2+2=5

In the world of Mathe (Its a priori is "Axiom"), 2+2=5 is wrong.
In the world of nature (Its a priori is "Fact"), if we apply mathe to measure the fact, 2+2=5 is false so it requires a re-examination.

By contrast, in the world of words (Logic, Social Science, History, and Law), the story is different from these previously mentioned worlds.

When there are two individuals, A and B, A*B is considered as the public/community composed of the individualities, A and B. Thus, in the world of words, there is always an incidentally created component which cannot be explained by either Mathe rule or natural science.


In econometrics, when we run the regression analysis based on these symbolic logic algebra, the formula should be

Y = β_0 + β_1 * A +  β_2 * B + β_3 * (A*B)

Let's denote the dependent valuable "Y" is the sum of utility of A and B and the public/community A*B. 
β_0 is an intercept which can be explained as neither A nor B.
β_1 is a coefficient of the individual A,
β_2 is a coefficient of the individual B,
and then β_3 is a coefficient of the public/community A*B. 



A union of "A" and "B" produces "A", "B", and "A*B" (The intercept of A and B). When both "A" and "B" contain a quantity of 2 in itself, and "A*B" contains a quantity of 1, then (A=2)+(B=2)=A+B+A*B=2+2+1=5.

When "A∪B = "A+B-(A∩B)" is described as an arithmetric function "A+B+(A*B)", Let Y the answer for "A∪B" = "A+B-(A∩B)" = "A+B+(A*B)",
∀ Y ∈ ( X_1, X_2, X_3 ),
∃ i ∈ (1,2,3), and ∀ X_i ∈ (0, 1),

∀ A ∈ ( X_1, X_2, X_3 )
∀ B ∈ ( X_1, X_2, X_3 )

Then, A∈(0. 1) and also B∈(0, 1),

For example,
A_i ∈ ( 1, 1, 0 ) = 2
B_i ∈ ( 0, 1, 1) =2 ,
then
A*B ∈ ( 0, 1, 0 ) =1

When A=2, B=2,
Y = A + B = 2 + 2 = "A∪B = "A+B-(A∩B)" = "A+B+(A*B)"= 2 + 2 + 1 = 5 
∴ 2 + 2 = 5

D&D Alignment Chart: Economic Theorists

This is the D&D Alignment Chart which shows the philosophical position of historically famous economic theorists and how hedge fund operates. This alignment chart describes these economists' personality based on the D&D alignment chart characteristics: Lawful v.s. Chaotic on the X-axis and Good v.s. Evil on the Y-axis. The definition of these characteristics follows what "Wizards of the coast" defines.

The method of measuring the characteristics of these historically famous economists is based on the author's subjective assumption. For example, "Good" owing to what D&D alighment chart means serving others well. So, in this spectrum, the "Good" economist attempts to keep the utility of all individials living as high as possible. The "Evil" economist is conservative, stubborn, and/or spontaneous so that her/his economic theory takes selfishness and carelessness of economic agents for granted. The "Lawful" economist supports encouraging economic growth at a stable pase and uses the dynamic analysis. The "Chaotic" economist cares about the drastic reform rather than the stability and uses the "short-termist" analysis.

So, I will show how my spectrum labels these remarkable economists (I have chosen 8 famous economic theoriests who had influenced to introduce a new paradium in the study of economics):



John Maynard Keynes: Lawful Good (The Crusader)
Lord Keynes is the person who saved the life of the global capitalism and reformed it to be a more sustainable one. Therefore, he is worth to be seen as the crusader of economics. He supported remaining the market system itself, but he insisted that the agents have to change their attitude toward economy when both the scale (The quantitative aspect) and the characteristics (The qualitative aspect) of economic activities change in order to become able to adapt to the new environment and stablise it.

Keynes is the "Lawful" because his main aim is to stabilise the business cycle by the intervention policy. He claimed that both the highly volatile economy and the economy going either up/down at a very high pase harm individuals' life very seriously. He supported remaining the free market system (Socialists call it capitalism) itself. Nonetheless, he also claimed to establish some non-profit oriented institution which intervene into economy to change the stream of the market mechanism if necessary.

Keynes is the "Good" because he thought of the well-being of all individuals in all the social classes. He detested that the powerful minority individuals take advantage of the volatile economy, the recession/depression, and the economic bubble while the majority individuals seriously suffer from it. At the same time, he was against the proletariats' revolution which socialists craved for because he was concerned about a serious continous chaos caused by the regime dominated by uneducated and/or uncivilised working class mobs. He definitely supported the balance of social reforms on the top of economic reform.



Milton Friedman: Neutral Good
Prof. Friedman aspired to offer a freedom for many people and keep the economic system flexible. Some socialists claims Prof. Friendman is a conservativist, but he is not. He supported many changes and reforms if it is necessary to offer all people to obtain the freedom and fight against any totalitarian oppression!

Friedman is neither the "Lawful" nor the "Chaotic" because he cared too much of neither stablity nor a big commotion. Although he supported a certain degree of the intervention into the business cycle, his main objective was freedom of choice. Furthermore, he was afraid of that the responsibility of either government and the big world wide institutions becomes very high enough to restrict each individual's freedom.

Friedman is the "Good" because he attempted to offer the great sum of utility to all individuals living in this world by establishing the system offering the freedom at the highest possible level.



Karl Marx: Chaotic Good (The Rebel)
Marx, the revolutionary, is known as the most remarkable hero for socialists. He was highly sceptical about how people in the world took how the contemporary world economic system operateed for granted. He devoted to creating a new economic theory which completely contradicts the currently existing paradium.

Marx is the "Chaotic" because he encouraged provoking an unresting drastic revolution which would even cause a havoc. Unlike Keynes and Friendman who cared about all individuals from all classes, Marx was extremely in favour of his loving proletariats. Some intellectuals who are called Neo-Marxists are more rational than Marx himself enough to take care of all individuals. However, Marx himself was really close minded and enthusiastically insisted on the fundamental socio-economic transformation.

Marx is at least the "Good" because his fundamentalism took account of offering the majority's well-being. Although he categolised the minority bourgeoigie as an ultimate fatal enemies of the majority proletariat (Many current Marxists argue that the individiauls categolised into the middle class are nowadays "proletarised" more than they used to be), he wanted "everyone" to enjoy his dreaming new economic administration created by his brand new economic paradium.



Thomas Malthus: Lawful Neutral (The Judge)
Mr. Malthus is still respected by both many conservativists and many environmentalists. His concern on the possible extinction of natural resources and even an earth itself sympathised some cohort of individuals from both the Rightwing and the Leftwing.

Malthus is a typical representative of the "Lawful" economists due to the mathematical rigorousity seen in his economic theory. He was one of the firstest economists who applied "the law of conservation of mass" to economics. Everything has a limit on its quantity so that the natural resources such as foodstocks, which feed growing human population, is obvously not unlimitted. Therefore, it is never guaranteed that the rate of food productivity growth keeps the same pase as the rate of increase in the demand of foodstocks. Furthermore, even though the food productivity growth increases, it is highly possible to cause the exploitation of the narual resources existing our narual world. This has been diarectically proven by the las of conservation of mass.

Malsus is neither the "Good" nor the "Evil". He is not the "Good" because he had never supported any stimulus plan which would encourage the well-being of individuals. In a way, he and his theory were very stoic. He claimed that individuals have to be patient enough to cope with their tough life situation. Then, their patience would lead to the reasonably good life guaranteed stably in the long run. He demonstrated that the combination of the stably lowered population growth and encouraging the morally good life style increases the income per-head so that improves the living standard for everyone. Therefore, he is not the "Evil" either because he did not particularly take selfishness and carelessness of economic agents for granted. His aim was to establish the sustainable balance of reserving the sufficient natural resources and the humans' economic activity.




..... To be continued (I will update this post as soon as possible)

Adam Smith: True Neutral

David Recardo: Chaotic Neutral (The Free-Minded)

Friedrich August Hayek: Lawful Evil (The Dominator)

John Nash: Neutral Evil(The Backstabber)

Hedge Fund Managers: Chaotic Evil(The Destroyer)





Economic Political Compass/Spectrum

Rationality is motivated by either an irrational fundamental principle or an evil intricatism

If a person acts and thinks very rationally, the principle motivating them is very irrational. Rationality only applies to back up defending our own fundamental principle, and a fundamental principle existing in our mind is always irrational i.e. emotional, biological, intuitive, superstitious, inspired by experience and sensation, and the reason to obtain some objective value.

Even Mathematics is based on axiom which is totally detached from rationality.

Thus, there is nothing completely rational in this world, we must admit.

If a person is arguing very complicated and unrealistically rational without any irrationality, we must be warned to see this person as an intricatist. An intricatist is only interested in tricking the opponents to be confused, and does not have any spiritual means of living.




The fundamental principle can be the motivation by some objective value which is rationally deriven. But, irrational factors are inevitably involved in the calculus of rationality. So, there is also the case that "The fundamental principle / a priori is rationally deriven, but the methods applied to back up the fundamental principle / a priori can be very irrational". All in all, there is neither 100& irrational nor 100% rational.

My rational thought is also deriven from my rational biological function as well. I have also tried to rationally find the reason why I am existing as a biological-being. I found the rational reason which is because I was born as a member of human-being group which tries to thrive in this world. So, I need to survive and thrive as a human-being, and my biological functional code motivates me to do. This is a rational thought. However, I ended up with wondering why human-beings exist. I was really confused and could not rationally think anymore. T



The fundamental principle can be derived by any assumption based on rationality. I also mentioned the reason to gain the objective value as a fundamental principle. An existence of the objective values is a rational being. For example, the market mechanism and the needs for living are reasoned rationally. However, these factors can be also highly influenced by something not explained by ration.

Plato's ideal state derived from the perfect rationality failed to achieve because those who are in charge of establishing the ideal state and attempted to establish it were not perfectly rational.

Jaspers humiliated Spinoza's perfect rationality by assuming that "Spinoza must have had his own secret God inside his mind".

Science is also not perfectly rational at all. Science is known to be very subjective and intuitive than we tend to imagine. Actually, science was born by being influenced by Neo-Platonist philosophy because science is the philosophy to find "the truth" which is the idea of the reality. Even though the reason that science stands for is rational, the method science exploits is very irrational. Many people tend to believe that scientific analyses find and prove the result. But, the reality is that the already existing result makes the scientific analyses.



The rational process needs to be self-contradicted by a rational principle. Logics fail to be rational at this stage because logics do not have any rational principle which can rationally self-contradict. Therefore, the fundamental principle of logics is often an irrational one or a ration of intricatism. Mathematics is still rational at this stage. However, the tool of the rational fundamental principle which objectively assesses the rational mathematical process is an axiom which has neither a tool nor a principle to objectively and rationally assess and self-contradict. Mathematical axiom is defined by either the excuse to make the theoretical consistency or the measurement of physical outcomes in this real world. The former definition of mathematical axiom is defined by the subjective self-judgement of mathematical schools of thought. The latter definition of mathematical axiom is defined by an experience. An experience is biased because we always interpret what we have sensed into our own different ways.

If there is someone who can explain all the reasons of beings in this world perfectly rationally by rationally backing up these reasons with a rational principle accessed with a rational way of rational thoughts, this figure shall be no longer a human-being; this one shall be God! However, the question still remains to access God's rationality. Why have God created this world? This reason can be it was just an incidence. Why have God created this world? Kierkegaard said it is because God was bored. God, the perfect rational, can do something due to these irrational causes which can be called as chaos. Chaos occurs without a reason. So, we cannot explain what is chaos rationally. God may have rationally planned chaos to take place. So God could have caused the incidence and God's own boredom with his rational reasoning. But, how can we know God's true rational behind his rational action? We have never known because we have never been great as much as God to know all the God's sakes.

Euthanasia should be legalised under a strict condition

Euthanasia should be legalised. At least, euthanasia should be considered as the last resort for taking both physical and psychological pain. If a person is suffering from an fatal crucial pain, and wishes to prevent the pain by terminating his life, euthanasia should be considered as the best alternative option if there is "not" any way to cure this patient from the terminal illness.

Another reason to support euthanasia is to discourage some doctors and hospital managers gaining an excess financial revenue taken from the income of their patients and the patients' families and significant others. Some doctors and hospitals sometimes tend to take the advantage of their patients' hope of curing their massive pain. They tend to convince their patients as though it is possible to cure the pain even though it is impossible in order to encourage them to keep spending their medical expenses.

The worrying matter of legalising euthanasia is that doctors and hospital managers may take the advantage of the low cost (Financially and Time-wise) by giving euthanasia without a proper medical examination. Even though it is still possible to save the patients life without remaining a terminal pain, doctors and hospital managers may decide giving euthanasia rather than giving a further medical treatment. In addition, patients might not be able to obtain the proper information enough to know the possibility of surviving without taking euthanasia. In this situation, doctors have an advantage to bias the information for the patients.

In order to avoid this disadvantage for patients, the option for euthanasia should be regulated to not be a very easy option to be chosen. The third person has to be informed well with the process of all medical treatments taken and how both doctor and patient agree with each other. This third person will be a witness to prove that the legal and fair contract and decision are made between doctor and patient. The patients' right to survive within the possibility and obtain the proper sets of the information have to be given to them. The doctors also have to choose to give euthanasia as the last resort for their patients with a proof of the enough medical examination having taken previous to the euthanasia process. The third party has to be there to become an mediator with an objective view point going between them to make sure both parties agree or disagree by means of the proper contract and information provided.


In terms of the ethical view point, many of both utilitarians and deontologists tend to agree with conditionally legalising euthanasia under the fair regulation.

Utilitarians are afraid of the bad consequence by legalising euthanasia such as hospital managers giving euthanasia as a cheap option rather than as the last resort. But, Utilitarians generally agree with offering the higher utility from eliminating the terminal pain than keep suffering from it for the long time.

Deontologists generally disagree with "killing" lives by humans' hand because tolerating euthanasia, the behaviour of killing, makes human-beings take "killing/murder" for granted. However, Deontologists also agree to give "mercy" to individuals to help them to take their terminal pain off to save their spirit from their deadly painful life.

All in all, both Utilitarian and Deontologists agree with the "mercy killing" but disagree with "murder-like".


Judging from the point of view from Objectivists, who insist on egoism for self-survival, suiside is an ultimate vile, or the error caused by the lack of individuals' consciousness, which individuals must avoid. By contrast, Objectivists also support the freedom of choice. In this aspect, Objectivists disagree with the suiside caused by the desparation induced by an oppressive environment. But, they admit the suiside if there is no alternative option to divert from the terminal malcondition other than commiting suiside. Therefore, Objectivists support legalising euthanasia, the desired suiside, as the last alternative option of individuals' choice.


In conclusion, having taken legal, psychological, fiancial, managemental, and ethical factors based on the three major philosophical theories, although there are some controvertial problems, euthanasia should still be considered as one choice. It is important to safely legalise euthanasia for the cause of freedom of choice as long as it protects individuals' liberty and right. Hense, euthanasia should be legalised under the strict condition.

Oh, if Stalin had been born in a capitalist nation, he would have been a very sucessful capitalist....

Socialist Country such as USSR is where one extraordinarily humongous corporation monopolises an entire market of an entire country! Therefore, what Stalin did would be right for his own and his corporation because he followed the rational egoism to administrate his corporate governance. If all excellent persons were in the same situation as Stalin was, they would be same dickhead cruel uncivilised bastard like Stalin.

By contrast, our healthy capitalist society does not allow such a mal-function in the market. Capitalism supports the equilibrium, fair competition, and natural right for individuals. Therefore, it is almost impossible to establish the same system as the USSR unless it installs an intense collectivist policy. Oh, I regret Josef Stalin was born in Soviet Socialism... If Stalin had been born in a capitalist nation, he would have been a very successful capitalist....

On Participatory Economics

I searched the definition of Participatory Economics, and I realised it sounds like Anarch-Syndicalism. It is still a "decentralised collectivist economy"! Relying on "Decision" by means of economic distribution is very dangerous! We cannot 100% predict the resource allocations and inventories, and the "nature" always betrays our decision/will!

Speaking of the self-management, it sacrifices "advantages of division of labour", causes a cut threat competition among these small economic agents, incurs a very high cost to obtain and protect the market information, and creates a bigger income and social inequality than comprehensive liberalism = capitalism (*) does (Who decide where and how those people in this system work?).

If the answer of the last question I asked you is a "democratic decision making process" (You may mean direct democratic), it will defnitely fail into the same problem of Athenian democracy which Hobbes highly criticised! The critical problem of direct democracy is that it always ends up with either a compromised unstable outcome or the outcome that an "orator" offers. It would avoid this outcome as long as the majority are highly rational and/or the the orator is very talented. However, I have hardly seen this kind of civilisation yet in any where nor any time period. That's why a certain degree of autocracy should remain and/or lassez-faire (spontaneously distributes human, phisical, and intellectual resources) should be encouraged! Comprehensive liberalism = capitalism equips both advantages of a certain degree of autocracy and laissez-faire. Thus, comprehensive liberalism = capitalism is only the best alternative!

All in all, capitalism = comprehensive liberalism is the most "natural" system where people "passively take" the situation for granted. J.M. Keynes claimed that we should intervenue if necessary but we must understand and follow the nature of ""market geometry""!

Marx (I know Participatory Economics is totally different from Marxism, I must mention Marx for those who frequently use the word "capitalism" to call and criticise comprehensive-liberalism) considered this system "always in the boom" and "always benefits" to bourgeoigie. But, Marxian assumption is totally wrong! He ignored the existence of "the cycle". Any economic system has a cycle. When "capitalism/liberal-economism" is in a recession, both bourgeoigie and proletariat suffer. However, capitalist system is the most controlable system among all the economic systems having ever existed! We must remember J. M. Keynes saying "Although I am not convinced by unconscious aristocrats, I am proud of myself as a bourgeoigie because I am not an uneducated uncivilised rough proletariat!" As long as freedom of choice and natural right are protected, and we are aware of business cycle, capitalism = comprehensive liberalism is the most flexible and ideal economic system, human-beings have ever seen!



(*) "Capitalism" is only the name used by Marxist to call "Liberal Economism" whose "Liberal" means "Classical Liberalism" or "Comprehensive Liberalism"!




P.S.
All in all, "any kind of socialism" is an opiate worse than religion.... As I have seen many mobs and hypocritic elites calling themselves as socialist, I recognise majority of these mobs are really spoiled, detached from the reality, arrogant (looking down all their opponents as "unintelligent"), and dangerous (always threatening our public safety by unproductive riots, ear-souring speaches, and pessimism which is very contingent to the other innosent people). I know you are never going to become as such. But, I hope you are never going to suffer from this disease of socialism...!