Well, folks, it seems that I have been banned from an investment blog. In truth, the author of that blog, Joshua Kennon, expounds on other issues there besides investing, but he does call it an investment blog. Nonetheless, he saw fit to comment on the Supremes’ rulings on DOMA and Калифорния’s Proposition 8. Within the comments thereof, he references another post in which he wrote about his definition of morality:

A moral action is one that results in the maximization of both individual and collective happiness, freedom, and fulfillment without imposing unreasonable or unjustified costs upon third parties or the broader civilization.

Well, I had the temerity to point out that such a moral code requires far more foreknowledge of consequences than it is possible for a person to have.

Several examples came immediately to mind.

  1. Those who proposed increasing the Minimum Wage simply wanted the “working poor” to earn more money. What could possibly go wrong? Well, many of those people did not produce enough to compensate for their increased cost, they were laid off, and we have still not fully recovered from the consequences.
  2. In 1960, about 80% of Black children were born to a married father and mother. The government set out to help struggling single mothers. What could possibly go wrong? Well, now 80% of Black children are born to a single mother, and many live with siblings who have yet other fathers.
  3. In the South in the early 1960′s, many White-owned businesses refused to serve Blacks. Well, the government stepped in and made that illegal. What could possibly go wrong? Well, the Blacks stopped going to the Black-owned business, so they went out of business and the Black middle class collapsed.
  4. I pointed out that that Harm Principle was the basis of China’s One Child policy. The result was forced abortions, sex-selective abortions, and daughters left in orphanages or simply left to die.
  5. Finally (and probably the final straw for a professional investment advisor), I pointed out that the Harm Principle was indeed the very basis of Socialism and Communism, and that if he disagreed with what had occurred in the Socialist and Communist countries, it was simply because he disagreed with them on how to calculate the “maximization of both individual and collective happiness, freedom, and fulfillment,” and what constitutes an “unreasonable or unjustified cost.”

That last comment was deleted, and any IP address from which I commented in the past has been blocked from the site.

When you cannot defend your Weltanschauung, ban the one who challenges it.