Monday, March 20, 2006


"Reagan and I knew, too, what did not work, namely socialism in every shape or form. Nowadays socialism is more often dressed up as environmentalism, feminism, or international concern for human rights. All sound good in the abstract. But scratch the surface and you will as likely as not discover anti-capitalism, patronising and distorting quotas, and intrusions upon the sovereignty and democracy of nations."

Margaret Thatcher

The main characteristic of socialism and of communism is public ownership of the means of production, and therefore, the abolition of private property. The right to property is the right to use and disposal. Under fascism man retained the semblance or pretense of private property, but the Government held total power over its use and disposal. Another importantly underpinned characteristic is that Fascism and Communism were not the two opposites. They were two rival gangs fighting over the same territory. But turning to the point, both were just comparative variants of socialism based upon the pure formulation of collectivist principle that man is ought to be a rightless slave of the state. When we talk about Capitalism we discuss about pure, full, free, uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire Capitalism, with a staunch separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church. The foremost mistakable interpretation that tries to define Capitalism is an altruist version that Capitalism represents the fittest way to attain common good. The most convincible explanation of Capitalism lies within the layer of of moral justification that Capitalism is the only system being always constant with the rational nature of the man: Another important aspect that finally does set the definition of Capitalism is that protects the survival of the man and that its most systematically ruling principle is Justice. The Ethics of Capitalism does not mainly emphasize a method of how to behave accordingly to fulfill the purpose of Ethics. Relevancy of Ethics of Capitalism sustains guiding principles of how (with the assistance of ethical intercourse) to find the grain of hope that would boost the potential of every individual towards the fulfillment of what he or she wants to achieve. The mainstream of Capitalist philosophy is a spontaneous course that enables every individual to be rewarded accordingly for what he's standing for. Traditionally socialism and its defective program of misery would reject such principles and support altruism instead. And what is the moral code of altruism? The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral virtue, duty and value. It would be a disastrous mistake to confuse altruism as the basic component of Socialism with kindness, good will or even respect for the rights of others. The irreducible primary of altruism is self-sacrifice which means that self is a standard of evil and selfless is the ruling principle for good. The Misery of Socialism mainly consists of altruism and collectivism. The latter is the miserable theory that collective group has a moral primacy over the individual. Collectivism holds that in human affairs, the society, the community, the nation, the proletariat, the race etc. - is the unit of reality and the standard of value. In fact such units are the most grounding base of Socialism's ideological performance. On the view of the standard of value, the individual has reality only as part of the group, and value only insofar as he serves it. On his own, he has no political or economic grounds. He is to be sacrificed for the group whenever its representative, the state deems this desirable. So Collectivism means the boldest deception that puts subjugation of the individual to a group ahead of vice versa. Wheatear this may be race, class, or state – it doesn't matter. Collectivism holds that man must remain chained to collective action and collective thought for the sake of what is called the common good. In Socialist theory, common good is oftenly compared to and equaled with social justice. Social justice is just a torjan horse which has been established by totalitarian governments in order to assure the survival of their defective propaganda. The essence of Socialism was and presumably remains the denunciation of Private Property, which remains central to Economic Growth and Prosperity. Ethics of Capitalism cannot institute free-thinking individuals, but it can furthermore help them to encourage their mind and follow the goals they have and ambitions that they attain.

"How do you tell a Communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin."

Ronald Reagan

Friday, March 10, 2006


Excellence demands competition. Without a race there can be no champion, no records broken, no excellence - in education or in any other walk of life.

Ronald Reagan


“Whatever else history may say about me when I’m gone, I hope it will record that I appealed to your best hopes, not your worst fears; to your confidence rather than your doubts. My dream is that you will travel the road ahead with liberty’s lamp guiding your steps and opportunity’s arm steadying your way.”

Ronald Reagan

“...When I saddle up and ride into the sunset it will be with the knowledge that we’ve done great things. We kept faith with a promise as old as this land we love and as big as the sky. A brilliant vision of America as a shining city on a hill. Thanks to all of you, and with God’s help, America’s greatest chapter is still to be written, for the best is yet to come.”

Ronald Reagan, December 1, 1988

"In closing let me thank you, the American people, for giving me the great honor of allowing me to serve as your president. When the Lord calls me home, whenever that may be, I will leave with the greatest love for this country of ours and eternal optimism for its future. I now begin the journey that will lead me into the sunset of my life. I know that for America there will always be a bright dawn ahead."
Ronald Reagan, Nov. 5, 1994

Sunday, March 05, 2006


"Honesty is the first chapter of the book of Wisdom."

Thomas Jefferson

In the traditional treatment of equilibrium, analysis is apparently avoided by the assumption that the data, in the form of demand schedules representing individual tastes and technical facts, are equally given to all individuals and that their acting on the same premises will somehow lead to their plans becoming adapted to each other. Since the very beginning of the civilizations, knowledge has comprehensively contributed its major portion to prosperity that has been delivered by men who kept on trying where there seemed to be no help at all. The knowledge as an object of competition in terms of scientific discovery is ultimately the best defense against totalitarian myths and destructive ideologies that put the preference of anarchism ahead of Individual Liberty that insures everyone from the bottom to the top to move ahead and enjoy fuller and happier portion of his or her life. The function of knowledge is one of the most central parts of comprehensive components that determine the prosperity of the future growth and happiness. Ultimately knowledge is indeed a coherent object that grants power granted from Liberty. But the use of knowledge seems to be to some certain extense "the tool of manipulation". Such cases are perfectly displayed in the intercourse of History. Marxism as a source of evil attempted to institute subjective data as a form of "scientific socialism". But as we shall see later, the fittest function of knowledge is to develop it, put it forward and promote it as much as possible in order to assure the sovereignty of individualism and proper Economic order, that is and presumably remains, free entrepreneurial capitalism. It is also impossible to set arguments that try to imply the structure of free market as an outsplit or a kind invention. Free market was nonetheless instituted, developed or set - it evolved. When people began to launch production they indeed felt a need for exchanging goods. The exchange of goods is the most suitable example of how "laissez-faire" can fulfill the happiness and prosperity of freely sovereign individual subjects. The theoretical approach of the interpretation of knowledge shall be begun with the exposition of knowledgeable "general equilibrium".General equilibrium of knowledge widely exists from subjective and objective data. Those significant types of data cause external effects in spreading the hypothetical construction of potential output of knowledge. In fact, knowledge is a magnificent type of scientific discovery and argument. Knowledge is the most helpful institution to avoid clashes and revolutionary violence that most certainly prefer evil and the reshifting of knowledge in order to reinstitute it as a tool for propaganda ("scientific socialism").Communist-driven doctrine emphasized such devolution, most centrally in Law. Law is, according to Aristotle, a reason free from passion. In other words, law is the concentration of morality. But communist leadership modeled law as a propaganda that is always ultimately correct. Despite describing different conceptions of knowledge, communist ideologists reffered that destructive propaganda as knowledge. That's why left-leaning and communist-minded people will never accept the concept of total privatization of education system, because their education model spreads their miserable ideology and dialectical dogmatism that is the most poisenous way to affect free society that leans its consistence on knowledge, sovereignty and individual prosperity.Imre Lakatos adopted an important concept of "identifying knowledge". Lakatos extracted from the point, that knowledge that is not keenly aware of adopting newly generated hypothesis is definitely not knowledge, because philosophically knowledge requires innovative elaboration and pure measurement of its certain extense. According to Karl Popper, Marxism and Psycho-analysis are perfectly settled example of "non-knowledge" or "pseudo-science" and they present the "deadline", because they are both unaware of adopting dynamic elaborations and newly developed consolations of knowledge. Extensive knowledge must be affirmed on certain events and their dynamic analysis and emphasis. The only condition about the necessity of which for the establishment of equilibrium economists seem to be fairly agreed is the "consistency of data." But after what we have seen about the vagueness of the concept of "datum" we shall suspect, and rightly, that this does not get us much further. Knowledge is further more underlayed on its relevancy and irrelevancy. Irrelevancy of knowledge is seen as an unwelcoming approach to put the knowledge in practice, while relevant conception requires certain optimality that consists of proper combination of subjective and objective data, because both desire logical irritatition. But let's not mix the pure logical theory with compulsory reflections of both subjective and objective data that largely create the instance of certain event. Pure logical theory denies the obvious understanding of subjective data, because logical theory as a theorem consists of objective data exclusively. For example, it's impossible for sociology to be accepted objectively, while this is possible for Mathematics that is the basis of all sciences. If knowledge is not having an objective argument that knowledge cannot consist properly. Thus all the applicable elaborations of knowledge require its mathematical approach, subjective and objective platform, if we speak about social science. In terms of social sciences objective platform of knowledge is reduced to a minimum, with a decent exception of Economics that can be partially researched with "naturalist experiment" that was brilliantly defined by Frank Ramsey (1928). Another part of methodology and research represents "subjective economic elaboration" that interprets Economics as Neoclassical, Chicago, Austrian, Keynesian... Of course it depends on certain methodological structures that usually differ in different schools of Economics.Scientific program that is not keenly aware of generating newly adopted and verified hypothesis is called "degenerated program of pseudoscience" that is and presumably remains dogmatic and nonetheless based upon the analytical value of knowledge. Such cases are astrology and Marxism. Most constantly adopted mistakes that demises analytical value of scientific research in certain science is the wrongfulness and the disagreement on framework. Without agreement on framework, it's never possible to verify the agreement on specifics.But of course, there's certainly a problem of division of knowledge almost as similar as the problem of division of labor firstly observed by Adam Smith in his study called "The Wealth of Nations". Each individual must posses clearly certain optimality of knowledge, wheatear it should be practical or theoretical. In order to assure the survival of knowledge it's clearly impossible to speak about the planning of knowledge, because knowledge as itself is not a dogmatic complex of irrational behavior, but it requires innovation and adopting new and freshly recognized hypothesis. As to that subject knowledge following the mind of rational behavior and the fittest combination of subjective and objective data and certain optimality of amount of arguments, will be ready and steady to become a scientific program that will put "the- competition-of knowledge-in-mind" ahead as a scientific discovery of challenging new conceptions and elaborations, beyond which knowledge will adopt its extensive analytically added value upon which the individual distribution of knowledge depends.


Friderich August von HAYEK, Economics and Knowledge, Presidential address delivered before the London Economic Club; November 10 1936, Economica IV (new ser., 1937), pp 33-54.

Friderich August von HAYEK, Competition as a Discovery Procedure

Karl R. POPPER, The Logic of the Scientific Discovery, Routledge, 1992

Karl R. POPPER, Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach, Oxford University Press USA, 1972

Brendan LARVOR, Lakatos: An Introduction, Routledge, London, 1998

Frank P. RAMSEY: Truth and Probability, The Foundations of Mathematics and other Logical Essays, Ch. VII, p.156-198, New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1926

Steve PEJOVICH, After Socialism: Where Hope for Individual Liberty lies

Steve PEJOVICH, Law, Tradition and the Transition in Eastern Europe, The Independent Review, v.II, n.2, Fall 1997