Update 02_01_08.md

pcm/Human Action/02_01_08.md

@@ -18,36 +18,36 @@ E dey useless to censure dis statement by referring to irrationality. All instin
 
 Person must not tell de masses: Indulge for your urge for murder; e dey genuinely human and best serves your well-being. Person must tell dem: If you satisfy your thirst for blood, you must forego plenty oda desires. You want eat, to drink, to live in fine homes, to clothe yourselves, and thousand oda things wey only society fit provide. You no fit get everything, you must choose. De dangerous life and de frenzy of sadism fit please you, but dem dey incompatible wit de security and plenty wey you no want miss either.
 
-Praxeology as a science cannot encroach upon the individual's right to choose and to act. The final decisions rest with acting men, not with the theorists. Science's contribution to life and action does not consist in establishing value judgments, but in clarification of the conditions under which man must act and in elucidation of the effects of various modes of action. It puts at the disposal of acting man all the information he needs in order to make his choices in full awareness of their consequences. It prepares an estimate of cost and yield, as it were. It would fail in this task if it were to omit from this statement one of the items which could influence people's choices and decisions.
+Praxeology as a science no fit encroach upon de individual's right to choose and to act. De final decisions rest wit acting men, no be with de theorists. Science's contribution to life and action no consist in establishing value judgments, but for clarification of de conditions under wey man must act and for elucidation of de effects of various modes of action. E puts at de disposal of acting man all de information e needs in order to make im choice for full awareness of dia consequences. E prepares estimate of cost and yield, as e wdey. E go fail for dis task if e dey to omit from dis statement one of de items wey fit influence people's choices and decisions.
 
 #### Current Misinterpretations of Modern Natural Science, Especially of Darwinism
 
-Some present-day antiliberals, both of the right-wing and of the left-wing variety, base their teachings on misinterpretations of the achievements of modern biology.
+Some present-day antiliberals, both of de right-wing and of de left-wing variety, base dia teachings ontop misinterpretations of de achievements of modern biology.
 
-##### Men are unequal
+##### Men dey unequal
 
-Eighteenth-century liberalism and likewise present-day egalitarianism start from the "self-evident truth" that "all men are created equal, and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights." However, say the advocates of a biological philosophy of society, natural science has demonstrated in an irrefutable way that men are different. There is no room left in the framework of an experimental observation of natural phenomena for such a concept as natural rights. Nature is unfeeling and insensible with regard to any being's life and happiness. Nature is iron necessity and regularity. It is metaphysical nonsense to link together the "slippery" and vague notion of liberty and the unchangeable absolute laws of cosmic order. Thus the fundamental idea of liberalism is unmasked as a fallacy.
+Eighteenth-century liberalism and likewise for present-day egalitarianism start from de "self-evident truth" say "all men dey created equal, and say dem dey endowed by dia Creator wit certain unalienable Rights." Howeva, say de advocates of biological philosophy of society, natural science done demonstrate for irrefutable way say men dey different. There is no room left in the framework of an experimental observation of natural phenomena for such concept as natural rights. Nature dey unfeeling and insensible wit regard to any being's life and happiness. Nature dey iron necessity and regularity. E dey metaphysical nonsense to link together de "slippery" and vague notion of liberty and de unchangeable absolute laws of cosmic orda. Thus de fundamental idea of liberalism dey unmasked as a fallacy.
 
-Now it is true that the liberal and democratic movement of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries drew a great part of its strength from the doctrine of natural law and the innate imprescriptible rights of the individual. These ideas, first developed by ancient philosophy and Jewish theology, permeated Christian thinking. Some anti-Catholic sects made them the focal point of their political programs. A long line of eminent philosophers substantiated them. They became popular and were the most powerful moving force in the prodemocratic evolution. They are still supported today. Their advocates do not concern themselves with the incontestable fact that God or nature did not create men equal since many are born hale and hearty while others are crippled and deformed. With them all differences between men are due to education, opportunity, and social institutions.
+Now e dey true say de liberal and democratic movement of de eighteenth and nineteenth centuries drew great part of im strength from de doctrine of natural law and de innate imprescriptible rights of de individual. These ideas, dey first developed by ancient philosophy and Jewish theology, dem permeate Christian thinking. Some anti-Catholic sects make dem de focal point of dia political programs. A long line of eminent philosophers substantiated dem. Dem become popular and dey de most powerful moving force or de prodemocratic evolution. Dem dey still supported today. Dia advocates no concern demselves wit de incontestable fact say God or nature no create men equal since dem born many hale and hearty wile odas dey crippled and deformed. Wit dem all differences between men dey due to education, opportunity, and social institutions.
 
-But the teachings of utilitarian philosophy and classical economics have nothing at all to do with the doctrine of natural right. With them the only point that matters is social utility. They recommend popular government, private property, tolerance, and freedom not because they are natural and just, but because they are beneficial. The core of Ricardo's philosophy is the demonstration that social cooperation and division of labor between men who are in every regard superior and more efficient and men who are in every regard inferior and less efficient is beneficial to both groups. Bentham, the radical, shouted: "*Natural rights* is simple nonsense: natural and imprescriptible rights, rhetorical nonsense."[^10] With him "the sole object of government ought to be the greatest happiness of the greatest possible number of the community."[^11] Accordingly, in investigating what ought to be right he does not care about preconceived ideas concerning God's or nature's plans and intentions, forever hidden to mortal men; he is intent upon discovering what best serves the promotion of human welfare and happiness. Malthus showed that nature in limiting the means of subsistence does not accord to any living being a right of existence, and that by indulging heedlessly in the natural impulse of proliferation man would never have risen above the verge of starvation. He contended that human civilization and well-being could develop only to the extent that man learned to rein his sexual appetites by moral restraint. The Utilitarians do not combat arbitrary government and privileges because they are against natural law but because they are detrimental to prosperity. They recommend equality under the civil law not because men are equal but because such a policy is beneficial to the commonweal. In rejecting the illusory notions of natural law and human equality modern biology only repeated what the utilitarian champions of liberalism and democracy long before had taught in a much more persuasive way. It is obvious that no biological doctrine can ever invalidate what utilitarian philosophy says about the social utility of democratic government, private property, freedom, and equality under the law.
+But de teachings of utilitarian philosophy and classical economics get nothing at all to do wit de doctrine of natural right. Wit dem de only point wey matters na social utility. Dem recommend popular government, private property, tolerance, and freedom not because dem dey natural and just, but because dem dey beneficial. De core of Ricardo's philosophy na de demonstration wey social cooperation and division of labor between men wey dey in every regard superior and more efficient and men wey dey in every regard inferior and less efficient dey beneficial to both groups. Bentham, de radical, shouted: "Natural rights na simple nonsense: natural and imprescriptible rights, rhetorical nonsense."[^10] Wit im "de sole object of government ought to be de greatest happiness of de greatest possible number of de community."[^11] Accordingly, for investigating waitin ought to be right e no care about preconceived ideas concerning God's or nature's plans and intentions, foreva hidden to mortal men; e dey intent upon discovering waitin best serves de promotion of human welfare and happiness. Malthus showed say nature in limiting de means of subsistence no dey accord to any living dey right of existence, and say by indulging heedlessly for de natural impulse of proliferation man go neva get risen above de verge of starvation. E contended say human civilization and well-being fit develop only to de extent say man learned to rein im sexual appetites by moral restraint. De Utilitarians no dey combat arbitrary government and privileges because dem dey against natural law but because dem dey detrimental to prosperity. Dem recommend equality under de civil law not because men dey equal but because dis kind policy dey beneficial to de commonweal. For rejecting de illusory notions of natural law and human equality modern biology only repeated waitin de utilitarian champions of liberalism and democracy long before had taught for much more persuasive way. E dey obvious say no biological doctrine fit eva invalidate waitin utilitarian philosophy say about de social utility of democratic government, private property, freedom, and equality under de law.
 
-The present-day prevalence of doctrines approving social disintegration and violent conflict is not the result of an alleged adaptation of social philosophy to the findings of biology but of the almost universal rejection of utilitarian philosophy and economic theory. People have substituted an ideology of irreconcilable class conflict and international conflict for the "orthodox" ideology of the harmony of the rightly understood, i.e., long-run, interests of all individuals, social groups, and nations. Men are fighting one another because they are convinced that the extermination and liquidation of adversaries is the only means of promoting their own well-being.
+De present-day prevalence of doctrines approving social disintegration and violent conflict no dey de result of alleged adaptation of social philosophy to de findings of biology but of de almost universal rejection of utilitarian philosophy and economic theory. People get substituted an ideology of irreconcilable class conflict and international conflict for de "orthodox" ideology of de harmony of de rightly understood, i.e., long-run, interests of every bodi, social groups, and nations. Men dey fight one another because dem dey convinced say de extermination and liquidation of adversaries dey de only means of promoting dia own well-being.
 
-##### The social implications of Darwinism
+##### De social implications of Darwinism
 
-The theory of evolution as expounded by Darwin, says a school of social Darwinism, has clearly demonstrated that in nature there are no such things as peace and respect for the lives and welfare of others. In nature there is always struggle and merciless annihilation of the weak who do not succeed in defending themselves. Liberalism's plans for eternal peace --both in domestic and in foreign relations--are the outcome of an illusory rationalism contrary to the natural order.
+De theory of evolution as dem expounded am by Darwin, say school of social Darwinism, dey clearly demonstrated say for nature no such thing as peace and respect for de lives and welfare of odas. For nature struggle always dey and merciless annihilation of de weak wey no succeed for defending demselves. Liberalism's plans for eternal peace --both for domestic and for foreign relations—dey de outcome of an illusory rationalism contrary to de natural order.
 
-However, the notion of the struggle for existence as Darwin borrowed it from Malthus and applied it in his theory, is to be understood in a metaphorical sense. Its meaning is that a living being actively resists the forces detrimental to its own life. This resistance, if it is to succeed, must be appropriate to the environmental conditions in which the being concerned has to hold its own. It need not always be a war of extermination such as in the relations between men and morbific microbes. Reason has demonstrated that, for man, the most adequate means of improving his condition is social cooperation and division of labor. They are man's foremost tool in his struggle for survival. But they can work only where there is peace. Wars, civil wars, and revolutions are detrimental to man's success in the struggle for existence because they disintegrate the apparatus of social cooperation.
+Howeva, de notion of de struggle for existence as Darwin borrowed am from Malthus and applied e dey de theory, dey to be understood for metaphorical sense. Im meaning na say de living being actively resists de forces detrimental to im own life. dis resistance, if e dey succeed, must be appropriate to de environmental conditions in which de being concerned get to hold am own. E no need to always be war of extermination such as for de relations between men and morbific microbes. Reason done demonstrate say, for man, de most adequate means of improving im condition na social cooperation and division of labor. Dem dey man's foremost tool for im struggle for survival. But dem fit work only where peace dey. Wars, civil wars, and revolutions dey detrimental to man's success for de struggle for existence because dem disintegrate de apparatus of social cooperation.
 
 ##### Reason and rational behavior called unnatural
 
-Christian theology deprecated the animal functions of man's body and depicted the "soul" as something outside of all biological phenomena. In an excessive reaction against this philosophy some moderns are prone to disparage everything in which man differs from other animals. In their eyes human reason is inferior to the animal instincts and impulses; it is unnatural and therefore bad. With them the terms rationalism and rational behavior have an opprobrious connotation. The perfect man, the real man, is a being who obeys his primordial instincts more than his reason.
+Christian theology deprecated de animal functions of man bodi and depicted de "soul" as something outside of all biological phenomena. For excessive reaction against dis philosophy some moderns dey prone to disparage everything in which man differs from oda animals. For dia eyes human reason dey inferior to de animal instincts and impulses; E dey unnatural and diafore bad. Wit dem de terms rationalism and rational behavior get an opprobrious connotation. De perfect man, de real man, na being wey obeys im primordial instincts more dan im reason.
 
-The obvious truth is that reason, man's most characteristic feature, is also a biological phenomenon. It is neither more nor less natural than any other feature of the species homo sapiens, for instance, the upright gait or the hairless skin.
+De obvious truth na say reason, man's most characteristic feature, dey also a biological phenomenon. E dey neither more nor less natural dan any oda feature of de species homo sapiens, for instance, de upright gait or de hairless skin.
 
 [^9]: Georges Sorel, *Réflexions sur law violence* (3d. ed., Paris, 1912), p. 269.
 
-[^10]: Bentham, *Anarchical Fallacies; being an Examination of the Declaration of Rights issued during the French Revolution*, in *Work* (ed. by Bowring), II, 501.
+[^10]: Bentham, *Anarchical Fallacies; being an Examination of de Declaration of Rights issued during the French Revolution*, in *Work* (ed. by Bowring), II, 501.
 
 [^11]: Bentham, *Principles of the Civil Code*, in *Works*, I, 301.