Thimbron

Moral relativism holds that there is no universal conception of moral right and wrong, and that right and wrong is relative only to the predominant culture in which an action is being considered.

Therefore what is considered murder in one culture may not be so considered in another, and moreover the act may not be judged outside of the cultural context in which it occurs.

I refute moral relativism with the argument that it is a self-contradictory, and thus invalid concept, since it requires and yet cannot sustain the concept of tolerance.

As an illustration, consider that in order for the notion of moral relativism to hold, a universal moral good is required, that being tolerance. This however, is a contradiction of moral relativism which requires that there be no universals.

[WIP]

Von Mises was a praxeologist, who reasoned about economics from principles of human behavior, rather than from studies.

He seems mainly to be known for his critique of socialism that being that it is not possible in a centrally planned economy to make all necessary economic calculations. This is an idea I’ve known about for a while, but didn’t know where it originated.

Popescu’s “differential” of Von Mises’ Liberalism and Socialism

First off, much evidence points to democracy being an immoral and ultimately destructive form of government, and I do not advocate it in any way. That said, this is the system most of us with computers hooked up to the internet live in, and so we must cope.

When debating with friends or online about political candidates and comparing them, (Trump and Hillary, for example), the debate often turns into a game of ‘who has the worst scandal, and which of those are actually scandals.’ This is a pointless game to play usually because no standard for scandal is ever defined. Not only that, but let’s say there’s a standard being used – it seems likeley that any actual adult politician would come out less favorably compared to the standard than your average 13 year old girl, who is likely completely scandal free.

A better standard for for election to public office is accomplishment. Having been elected is an accomplishment of sorts, however the better part of election is having a name, and a name can be earned without much accomplishment, simply by being born to a family with a name, or marying into a family with a name.

Without yet defining a standard for accomplishment, I’ll list a few men and women who have accomplished great things: Aristotle, Isaac Newton, Douglas MacAurthur, Alexander, Julius Caesar, Charles Babbage, and Ada Lovelace.

Some of the accomplishments of these people involve leading large numbers of men, while others are of a more intellectual nature. Of the two types of accomplishment, those related to leading seem most closely related to the role of a public official, especially to an executive role.

So a standard for accomplishment could be: success in leading complex organizations in achieving concrete, substantial goals that leave the organization, the country, or the world better off, preferably in a voluntary (i.e. non-democratic) context.

This is the standard I use when considering political candidates outside of their ideological leanings.