Tag Archives: Class

Devin Stevens’s Yugioh-Bernie Sanders mashup.

Yugioh TCG Exclusive!

BERNIE SANDERS
Attribute: White
ATK 2500 DEF 3000
Socialist/XYZ/Effect
Rank 4

2 level 4 Democrat Monsters

“If you control ‘Hillary Clinton,’ destroy this card. During either player’s turn, you can attach a ‘Democrat’ monster from your hand to this card as XYZ material. During either player’s turn, you can detach one XYZ material from this card to destroy one face up ‘capitalist’ card your opponent controls. During each standby phase, if your opponent has more cards in their hand and/or field than you do, they send cards from their hand and/or field to the graveyard so they have an equal number of cards as you do on their field and in their hand. All monsters you control have their ATK and DEF equal to this card’s. If this card is in your graveyard, during either player’s turn, you can return this card to the extra deck; this turn, all Millennial, Socialist, and Democrat cards you control are unaffected by your opponent’s card effects and cannot be destroyed in battle.

____________________________________________________________________________________________

Devin Stevens’s Yugioh-Trump mashup.

Follow his blogs here.

Yugioh.

Devin Stevens.

Voluntarism and Capitalism.

Devin Stevens’s Yugioh-Trump mashup.

Yugioh TCG Exclusive! Rise of the Republicans Starter Deck! 20 dollars a box. Features include:

TRUMP’S RED CAP
Ritual Spell Card
“This card is used to ritual summon “Donald Trump.” You must also tribute “white” monsters from your hand of field whose total level stars equal exactly 8. Except the turn this card was sent to the graveyard, you can banish this card from your graveyard; add one “Electoral College” or “Trump Tower” from your deck to your hand.”

DONALD TRUMP
Capitalist/Ritual/Effect
Lv: 8 ATK 3000 DEF 2500

“You can ritual summon this card with “Trump’s Red Cap.” Gain 1000 life points during each of your standby phases. When you summon a “white” monster(s) while you control this face-up card: draw 1 card. If this card is targeted by the effect of a “feminist” card, negate the effect and attach that card to this one as an equip spell card (that card does not count towards your Spell/Trap Zone limit). If this card battles a non-“white” monster, before damage calculation, banish that monster.”

BORDER WALL
Continuous Trap Card
“Neither player can summon monsters except “white” monsters. All “white” monsters you control gain 500 ATK and DEF. If this card leaves the field, you can special summon one “Trump” monster from your hand, graveyard, or deck, ignoring its summoning conditions.”

Yugioh will never be the same again…..

____________________________________________________________________________________________

Devin Stevens’s Yugioh-Bernie Sanders mashup.

Follow his blogs here.

Yugioh.

Devin Stevens.

Trump parody 1.

Trump parody 2.

Voluntarism and Capitalism.

Fem.

Murray Rothbard – Left, Right, and the Prospects for Liberty

Murray Rothbard – Left, Right, and the Prospects for Liberty.

The parts of Human Action by Mises that I most intimately relate to (updated as I currently read and find more things to add).

1. “It is vain to object that life and reality are not logical. Life and reality are neither logical nor illogical; they are simply given. But logic is the only tool available to man for the comprehension of both. It is vain to object that life and history are inscrutable and ineffable and that human reason can never penetrate to their inner core. The critics contradict themselves in uttering words about the ineffable and expounding theories—of course, spurious theories—about the unfathomable. There are many things beyond the reach of the human mind. But as far as man is able to attain any knowledge, however limited, he can use only one avenue of approach, that opened by reason.”

2. “The revolt against reason, the characteristic mental attitude of our age, was not caused by a lack of modesty, caution, and self-examination on the part of the philosophers. Neither was it due to failures in the evolution of modern natural science. The amazing achievements of technology and therapeutics speak a language which nobody can ignore. It is hopeless to attack modern science, whether from the angle of intuitionism and mysticism, or from any other point of view. The revolt against reason was directed against another target. It did not aim at the natural sciences, but at economics. The attack against the natural sciences was only the logically necessary outcome of the attack against economics. It was impermissible to dethrone reason in one field only and not to question it in other branches of knowledge also.

The great upheaval was born out of the historical situation existing in the middle of the nineteenth century. The economists had entirely demolished the fantastic delusions of the socialist utopians. The deficiencies of the classical system prevented them from comprehending why every socialist plan must be unrealizable; but they knew enough to demonstrate the futility of all socialist schemes produced up to their time. The communist ideas were done for. The socialists were absolutely unable to raise any objection to the devastating criticism of their schemes and to advance any argument in their favor. It seemed as if socialism was dead forever.

Only one way could lead the socialists out of this impasse. They could attack logic and reason and substitute mystical intuition for ratiocination. It was the historical role of Karl Marx to propose this solution.”

3. “There was still the main obstacle to overcome: the devastating criticism of the economists. Marx had a solution at hand. Human reason, he asserted, is constitutionally unfitted to find truth. The logical structure of mind is different with various social classes. There is no such thing as a universally valid logic. What mind produces can never be anything but ‘ideology,’ that is, in the Marxian terminology, a set of ideas disguising the selfish interests of the thinker’s own social class. Hence, the ‘bourgeois’ mind of the economists is utterly incapable of producing more than an apology for capitalism. The teachings of ‘bourgeois’ science, an offshoot of ‘bourgeois’ logic, are of no avail for the proletarians, the rising class destined to abolish all classes and to convert the earth into a Garden of Eden.”

4. “It is certain that many intellectuals envy the higher income of prosperous businessmen and that these feelings drive them toward socialism. They believe that the authorities of a socialist commonwealth would pay them higher salaries than those that they earn under capitalism.”

5. “Sometimes a superficial observer may believe that labor performed by other people gives rise to immediate gratification because he himself would like to engage in a kind of play which apparently imitates the kind of labor concerned. As children play school, soldiers, and railroad, so adults too would like to play this and that. They think that the railroad engineer must enjoy operating and steering his engine as much as they would if they were permitted to toy with it.
On his hurried way to the office the bookkeeper envies the patrolman who, he thinks, is paid for leisurely strolling around his beat. But the patrolman envies the bookkeeper who, sitting on a comfortable chair in a well-heated room, makes money by some scribbling which cannot seriously be called labor. Yet the opinions of people who misinterpret other people’s work and consider it a mere pastime need not be taken seriously.”

6. The Creative Genius: Far above the millions that come and pass away tower the pioneers, the men whose deeds and ideas cut out new paths for mankind. For the pioneering genius¹² to create is the essence of life. To live means for him to create. The activities of these prodigious men cannot be fully subsumed under the praxeological concept of labor. They are not labor because they are for the genius not means, but ends in themselves. He lives in creating and inventing. For him there is not leisure, only intermissions of temporary sterility and frustration. His incentive is not the desire to bring about a result, but the act of producing it. The accomplishment gratifies him neither mediately nor immediately. It does not gratify him mediately because his fellow men at best are unconcerned about it, more often even greet it with taunts, sneers, and persecution. Many a genius could have used his gifts to render his life agreeable and joyful; he did not even consider such a possibility and chose the thorny path without hesitation. The genius wants to accomplish what he considers his mission, even if he knows that he moves toward his own disaster. Neither does the genius derive immediate gratification from his creative activities. Creating is for him agony and torment, a ceaseless excruciating struggle against internal and external obstacles; it consumes and crushes him.

¹²Leaders [Fürhrers] are not pioneers. They guide people along the tracks pioneers have laid. The pioneer clears a road through land hitherto inaccessible and may not care whether or not anybody wants to go the new way. The leader directs people toward the goal they want to reach.”

7. “Neither society nor single individuals can substantially further the genius and his work.”

8. “Men cannot improve the natural and social conditions which bring about the creator and his creation. It is impossible to rear geniuses by eugenics, to train them by schooling, or to organize their activities. But, of course, one can organize society in such a way that no room is left for pioneers and their path-breaking.”

9. “He who interprets might as physical or ‘real’ power to carry on and considers violent action as the very foundation of government, sees conditions from the narrow point of view of subordinate officers in charge of sections of an army or police force. To these subordinates a definite task within the framework of the ruling ideology is assigned. Their chiefs commit to their care troops which are not only equipped, armed, and organized for combat, but no less imbued with the spirit which makes them obey the orders issued. The commanders of such subdivisions consider this moral factor a matter of course because they themselves are animated by the same spirit and cannot even imagine a different ideology. The power of an ideology consists precisely in the fact that people submit to it without any wavering and scruples.

However, things are different for the head of the government. He must aim at preservation of the morale of the armed forces and of the loyalty of the rest of the population. For these moral factors are the only ‘real’ elements upon which continuance of his mastery rests. His power dwindles if the ideology that supports it loses force.”

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

Logic.

Intelligence.

Insightful.

Economics.

Politics.

Mises.

Libertarianism and Capitalism.

Genius.

 

What Kind of Love is Philosophy? How is it Different from Other Kinds of Love?

Just wrote this paper for my philosophy class in maybe 30 minutes (maybe a little more). Maybe it’s good, maybe it’s shit. I really don’t know. I think it’s good, but I think that it also may be a pile of shit. Here was the prompt: “Philosophy literally means the love of wisdom. What kind of love is this? How is it different from other kinds of love?” And the following is my response:

I believe that the love of wisdom is a fundamental desire of human beings on the whole. I believe that human beings are naturally wired to want to understand the truth. I believe this is obvious in many ways, and I will illustrate this with several questions that are very frequently asked: “Does he love me?” “Why are we here?” “Is there a God?” “Can we cure cancer?” To these questions, there is a yes or no answer, albeit to varying degrees with the first question. “Does he love me?” can mean that he loves you a little or a lot. “Why are we here?” turns into a yes or no answer because the questions will inevitably be asked “Are we here for this reason?” and the answer will be yes or no, and the questions will continue to be asked. Is there a God must be a definite yes or no answer because He either exists or He does not: there cannot be a “partial” existence, for then there would be an existence, and the answer to the question would be “Yes.” Can we cure cancer is also a yes or no question, because logically, we either can or we cannot. It is not cured now, but that does not mean that it won’t be cured in the future, and it doesn’t mean that it will be, either. So truth is an underlying desire that is within all humans. This is also why there are things such as faith, hope, and beliefs in general. We want to know the truth, so we have faith that a certain thing will give us that truth, or we hope that it will, or we believe that it will. Our existence is not one that wants to be lied to. We are always striving for truth because it is in our nature.

Now, how is this different from other kinds of love? As I previously illustrated, I believe that it is actually very similar, and may in fact be no different at all. As I questioned earlier, “Does he love me?” is a question of truth or no, but it has another dimension in that although 2 + 2 has a sense of truth, it may not trigger the same response. There is a similarity between the fact that “Does he love me?” is a yes or no question, but the emotional response is usually different than asking “Does 2 + 2 = 4?” Both questions have either a yes or no answer, and although I believe that it is certainly possible for the one that asks “Does he love me?” to feel an exact measurement of emotions X and for another person that asks “Does 2 + 2 = 4?” to have that exact same response, even though it would be hard to measure, I believe, as I believe most things are in life, that the relationship between any types of love are subjective. To explain the difference between philosophy and other types of love would be of my subjective opinion, which would be, more than likely, different than the subjectivities of others. I believe that to some, the love is no different. Perhaps they will say that they are happier solving math equations than spending time with their wife, even if they really, truly do love their wife. Perhaps they love animals more so than children. Perhaps it is vice versa. But I believe that in almost every cause, to describe how philosophy is different from other kinds of love really can only be answered on a subjective level and not an objective level. So for this purpose, I say that it can only be different on an individual, subjective level, and perhaps philosophy and other types of love may be very similar within the minds of some individuals while completely different than others. Perhaps an individual reveres philosophy on the same level as basketball, and perhaps another person reveres philosophy as much as soccer, and hates basketball. Could we say that both individuals’ love for philosophy is the same? It is hard to say: perhaps it is, or perhaps it is not. So I really believe that any relationship between philosophy and other types of love can only be solved on the subjective level, which means that everything occurs on an individual level. So, in my opinion, philosophy is a fundamental desire of humans, and human beings vary on their types of their desires and the extent to which they desire them, so they could be felt exactly in the same way or completely differently.

August 20, 2013.

Things that I have for sale on Kindle.

Where you can financially support me if you so desire.