—“Lying was industrialized by combining pseudoscience, propaganda, and diminution of standards of education by the elimination of grammar, rhetoric, logic, and economics from our education system.
So we have the perfect storm: the ability to saturate the environment with propaganda, a population insufficiently educated to falsify it, and no means of juridical defense by which a minority can prosecute it.
When we could create a perfect opposition: a population sufficiently educated to falsify it, a media with incentives to speak truthfully, and the juridical defense of the informational commons by which any minority can hold speakers accountable.”— Curt Doolittle
—“There is no such thing as a “perfect” government – and many Classical Liberals (such a the Old Whig Edmund Burke) supported the old British Constitution as the best thing available.”— Paul Marks
In the context a “perfect storm” and “perfect opposition” convey the meaning I intend them to: ‘sufficient coincidence of causes”.
Aside…. I am not sure that’s an argument. It certainly isn’t a criticism of anything I said in the post above. Are you one of those people that confuses meaning as existential and open to deduction rather than normative and not?
We can test normative meaning as we test any hypothesis, and by comparing it to like terms reduce normative meaning to what can only refer to necessary meaning.
We can use allegory to inform, as long as we do not use allegory for consequent deductions.
Now, next, let’s do a little analysis here.
First, it really doesn’t matter what anyone in the past thought. The question is whether a government can in fact calculate and decide, producing optimum ends – and whether we choose deliberately eugenic, market eugenic, market dysgenic, or deliberately dysgenic criteria of ultimate decidability. (Because all competitions in the choice of political commons are reducible to eugenic or dysgenic strategies. (just as all questions of ethics are reducible to violence or not; just as all questions of personal choice are reducible to suicide or not.)
Just as prices and incentives cannot be produced in combination by any other means, nash equilibrium cannot be produced by other means than voluntary exchanges. (Yet both Keynes and Rawls rely upon individual discretion under the assumption of Pareto optimums). Now this is a simple problem of the possibility of possessing such knowledge. We cannot produce prices and incentives by aggregate means and we cannot produce commons and satisfaction by aggregate means.
So it is possible to produce an optimum government and a perfect opposition to the perfect storm. As long as we choose the market eugenic or the deliberately eugenic means of decidability. And as long as we create markets for production(goods and services), reproduction (family), commons (government), dispute resolution (law), market for policies (many small polities).
So hopefully this helped clarify the argument a bit for you (at the expense of my time.)
The Propertarian Institute