Lying in Politics

Lying does not offend me. If it did I would be unhappy every waking hour. Countless institutions employ lying as a path to profit. How often is a bad happening blamed on the “lying media?”  This is as if something else is expected from the media. Given how the media is funded, how could it be any other way? All of the revenue the media receives is earned by lying and embellishing on the behalf of advertisers. Oh, talk show hosts for example, constantly claim they only support products and services they truly believe in. Of course, that in itself is a lie. When lies would be illegal if delivered in regular language, the same message is delivered with images and videos. Lies are totally common in everyday life . I am not going to call for a moratorium telling lies. The silence would be more than I could handle.

There are lies that are dangerous and life threatening. These lies where a person is caught telling lies, changes the subject temporarily and then start telling the sames lies again. People then believe the lie the same as they did the first time they heard it.

These are the kinds of lies Hillary Clinton tell. These kinds of lies can be treated as the truth only by people who are liars themselves. A Hillary Clinton supporter is not going to turn against her when she is caught in a lie. To do so would be to discredit themselves along with  Hillary. Is a lie necessary in the sense that the end justifies the means? Hillary’s supporters believe that it is.

With that I will give you now  some natural lay. The notion that the end justifies the means is a complete myth. The truth is that the means creates the end independently of any intentions.

 

(Visited 15 times, 1 visits today)
0 0 votes
Article Rating

About Fantasy Free Economics

James Quillian independent scholar,free market economist,and teacher of natural law. Who is James Quillian? Certainly I am nobody special, Just a tireless academic and deep thinker. Besides that, I have broken the code with respect to economics and political science. Credentials? Nothing you would be impressed with. I am not a household name. It is hard to become famous writing that virtually no one in the country is genuinely not in touch with reality. But, if I did not do that, there would be no point in my broking the broken the code. If you read the blog, it is easy to see that there are just a few charts, no math and no quantitative analysis. That is not by accident. Given what I know, those items are completely useless. I do turn out to be highly adept at applying natural law. Natural law has predominance over any principles the social science comes up. By virtue of understanding natural law, I can debunk, in just a few sentences , any theory that calls for intervention by a government. My taking the time to understand the ins and outs of Keynes General Theory is about like expecting a chemistry student to completely grasp all that the alchemists of the middle ages thought they understood in efforts to turn base metals into goal. Keynesian theory clearly calls for complete objectivity. Government can only make political decisions. Keynesian techniques call for economic decisions. So, why go any further with that? Fantasy Free Economics is in a sense a lot like technical analysis. Technical analysis began with the premise that it was impossible to gain enough information studying fundamentals to gain a trading advantage. Study the behavior of investors instead. Unlike technical analysis, I don't use technical charts. What I understand are the incentives of different people and entities active in the economics arena. For example, there is no such thing as an incentive to serve with life in the aggregate. In the aggregate, only self interest applies. It is routinely assumed otherwise. That is highly unappealing. But, I am sorry. That is the way it is. I can accept that because I am genuinely in touch with reality. Step one in using Fantasy Free Economics is for me to understand just how little I really know. A highly credentialed economist may know 100 times what I do based on the standard dogma. Compare the knowledge each of us has compared to all there is to know and we both look like we know nothing at all. There is always more than we don't know than what we do know. I am humble enough to present myself on that basis. Why? That is the way it is. I am not bad at math. I have taught math. What I understand is when to use it and when to rely on something else. Math is useless in natural law so I don't use it. While others look at numbers, I am busy understanding the forces in nature that makes their numbers what they are. That gives me a clear advantage.
This entry was posted in Daily Comments and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

1 Comment
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments