The title makes the article look like a hilarious satire but Joe is serious.
Conservative liberals once again concede the ground to progressive liberals and defend every horrific mass murdering ideology of the past century, which yesteryear’s liberals rejected, and sound the trumpet of freedom to think and spread errors as far and wide as possible.
Note the hypocrisy of condemning the error of condemning errors. If we can’t murder them today we will shame those medieval book burning totalitarian muredrous Nazis out of civil liberal society.
It doesn’t matter if the maxim is true, only that authority was abused and it is opposed to Current Year Liberalism (now called Conservatism).
If I should ever again doubt the evil of price gouging:
Doubtless, before deciding whether wages [are] fair, many things have to be considered; but wealthy owners and all masters of labor should be mindful of this – that to exercise pressure upon the indigent and the destitute for the sake of gain, and to gather one’s profit out of the need of another, is condemned by all laws, human and divine. (Rerum Novarum 20)
Though Leo XIII is speaking within the context of discussing just wages, he demonstrates the general principle upon which it is based. This principle is applicable to price gouging in so far as it attempts “to exercise pressure upon the indigent and the destitute for the sake of gain.”
One of the evils of freedom [sic] of religion is the violence it does to the weak, poor and simple. The strong, rich and intelligent have the leisure and capacity to go out of their way to study their faith and come to a rich understanding of the truths of Catholicism. However, the poor and simple do not have that leisure and are frequently left to the movements of the larger culture. This is a violence against them particularly, though the strong suffer as well, because it is immeasurably difficult to come to the knowledge of the truth when Catholicism is restricted and oppressed from its proper place of dominance in society as the fullness of the truth and the ordinary means of salvation for men. What men in general are left with is a society where at best agnosticism is dominant and at worst the religious must be eliminated for their faith which stands contrary to freedom [sic] of religion.
Freedom [sic] of religion ensures that religious believers are always the Low Man, suffering dhimmis until the final liberal solution is enacted. It is difficult to look back recognizing that I saw this as the last fortress against the wave of secularism as I suspect many religious still do, but now if it isn’t the rope religious people will be hung with, it’s made of the same fibers.
Liberty is the scope of licit action.
Licit is morally permissible.
Morally permissible is restricted by moral principles.
Therefore the scope of licit action is a restricted scope.
Therefore, libertine action is restricted action or Liberty is Restriction.
One more reason I have been skeptical of Zippy’s positions is the conclusion that a tiny fraction of people have gotten it right, namely Zippy, some of his followers and perhaps some others out there.
This is in no way an argument against the position. That would be fallacious. Rather I see similar cultish behaviors around Catholics who reject capitalism, who argue for geocentrism, sedevactantist and others among my particular circle of interests.
It is this small band of insiders who have it right and everybody else is crazy, ignorant or unreflective. This goes to my prior concern that the most intelligent people I respect seem to be committed liberals, at least to some liberal principles.
But like a physical theory I can’t help but admit the empirical evidence and the coherence of the argument.
Having watched “Kitchen Nightmares” a few times, the key principle of Ramsey’s approach that I can discern is simply to give people what they want. This is made clear in his method in early seasons and by where the series went in later seasons (i.e. people wanted episodes about disgusting and horrifying restaurants and emotional explosions rather than course corrections).
There are several corollaries of this principle. Mostly it is doing a good job with what you do, providing a high quality service to your customers in a pleasant environment. There are specifics about the restaurant industry, but it is a relatively simple principle. Most of the people go astray because they serve low quality food in ugly establishments or haven’t found a niche or are working in a highly competitive market.
So to be a good entrepreneur, at a minimum meet a need in a way that people want it to be met and do it in a high quality fashion for a decent price.
I’ve made some decisions as a result of my understanding of usury. First is that I ought not to borrow at usury as near as possible. Moreover it is probably illicit to borrow at usury from a credit card company given they reward borrowers for participating in their usury rings. I’ll discuss this more formally at some point but given what usury is this strikes me as closely akin to prostitution.
My second decision is to proceed along the path of quantitative finance. At first I feared proximity to participating proximately in usury, but if there are no moral quants in the world how will it change.
A first view of my future came to me a day ago. My coworker explained how he doubled his money in a couple days trading crytocurrencies. He acknowledged it was a bubble and I further argued that his crytocurrency was in fact worthless that he was trading little nothings wrapped in electronic bits and hip sounding names. He gave me a blank stare and continued talking about how much he made and could make.
It hit me like a pile of bricks. Even though he was generally decent guy, he didn’t give two shits about what it was worth in reality but only how much money he could make, particularly so he could have a nice car. This might lead me to despair but it only strengthens my resolve that someone in that vile company of usurers and void dealers ought to care about what is real and what is not.