ABOUT TRUTH
and
Was a legal economic unreality in 2008 apparent when the US economy was at the brink of crashing? : G P Brockway wrote this: 1
It is not possible to say absolutely how much money disappears in a crash. Estimates of the losses in 1987 seem now to have settled at around a trillion dollars. Whatever it was, a vast sum simply vanished. [How can something that is real simply vanish?] Stock Markets are indexes of average expected value on which brokeragebased trading occurs, which while symptomatic of an economic crash, are not usually the causal source: producer or consumer sectors of economy are the usual causal culprits. Stock investors, the owners of capital-based claims on productions, however, are primary bearers of capital losses in a crash. And, wage-earning consumers are consequential paradoxical bearers of the crash-based losses. General economy wanes in economic recessions and waxes when relative consistency and balance is maintained between investment-production and product-services consumption (The “golden rule of accumulation” is the economic goal). US politics, however, is unsettled as to the constitutional basis of economic success: B. Russell observed a basic difference involving belief-based truth, and reason-based truth:2 Whatever we are acquainted with must be something: we may draw wrong inference from our acquaintance, but the acquaintance itself cannot be deceptive. Thus, there is ‘no dualism’ as regards acquaintance. But as regards ‘knowledge’ of truths, there is ‘dualism.’ We may ‘believe’ what is false as well as what is true. Temporally, only when all falsehood is eliminated, does ‘no dualism’-based pure truth exist: Then Parrington noted that commonly believed cultural fallacy had conflated natural essence-based rights. Parrington mentioned Ralph Waldo Emerson, as providing ‘no dualism’-based context to the
2 orthodox cultural conflation of naturally essential principles by Federalists:3 As one would expect of a Connecticut Federalist, Theodore Woolsey was renewing the fight against an infidel [i.e., reasoned no dualism-based] philosophy that with its doctrine of natural rights denied the authority of the godly [i.e., a Federalist dogmatic belief] to police society. In harmony with Lieber and Calhoun he rejected the [‘no dualism’-based] romance doctrine of natural rights, and substituted a [‘dualism’-based] composite [hedonist or sensualist] socialistic conception, that from John Winthrop and Roger Williams to Channing and Emerson had colored the Puritan thought of New England. [Federalists concocted the composite socialistic conception.] The political contest is not new, however, as ‘antinomy’ (anti nomos) was attested in this centuries-old passage about the Socratic debate:4 Like Western philosophy in general, philosophy of law in particular first emerged in ancient Greece. In the 5th century BC the Sophists and Socrates, along with his followers, took up the question of the nature of law. Both recognized a distinction between things that exist by nature (physis, with no dualism) and those that exist by human-made convention (nomos, with inherent paradoxical dualism). Sophists . . . tended to place law in the latter category, whereas Socrates put it in the former, as did Plato. Sophists’ legal opinions of old, as Federalists’, were acquaintance-based beliefs, as asserted, that failed to distinguish dualism-based ‘consequents,’ from dualism-free natural ‘antecedent principles’(Whigs did the same when expediently they asserted, as dualism-free economic principle, mechanismbased (determinism-based) causality (i.e., the material World acts as a big machine): Then when in political administrative control of US government, Whigs officially codified the mechanism-based American System of Political Economy: since then, a dogmatic materialist political economic practicing of nihilism and positivism, in the name of “unearned profit,” ignores or says no to dualism-free naturally ‘true’ essential principles. Mechanists’ politically affirmed ideologies blatantly ignore the paradoxical endemic economic determinism, i.e., dualism-based causality, called mechanism, on which the US economy’s deontology is based: inflation endemism, for instance, is a source of a paradoxical economic myriad. 5 Capitalist conservatives are dogmatic believers in unregulated (i.e., self correcting) Supply Side economics, While liberals are convinced by Keynes