, e.g., by sophistry or propaganda. If a person says, "Prove it to me," he is not simply asking to be convinced; he is asking to be convinced ~by an objectively valid justification~. So, I think that proof does indeed require a person ~to whom~ one proves something, even if that person is only the prover himself. In other words, proof presupposes a consciousness whose requirements of knowledge are satisfied by the fulfillment of certain epistemological criteria. Therefore, if a person asks for proof, he is indeed asking that something be proved ~to~ him, because he is demanding that it satisfy his own understanding of the truth according to rational and objective criteria. To put it in standard Objectivist lingo, proof is objective, but not intrinsic! Although proof is certainly not arbitrary or subjective, it still requires a mind to receive and understand it. end quote

Is Dennis May still active? Does he still love the bomb? It is the stated position of the U.S. Air Force that their safeguards would prevent the occurrence of such events as are depicted . . . . Furthermore, it should be noted that none of the characters portrayed in this film are meant to represent any real persons living or dead.

Our very own Dennis Marcus May (god of war, and model for that movie actor riding an atomic bomb in Doctor Strangelove) responded to that jab from Andrew by adding:

William has written on a topic which has fascinated me since my first geometry class. I will be the first to admit I have never felt comfortable with mathematical or physics proofs regardless of the thousands I have either read, regurgitated, or done. Proof requires auxiliary assumptions which must also be supported by proof. At some point you fall back upon the most basic axioms. Your tree of logic is only as sound as your correct inclusion of all relevant assumptions. My lack of comfort comes from observing the many times errors have been discovered in proofs years later because of in-correct assumptions, neglect of required assumptions, technical errors, missed steps, proof by intimidation [appeal to authority], and any number of other errors in logic. Proof is the holy grail in advancing rational arguments. It is often an elusive goal and very much dependent upon a qualified receptive mind. A thousand qualified rational people can look at the same proof year after year without detecting an error. The person who comes along and discovers an error is to be congratulated but every time it happens I again feel uncomfortable with proofs. I guess proof always remains provisional in my mind.

And Ellen (Lucretia from the Latin for Profit, Wealth) Moore opined: The answer to Dennis's discomfort is "contextual knowledge", and it would be advisable to understand the context of "truth". This belongs to the issue of epistemology - "how do we know when the truth we know is actually true?" Actually it is when there is no evidence that contradicts what we know to be true. In other words, everything we know is evidence that supports [proves] that it IS true - and we know nothing that contradicts this knowledge. This is "certain knowledge". An error is a different thing. It means that one has not validly proven that one's information is true - or it means that one has not applied all the facts and principles one does know to be true. In other words, an error, a mistake, occurs when one has muddled one's thinking. An evasion occurs when one has refused to identify and acknowledge the truth one does in fact know.

However, someone may discover new evidence that in effect sets up a new context of knowledge - the new evidence adds new proofs of information adding a new perspective on old knowledge that was true in that earlier context of knowledge. This only means that knowledge of truth is ~open-ended~ - meaning that one does already know one can always learn new things about new discoveries. This does not contradict what one did know, it merely adds new truths proven by new knowledge. This does not make proof or truth provisional". It is "contextual" knowledge. This should never make one doubt one's knowledge - unless there IS new evidence proven to be true. In fact, it IS just a new contextual certainty of knowledge. Dennis, it is not that proof is always provisional, it IS that knowledge of truth is contextual -- and whatever one knows to be true IS certain knowledge of reality. Get it? I'm not offering a formal presentation here, this is simply an off-the cuff expression of what I learned about objective contextuality. end quote

So, guys. Do we believe our eyes and reasoning or accept what our wisdom tells us is misguided? I am sorry if my having fun ticks you off. Peter

[Selene]

So, guys. Do we believe our eyes and reasoning or accept what our wisdom tells us is misguided? I am sorry if my having fun ticks you off. Peter

It would be so much better if you mimed it...

[Brant Gaede]

I've been flattered.

Or Peter has way toooooooooooooooooooo much timeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee on his hands.

--Brant

I'm flattered anyway

[Peter]

Howdy partners, from the Lone Star State! Brant wrote and I corrected his spelling: Peter has way too much time on his hands. end quote

So, I stitched together some humorous (or serious) thoughts.

H.L. (Halleluiah LouLou) Mencken wrote the editorial below while working for the Baltimore Evening Sun, which appeared in the July 26, 1920 edition: As democracy is perfected, the office of the President represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day, the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be occupied by a downright fool and complete narcissistic moron. - H.L. Mencken, the Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920.

Once upon a time the government had a vast scrap yard in the middle of a desert. Congress said, "Someone may steal from it at night." So they created a night watchman position and hired a person for the job. Then Congress said, "How does the watchman do his job without instruction?" So they created a planning department and hired two people, one person to write the instructions, and one person to do time studies.

Then Congress said, "How will we know the night watchman is doing the tasks correctly?" So they created a Quality Control department and hired two people. One was to do the studies and one was to write the reports. Then Congress said, "How are these people going to get paid?" So they created two positions: a time keeper and a payroll officer then hired two people. Then Congress said, "Who will be accountable for all of these people?" So they created an administrative section and hired three people, an Administrative Officer, Assistant Administrative Officer, and a Legal Secretary. Then Congress said, "We have had this command in operation for one year and we are $918,000 over budget, we must cut back." So they laid-off the night watchman.

NOW slowly, let it sink in. Quietly, we go like sheep to slaughter. Does anybody remember the reason given for the establishment of the DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY during the Carter administration? Anybody? Anything? No? Didn't think so! Bottom line is, we've spent several hundred billion dollars in support of an agency, the reason for which very few people who read this can remember!

Ready?? It was very simple... and at the time, everybody thought it very appropriate.

The Department of Energy was instituted on 8/04/1977, TO LESSEN OUR DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL. Hey, pretty efficient, huh? AND NOW IT'S 2015 -- 38 YEARS LATER -- AND THE BUDGET FOR THIS "NECESSARY" DEPARTMENT IS AT $24.2 BILLION A YEAR. IT HAS 16,000 FEDERAL EMPLOYEES AND APPROXIMATELY 100,000 CONTRACT EMPLOYEES; AND LOOK AT THE JOB IT HAS DONE! (THIS IS WHERE YOU SLAP YOUR FOREHEAD AND SAY, "WHAT WERE THEY THINKING?") 38 years ago 30% of our oil consumption was foreign imports. Today 70% of our oil consumption is foreign imports. Ah, yes -- good old Federal bureaucracy. NOW, WE HAVE TURNED OVER THE BANKING SYSTEM, HEALTH CARE, AND THE AUTO INDUSTRY TO THE SAME GOVERNMENT? Hello!! Anybody Home? Signed....The Night Watchman

Texas pageant MC: what is the capital of Texas? Contestant: T.

If he was as dumb as dirt he would cover about an acre.

Im a second hand vegetarian. Cows eat grass. I eat cows.

Bull riding got started in Texas by a guy who said: Hold my beer and watch this.

Due to the price increase for ammo do not expect a warning shot. If you can read this, you are in range. One last time, varmint! I own a firearm and a backhoe.

Do not cross this pasture unless you can run across it in 9 seconds! The bull can do it in 10.

Tornado warning. All residents are advised to go to Cowboy Stadium because there is no chance of a touchdown there.

Hunter was 4 years old and was staying with his grandpa and gramma for a few days. He'd been playing outside with the other kids. Then he came inside the ranch house, took off his cowboy hat and asked, 'Grandpa, what's that called when two people sleep in the same bedroom and one is on top of the other?'

His Grandpa was a little taken aback, but he decided to tell him the truth. 'Well, Hunter, it's called sexual intercourse.

Oh, Little Hunter said, 'OK,' and went back outside to play with the other kids. A few minutes later he came back in and said angrily, 'Grandpa, it aint called sexual intercourse. It's called Bunk Beds. And Jimmys mom wants to talk to you.'

[Selene]

You are not funny.

[Selene]

I heard about this yesterday and was surprised that this was the seventh (7th) since the Charleston massacre a few weeks ago.

I immediately put my "after this therefore because of this human reaction in check."

However, it is rather peculiar.

This is the seventh black church to burn across five southern states since the Emanuel AME Church shooting, but so far the fires don’t appear to be related.

Agents from the State Law Enforcement Division were on their way to the church before the fire was out, Division Chief Mark Keel said. But he said they will have to wait until the hot spots are extinguished before using dogs and other investigative tools to figure out what started it. He said investigators will be on the scene first thing Wednesday morning.

Sadly, this church was torched some twenty (20) years ago by two (2) despicable KKK cowards.

http://atlanta.cbslocal.com/2015/07/01/seventh-black-church-burns-in-south-since-charleston-church-shooting/

A...

[Selene]

I moved this post from Derek's thread wherein he would prefer posts with a personal nexus which makes perfect sense.

If this does not belong here, tell me Derek and I will delete it and move it to another thread.

Quote

These data, in addition to being crucial for today's debates over criminal-justice disparities, allow us to do some quick math to check Unz's thesis. According to the Census, in 2012-13 there were 195 million non-Hispanic whites, 37 million non-Hispanic blacks, and 53 million Hispanics (of any race). And multiplying out the numbers in the top row above, we find that 2.8 million annual victimizations were perpetrated by whites, 1.5 million by blacks, and 960,000 by Hispanics.

Which allows us to (very roughly) estimate rates of committing violent crime, using victim surveys and thus avoiding some of the problems with arrest and conviction rates:

Whites 14 per 1,000
Blacks 40 per 1,000
Hispanics 18 per 1,000

Quote

So, Hispanics have a higher rate than whites — almost 30 percent higher. But Hispanics also tend to be younger. In the 2012-13 Census data, 41 percent of Hispanics are age 16-40, compared with 30 percent of whites and 36 percent of blacks. So, relative to whites, Hispanics are about 30 percent more likely to commit violent crimes, but also about 30 percent more likely to be in the age range where violent crimes are most common. If there's a gap, age might explain it, as Unz suggested.

Here are the numbers:

Quote

charleston-shooting-obama-race-crime-sta

The despicable part of the article is that the State has changed how they "count the beans" and then hid their lie in semi-full view.

So here we have the eternal cry of the enslaved..."Who was watching the Watchman?" And that my friends is the secret to fascism.

A...

http://www.realclearpolicy.com/blog/2015/07/01/justice_departments_hidden_race_data.html

[9thdoctor]

People want justice.

Letting the one that murdered your family sit on death row eating 3 squares a day?

Here's a report on prison food. Enjoy some schadenfreude.

https://www.themarshallproject.org/2015/07/07/what-s-in-a-prison-meal?ref=hp-1-111

[Selene]

People want justice.

Letting the one that murdered your family sit on death row eating 3 squares a day?

Here's a report on prison food. Enjoy some schadenfreude.

https://www.themarshallproject.org/2015/07/07/what-s-in-a-prison-meal?ref=hp-1-111

Still looks a lot better than Michele "Dominatrix" O'bama's school lunches.

Also, it would be interesting to find out what is available in their commissary to supplement the meals.

A...

[Jjeorge]

People want justice.

Letting the one that murdered your family sit on death row eating 3 squares a day?

Here's a report on prison food. Enjoy some schadenfreude.

https://www.themarshallproject.org/2015/07/07/what-s-in-a-prison-meal?ref=hp-1-111

Still looks a lot better than Michele "Dominatrix" O'bama's school lunches.

Also, it would be interesting to find out what is available in their commissary to supplement the meals.

A...

They look to be about the same quality as the food I had in high school, to me.

I can think of a few of the regulars they gave us that Id have killed to have replaced with some of these.

[Peter]

Ninth Doctor wrote, "Here's a report on prison food. Enjoy some schadenfreude."

A few years ago an article told how some people commit minor crimes just to be put into county and city lockups to avoid the cold and to be fed. Sussex County Delaware caught on to the scam and put the destitute people back on the streets.

A more recent article talked about the fact that many homeless people are mentally ill and I think they were in the majority (of street people.) If you include "Travelers" who go by hitchhiking around the country with backpacks (to fairs and concerts like Juggalo concerts for fans of Insane Clown Posse) and the number of mentally ill, incarcerated, and homeless grows. Heroin is cheaper self medication than weed in some places. I suppose this is Darwinism at work, because the defective are dying and not reproducing.

[9thdoctor]

Dylan Roof can only look forward to bad meals for the rest of his life. Admittedly It won't be as bad an existence as One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich. Not nearly.