I think the hidden lesson had to do with genetics, but to find out if I am right I may have to go back and find the section where the little boy is demonstrating a science experiment with the flea circus. If the mothers or father's or both mothers and fathers are made to follow orders will the sons or daughters or both sons and daughters be genetically predisposed to follow orders too?
Is the term civilized gaining currency?
Does anything not exist?
Everything exists within ones perception whether it is real or not. I think I am talking philosophy and you are talking reality.
I see "things" on a scale. Take the smallest thing, for example, brake that smallest thing into a zillion times a zillion smaller pieces and that is a theoretically smallest sized unit of some THING, and then take our observable universe and times it by a zillion squared to imagine a theoretically largest size, and you have now a theoretically small size and a theoretically large size on a scale that is not measurable but theoretical because the sizes that are measurable fit into a much smaller scale than this theoretical scale.
Measurable Reality = [measurable things]
Theoretical Reality = [zillions times smaller and larger than measured]
Reality = No brackets
We are in boxes, so to speak, all boxed up in physical reality, or all boxed up in perceptive reality including an internal imagination or whatever boundaries exist in any individual person at any individual time [or period of time], or boxed into whatever God has built into life as I know it.
The creator power, or God, creates things that exist in boxes, or brackets, so who is to say if there are creations so small that they are whole universes alive and well, smaller than zillion times a zillion times a zillion times smaller than the stuff we mere humans can measure and we could, theoretically, be able to fit everything we know inside a world were living things are so large that our whole universe can't even be seen by them.
I may be speaking in terms of observable, measurable, perceptible, physical reality, but from my one known truth, where perception exists, I do not claim to go any farther, so I think I am dabbling in belief, or theory, or speculation, or prejudgment, or gambling, or chance, or faith, in what is or is not perceived within my power to perceive.
I can call my power to perceive a power but how do I measure it?
If I burn my eyes out looking at the sun I may hear better.
Helen Keller did well and she could not see or hear, so I hear.
Did I wander?
We are in boxes, who knows what is, or is not, outside the boxes, or brackets, or limits, scale, or dimension, or time, or place, or perceptible reality?
Philosophy is not real? If so then in what sense is philosophy not real?
I see a need to refresh my memory by finding a quote of yours where I may have went off track.
"Might one say that the "productive" power of a lie exists within the perception of the liar?"
But I might say that since perception exists that all things can exist within perception whether they be true or not.
You: “If we can find the answer I think we have to be able to demonstrate the answer in an accurately measurable way…”
When Ben Bernanke prints himself some money he has produced a lie. The money is the evidence of the production of a lie. The money becomes productive for Mr. Bernanke because he has perceived a lie. The perception is that he is doing the human race a favor by eliminating those at the bottom of the pile...with kindness.
Is not beauty in the eye of the beholder? So is not perception the eye of the beholder? If the beholder is a liar, then the perception is a lie, but not to the liar as the liar perceives productive ends to justify the means.
I’m not hung up on this, I am just messing around. But I think I have a point if perception exists.
I am going to go back to the following quote:
"The money becomes productive for Mr. Bernanke because he has perceived a lie."
I just want to say that stealing things is not the same process as producing things so why call it "productive" when it is measurably destructive?
"Have you ever read Quigly?"
I have not read Tragedy and Hope but I have read Machiavelli so I think I get the message loud and clear, the bad guys lie, and they lie well enough to get their victims to pay them more and more for better and better lies.
I call that Legal Crime, to use power to destroy power, making power scarce, and they are the only ones left as they rapidly shrink the total supply of power.
"Sounds like an interesting person and I am not seeing Red."
I listened for a little while and it occurs to me to offer a viewpoint concerning the supply of laborers.
When the jack boot is taken off the throat of liberty, where the fleas are no longer marching in parades, there are so many people desperate to find good help, to find other people to help with a new invention, that the supply of ready laborers, trainees, dries up to a supply that is scarce.
The shoe is then on the other foot. That was a not so well hidden secret (patent pending) message explained in detail in Equitable Commerce.
I am also, at this moment, reminded of your link to the Mises Web Page article on Stephen Pearl Andrews where the author of the article claims that Andrews let his brains fall out; meaning to me that the author of the article wrote a hit piece. As if to say, hey, here is this guy, but don't listen to what he has to say, since he was stupid, and so forget about it.
Dictators, monopolists, criminals with badges, without badges, people resorting to lies, threats, and violence upon their targeted innocent victims do those things, that is what they do, and you don't, so I'm more and more FED up with the whole "men are bad" routine, it is so yesterday for me.
On the other link, two worth listening to, both connected to the Web Page (not the book) Tragedy and Hope, I may get back to them.
I am on the first of three very welcome responses by you and then I have to get some work done.
"I wonder if the Liberty Day Challenge has room there?"
The first think I looked for on the Tragedy and Hope Web Page was a Forum. I found none. I can go back and try to find a two way street.