FYI - Against Autonomy (September 2013 book)

[eva matthews]

Elitism is really what hollowed out the good parts of the American left...

I see that exactly the opposite.

Elitism can only exist with a general population of degenerates who are incapable of properly ordering their own lives. Contempt for the indecent is both earned and deserved.

Greg

So you believe the anti-authoritarian, skeptical-of-the-state components of American liberalism are the BAD parts, and that the "I'm going to use the government to make you a better person" parts are the GOOD parts?

Frankly I disagree. There is no evidence at all that the moral character of human beings (in general) has gone down over time (the whole "what's the matter with kids these days?" thing started under Plato and has been consistently disproven by every successive generation.. in spite of the old religionist stasist neophobes claiming that Batman made kids gay and video games cause school shootings, civilization has not collapsed). The idea that the "general population" are degenerates is heinously prejudiced, and the idea that the general population are "incapable" of "properly ordering their own lives" is the enemy of the classical liberal, enlightenment individualist tradition.

Contempt for the contemptible is indeed deserved, but the majority of human beings do not deserve contempt. They may be mistaken on some issues, but they are not necessarily degenerates.

Throughout human history, elitism has ALWAYS been the enemy of freedom. Freedom (in the classical liberal sense, i.e. the libertarian sense) has always been the right to control your OWN life and live it on your OWN terms. It has always referred to a universal self-sovereignty. Elitism opposes this on both levels by being a particularist violation of self-sovereignty.

Even Ayn Rand was not, in fact, an 'elitist'. She wrote heroic novels but in her nonfiction works she displayed a great deal of confidence in the common man. She believed the common man was good, simply not philosophically informed. It should be noted that in both Fountainhead and Atlas, Rand's villains were members of the social elite. And she insisted on universal self-sovereignty.

Compare this to the Progressives who believe "enlightened intellectuals" should control society. Compare this to the Frankfurt Schoolers who believe pop music and TV shows and advertising indoctrinate people with false consciousness. Compare this to Feudalism's aristocracies.

Which tradition begins with "all men are created equal" and then says that as a result they have an equal right to their own lives on their own terms (the absolute liberty of all restrained by the like liberty of each), and which tradition begins by annointing "superior people" (whether that annointment is performed by a God or a specific university department is irrelevant) to control the lives of the Fucking NASCAR Retards?

Elitism is not our friend.

What's interesting is how the word 'elite' has undergone a transformation from that of natural leadership via education to one of snooty disdain for others.

The 60-ish set of profs here on campus remember it well: the intellectual elite ('best & brightest') lost all credibility for their support of the Vietnam war. Moreover, they were responsible, in great measure, for the suppression of dissent.

As such--with or without the 'E' word-- within any democracy there's always an inherent push/pull between majoritarian voice and that of the educated-- always, by definition, lesser in number.

This plays back to the Founding Fathers, as well: Jefferson versus Adams and Hamilton, etc...if all men are created equal, how do you explain difference in intellect and knowledge, ant to what consequence?

EM

[eva matthews]

Ellen:

From your link Review by a Michael Quante of a book about autonomy in biomedical ethics by Elisabeth Hildt

Although the diversity of subjects and methods gives the impression that neuro-medicine cannot be a unified subject of biomedical ethics we should revise this impression since in it we ultimately deal with the question, wer wir als Menschen sind, wie wir sein wollen und was wir akzeptieren können, wollen und sollten

Translated: since in it we ultimately deal with the question"who we are as human beings, as we want to be and what we can accept, want and should"

What I see in that is the aggressive political variant of my meta-definition of religion.

My meta-definition of religion: any pondering of the questions "Why am I here, and what am I supposed to be doing as a result of that?"

My definition does not assume there is a singular answer to those questions; as individuals, we all answer those questions implicitly; our individual answer is our individual life. To me, if and when any of us consciously ponder those questions then we are engaged in religion. Indistinguishable from philosophy? Precisely as it is in many university departmental taxonomies...

Some may freely, as in, under a model of free association, seek socius to ponder those questions, and accept group answers. Those are churches, plural, and long may they wave in freedom.

But note how subtly those questions can be aggressively politicized(as in, his assertion of what 'we' are about, above:) "Why are we here, and what are we supposed to be doing now as a result of that?" The implication is not the 'we' of this one of many churches, plural, but the 'should' for all of mankind. Religion as politics on the way to war.

It is a religious assertion that there is only one answer to those fundamental questions. The naked assertion of that leg-lifting 'we' -- that assertion would be applicable to a totalitarian theocracy.

I haven't had time yet to read either of the reviews by Michael Quante which I linked. I only quickly skimmed them. The impression I pick up is very much along the lines you're saying. Same from a couple other things of his I found. I think Quante is subtly pushing for state control of medical decisions, maybe even with a "eugenics" underlay.

I hadn't heard of him, and was curious to find out why a quote from him would be used in the endorsements for Against Autonomy. Presumably, his is a name that "those in the club" would recognize. Seems that he's got a substantial number of publications, and a large interest in biomedical ethics - as well as in Hegel, on whom he's written several books and multiple articles.

Ellen

PS: I'll be back with further comments next week. Haven't time today.

Uncle Fred,

You really need to get over this 'tribalism' thing of yours. It's a bad metaphor.

'Tribe' is the social organization that refers to a hunter-gatherer-milpa farming subsistence group. It's religions tend to be somewhat animistic--a worship of natural forces--for obvious reasons.

Lkiewise, group coherence is rigidly enforced. When you're out there on horseback trying to hunt down buffalo, everyone has a job to do.

Many large 'state' societies have been known to break down into tribals due to either positive or negative change in economic circumstance. For example, the Sioux broke down into tribalism with the arrival of the horse, thanks to the Spanish, ostensibly because riding a horse is more fun than extended farming.

Others, in Amazonia, were not so lucky, Huge cities were destroyed by the Spanish presence (garlic, germs, steel), thereby resulting in all the different groups known and loved by the anthros here at Dust Bunny U.

So the lack of individuality in the modern world has modern roots-- the question here being, to what exytent do we need to conform? That for its own sake only reinforces authority and power. By consequence, it's evil because it has no rational basis set within the context of economic survival.

EM

.

Eva:

re: You really need to get over this 'tribalism' thing of yours.

And of course, by the projection of that young emperor-in-training imperative, what you meant to convey is the fact that I really don't need to do any such thing. What you meant to convey is, you don't like the metaphor for mobbed up herd mentality collectivism/group think, the tribe uber alles.

Well no shit.

The 'anthros' at my Dust Bunny U. were nothing short of hilarious. They were the ones trying to hard sell me the insight that the film "Nanook of the North" was all about the devastation of capitalism ravaging the soul of mankind. The emperor-in-locus in my case always showed up to precept wearing a disconnected 35mm SLR lens strung around his neck with a multicolored string/lanyard. Often, i the middle of one of his Marxist tirades, he would be so overcome with his urge to project his art that he would stop suddenly, grab the lens, and jarringly frame the reality around him, as if he was Godard --dammit -- setting up the next shot in his opus grande, "How I saved the World From These Nascent Little RatCake Capitalists By Feeding Them My Bullshit."

Some of the chicks thought he was really 'groovy' when he did that. And some of the guys. It probably got him laid, even though he was kind of a sad sack chubber. Bless his little heart.

Armand Hill was in that class; it was his major. He played some great basketball.

Love to hear more about the anthros at your Dust Bunny U. Right after I watch ESPN. March Madness is coming up, and that memory of Armand Hill, the anthro, reminded me.

Oncle F.

Dear oncle Fred,

I'm terribly sorry to hear about your devastating experience in Anthro 101.

Since 'Nanook' discredits any use of 'tribe' other than what you care to have it mean at the time that you say it, feel free to metaphorize away.

EM

[studiodekadent]

What's interesting is how the word 'elite' has undergone a transformation from that of natural leadership via education to one of snooty disdain for others.

The 60-ish set of profs here on campus remember it well: the intellectual elite ('best & brightest') lost all credibility for their support of the Vietnam war. Moreover, they were responsible, in great measure, for the suppression of dissent.

As such--with or without the 'E' word-- within any democracy there's always an inherent push/pull between majoritarian voice and that of the educated-- always, by definition, lesser in number.

This plays back to the Founding Fathers, as well: Jefferson versus Adams and Hamilton, etc...if all men are created equal, how do you explain difference in intellect and knowledge, ant to what consequence?

EM

Thanks for the substantiative comment! Awesome! (Oh intelligent discussion, how much I love thee).

Maybe its just me, but "elitism" as I have always understood it meant RULE by the "elite" (however defined). The mere PRESENCE of elites isn't the issue... the issue is about elites being given power over "the rest."

As a supporter of individual rights, I don't believe the "best and brightest" should design/engineer/control society (that's the progressive paradigm). Of course there are "the educated" and "the uneducated"... I'm technically part of the former even though most of them would loathe my beliefs. But I don't believe because of my degrees I should govern my "lessers."

With regards to "all men are created equal" and the founding fathers, they were mostly empiricists so they'd probably see no contradiction... all men are created equal, over time some acquire more knowledge than others.

[Frediano]

Sorry. Terms:

Dust Bunny U.: There is a bias that tends to herd up those of a certain bent at our centers of endless tenured subsidy and simulated reality, universities, where lefties tend to collect up 'like dust bunnies' underneath a nice, warm, safe, inviting bed. The righties tend to pass some time there, grit their teeth, and then move on to continue the non-simulated phase of their education and pay the bills, eventually, to send their children back there, so they can learn what heartless ratcake capitalist bastards their parents were for being able to afford to subsidize all the endless tenured subsidy and simulated reality.

[Frediano]

Elitism is really what hollowed out the good parts of the American left...

I see that exactly the opposite.

Elitism can only exist with a general population of degenerates who are incapable of properly ordering their own lives. Contempt for the indecent is both earned and deserved.

Greg

So you believe the anti-authoritarian, skeptical-of-the-state components of American liberalism are the BAD parts, and that the "I'm going to use the government to make you a better person" parts are the GOOD parts?

Frankly I disagree. There is no evidence at all that the moral character of human beings (in general) has gone down over time (the whole "what's the matter with kids these days?" thing started under Plato and has been consistently disproven by every successive generation.. in spite of the old religionist stasist neophobes claiming that Batman made kids gay and video games cause school shootings, civilization has not collapsed). The idea that the "general population" are degenerates is heinously prejudiced, and the idea that the general population are "incapable" of "properly ordering their own lives" is the enemy of the classical liberal, enlightenment individualist tradition.

Contempt for the contemptible is indeed deserved, but the majority of human beings do not deserve contempt. They may be mistaken on some issues, but they are not necessarily degenerates.

Throughout human history, elitism has ALWAYS been the enemy of freedom. Freedom (in the classical liberal sense, i.e. the libertarian sense) has always been the right to control your OWN life and live it on your OWN terms. It has always referred to a universal self-sovereignty. Elitism opposes this on both levels by being a particularist violation of self-sovereignty.

Even Ayn Rand was not, in fact, an 'elitist'. She wrote heroic novels but in her nonfiction works she displayed a great deal of confidence in the common man. She believed the common man was good, simply not philosophically informed. It should be noted that in both Fountainhead and Atlas, Rand's villains were members of the social elite. And she insisted on universal self-sovereignty.

Compare this to the Progressives who believe "enlightened intellectuals" should control society. Compare this to the Frankfurt Schoolers who believe pop music and TV shows and advertising indoctrinate people with false consciousness. Compare this to Feudalism's aristocracies.

Which tradition begins with "all men are created equal" and then says that as a result they have an equal right to their own lives on their own terms (the absolute liberty of all restrained by the like liberty of each), and which tradition begins by annointing "superior people" (whether that annointment is performed by a God or a specific university department is irrelevant) to control the lives of the Fucking NASCAR Retards?

Elitism is not our friend.

What's interesting is how the word 'elite' has undergone a transformation from that of natural leadership via education to one of snooty disdain for others.

The 60-ish set of profs here on campus remember it well: the intellectual elite ('best & brightest') lost all credibility for their support of the Vietnam war. Moreover, they were responsible, in great measure, for the suppression of dissent.

As such--with or without the 'E' word-- within any democracy there's always an inherent push/pull between majoritarian voice and that of the educated-- always, by definition, lesser in number.

This plays back to the Founding Fathers, as well: Jefferson versus Adams and Hamilton, etc...if all men are created equal, how do you explain difference in intellect and knowledge, ant to what consequence?

EM

Eva:

re: What's interesting is how the word 'elite' has undergone a transformation from that of natural leadership via education to one of snooty disdain for others.

Snooty disdain for others? Hardly.

Disdain: the feeling that someone or something is unworthy of one's consideration or respect; contempt.

More like snooty paternalistic perseverance on what is best for others. The opposite of disdain. We used to call them 'busybodies' in the old days, before the Ivies made it a profession.

You are confusing how I feel about lefties in this political context with how Cass Sunstein feels about all of us in his tribe. How I feel stems from my understanding of both "this political context" and "lefties" in same. I would of course be a 'leftie' in their preferred alternative political context. I mean, gulag/re-education camp/killing field. Oh now, not what they want, just, what they want to move towards, from this political context. A distinction in search of their ability to ever, even once would do, competently get the lie right.

I'm sure it was an honest mistake and not yet the latest necessary re-marketing attempt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Busybody

There we go. Now we are back on track.

Oncle F.

[Frediano]

Ellen:

From your link Review by a Michael Quante of a book about autonomy in biomedical ethics by Elisabeth Hildt

Although the diversity of subjects and methods gives the impression that neuro-medicine cannot be a unified subject of biomedical ethics we should revise this impression since in it we ultimately deal with the question, wer wir als Menschen sind, wie wir sein wollen und was wir akzeptieren können, wollen und sollten

Translated: since in it we ultimately deal with the question"who we are as human beings, as we want to be and what we can accept, want and should"

What I see in that is the aggressive political variant of my meta-definition of religion.

My meta-definition of religion: any pondering of the questions "Why am I here, and what am I supposed to be doing as a result of that?"

My definition does not assume there is a singular answer to those questions; as individuals, we all answer those questions implicitly; our individual answer is our individual life. To me, if and when any of us consciously ponder those questions then we are engaged in religion. Indistinguishable from philosophy? Precisely as it is in many university departmental taxonomies...

Some may freely, as in, under a model of free association, seek socius to ponder those questions, and accept group answers. Those are churches, plural, and long may they wave in freedom.

But note how subtly those questions can be aggressively politicized(as in, his assertion of what 'we' are about, above:) "Why are we here, and what are we supposed to be doing now as a result of that?" The implication is not the 'we' of this one of many churches, plural, but the 'should' for all of mankind. Religion as politics on the way to war.

It is a religious assertion that there is only one answer to those fundamental questions. The naked assertion of that leg-lifting 'we' -- that assertion would be applicable to a totalitarian theocracy.

I haven't had time yet to read either of the reviews by Michael Quante which I linked. I only quickly skimmed them. The impression I pick up is very much along the lines you're saying. Same from a couple other things of his I found. I think Quante is subtly pushing for state control of medical decisions, maybe even with a "eugenics" underlay.

I hadn't heard of him, and was curious to find out why a quote from him would be used in the endorsements for Against Autonomy. Presumably, his is a name that "those in the club" would recognize. Seems that he's got a substantial number of publications, and a large interest in biomedical ethics - as well as in Hegel, on whom he's written several books and multiple articles.

Ellen

PS: I'll be back with further comments next week. Haven't time today.

Uncle Fred,

You really need to get over this 'tribalism' thing of yours. It's a bad metaphor.

'Tribe' is the social organization that refers to a hunter-gatherer-milpa farming subsistence group. It's religions tend to be somewhat animistic--a worship of natural forces--for obvious reasons.

Lkiewise, group coherence is rigidly enforced. When you're out there on horseback trying to hunt down buffalo, everyone has a job to do.

Many large 'state' societies have been known to break down into tribals due to either positive or negative change in economic circumstance. For example, the Sioux broke down into tribalism with the arrival of the horse, thanks to the Spanish, ostensibly because riding a horse is more fun than extended farming.

Others, in Amazonia, were not so lucky, Huge cities were destroyed by the Spanish presence (garlic, germs, steel), thereby resulting in all the different groups known and loved by the anthros here at Dust Bunny U.

So the lack of individuality in the modern world has modern roots-- the question here being, to what exytent do we need to conform? That for its own sake only reinforces authority and power. By consequence, it's evil because it has no rational basis set within the context of economic survival.

EM

.

Eva:

re: You really need to get over this 'tribalism' thing of yours.

And of course, by the projection of that young emperor-in-training imperative, what you meant to convey is the fact that I really don't need to do any such thing. What you meant to convey is, you don't like the metaphor for mobbed up herd mentality collectivism/group think, the tribe uber alles.

Well no shit.

The 'anthros' at my Dust Bunny U. were nothing short of hilarious. They were the ones trying to hard sell me the insight that the film "Nanook of the North" was all about the devastation of capitalism ravaging the soul of mankind. The emperor-in-locus in my case always showed up to precept wearing a disconnected 35mm SLR lens strung around his neck with a multicolored string/lanyard. Often, i the middle of one of his Marxist tirades, he would be so overcome with his urge to project his art that he would stop suddenly, grab the lens, and jarringly frame the reality around him, as if he was Godard --dammit -- setting up the next shot in his opus grande, "How I saved the World From These Nascent Little RatCake Capitalists By Feeding Them My Bullshit."

Some of the chicks thought he was really 'groovy' when he did that. And some of the guys. It probably got him laid, even though he was kind of a sad sack chubber. Bless his little heart.

Armand Hill was in that class; it was his major. He played some great basketball.

Love to hear more about the anthros at your Dust Bunny U. Right after I watch ESPN. March Madness is coming up, and that memory of Armand Hill, the anthro, reminded me.

Oncle F.

Dear oncle Fred,

I'm terribly sorry to hear about your devastating experience in Anthro 101.

Since 'Nanook' discredits any use of 'tribe' other than what you care to have it mean at the time that you say it, feel free to metaphorize away.

EM

My sides did ache for a while, but I have long recovered from the laughter, if that is what you mean by 'devastating.'

Thank you for your concern, though. Proving once again, it takes a village to recover from tribal humor.

It was actually a 200 level course. 101 is where the attempt was made to have our intellectual legs kicked out from under us. You know, the deconstruction before the reconstruction as a proper thinking human being. They let me skip that, because when I signed up I was wearing a 'Che' T shirt and my hair was kind of long. Total deke.

My hair started turning gray when I was 16; I had one of those skunk ass patches in the front. That might have distracted the gatekeepers of humanity, I'm not sure. But I only used to be prematurely gray. I now mainly wonder where the 'prematurely' went?

Oncle F.

[Frediano]

My apologies to Armond Hill for remembering him as Armand Hill.

My apologies to Jean-Luc Godard for associating his name with that sad twit from sophomore year.

My apologies to walruses who died at the hands of hungry Eskimos for having had a job in this world.

[Brant Gaede]

I see that exactly the opposite.

Elitism can only exist with a general population of degenerates who are incapable of properly ordering their own lives. Contempt for the indecent is both earned and deserved.

Greg

I see three elites: 1) political, 2) business as tied into political. Those 1960s radicals were bullshiters who only wanted political--or political through academia and media--power and now they've got it. It's like that student twit decades ago who wondered if conservatives should be allowed free speech on campus or from campus. 3) Purely meritorious: people of great competence and knowledge x government.

--Brant

it's the old left-right divide going back to the 1930s (communist-fascist then) or even the century before (classical liberalism in politics died with the Founding Fathers and the rise of the state reflecting the triumph of Alexander Hamilton)

Ayn Rand was on the right and ignored and vilified by the liberal left and denigrated by the Buckley right

the left libertarians are the true inbetweeners with little or no import whatsoever and with Rand having little import beyond the personal level with Objectivist gravitas completely dissipated by the ARI and its minions and philosophical deficiencies in morality (ethics) and politics focused too much on never-get-there end results instead of the journey to same (Orthodox Objectivism is a hunk of indigestible intellectual-cultural lead)

[moralist]

I see that exactly the opposite.

Elitism can only exist with a general population of degenerates who are incapable of properly ordering their own lives. Contempt for the indecent is both earned and deserved.

Greg

I see three elites: 1) political, 2) business as tied into political. Those 1960s radicals were bullshiters who only wanted political--or political through academia and media--power and now they've got it. It's like that student twit decades ago who wondered if conservatives should be allowed free speech on campus or from campus. 3) Purely meritorious: people of great competence and knowledge x government.

--Brant

it's the old left-right divide going back to the 1930s (communist-fascist then) or even the century before (classical liberalism in politics died with the Founding Fathers and the rise of the state reflecting the triumph of Alexander Hamilton)

Ayn Rand was on the right and ignored and vilified by the liberal left and denigrated by the Buckley right

the left libertarians are the true inbetweeners with little or no import whatsoever and with Rand having little import beyond the personal level with Objectivist gravitas completely dissipated by the ARI and its minions and philosophical deficiencies in morality (ethics) and politics focused too much on never-get-there end results instead of the journey to same (Orthodox Objectivism is a hunk of indigestible intellectual-cultural lead)

It's a blessing that any individual can go right around all of that other bulls**t and simply read Ayn Rand's words directly for themselves.

Then they are free to choose how to implement her practical advice into their lives.

Greg

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

There's a bait-and-switch going on.

Ayn Rand is full of elites. Some of them are good guys and even snotty about it. But the good guys fall into your class 3. The bad guy elites fall into your class 1 and 2.

I think there's more going on, though.

The bait is the merit in the term elite. The switch is chucking out merit and keeping a snooty attitude only. F. Scott Fitzgerald once touched on it in an interesting manner.

Full story: The Rich Boy
Summary with commentary: F. Scott Fitzgerald's "The Rich Boy"

Let me tell you about the very rich. They are different from you and me. They possess and enjoy early, and it does something to them, makes them soft where we are hard, and cynical where we are trustful, in a way that, unless you were born rich, it is very difficult to understand. They think, deep in their hearts, that they are better than we are because we had to discover the compensations and refuges of life for ourselves. Even when they enter deep into our world or sink below us, they still think that they are better than we are. They are different.

. . .

I have met people who fit the above description to a tee. Even if they lose everything, they somehow imagine that they are innately superior to the rest of mankind. There is no merit involved in this sentiment, only upbringing. This gets really irritating to be around...

The person that Fitzgerald does not include in this description, but one who is vested in this self-sophistry, is the poor cousin (or even just plain poor person) who dreams about being rich and starts aping the upper class.

You find this poor sucker for intellectual elites, too, not just moneyed folk or the powerful.

Now, imagine a world where the electronic media and the Internet has made it easy to express an opinion in public. Kinda like today. Before that, you had to gather people around you or print something on paper to act conceited before an audience. And there were some difficult gatekeepers to get by for that.

Nowadays, any old airhead can put on airs in public. It doesn't cost anything.

So look around. Look at all the schlock with an aristocracy-wannabe bent. The meritless elite attitude is proving not to be an issue of upbringing, but a deeper character defect. An imbalanced vanity and tendency toward delusion.

I think the term "elite" for these kinds of people is a misnomer because of the bait-and-switch with merit. (Or a stolen concept, if you prefer.)

I like terms like "phoney-baloney," but that doesn't resonate with many. I think Rand hit the nail on the head with "second-hander." But for some reason, that term is not in popular use anymore.

Maybe we need a new term like the "noblesse humdrum" or something like that.

If you can swat them out of your way so they don't irritate you, they are to be pitied, not despised. They can't help themselves. They are addicts.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

As an elitest it seems I've no place to go, no place to hide.

--Brant

maybe I should just run for President and rule the world

[Frediano]

I've imperfectly tried to restrict my personal disdain for that subset of elites who are best at being busybodies with guns: coercive paternalist megalomaniacs with guns. The Cass Sunstein-esque, no they are not just expressing an opinion or politely convincing others but actually advocating the pointing of a state gun at others to force alignment with his holy visions

There are elite fighting forces who are the best at what they do, professionally, at applying force. When they are projecting that force to liberate from totalitarians, free people celebrate their elitism. Forced used to liberate is the opposite of forced used to enslave. (Reagan, June 6, 1984, paraphrased from his speech at Normandy.)

There are elite downhill racers who are the best at what they do. They don't force anyone to enter downhill races and chase them; they induce others to willingly enter those races and compete. They inspire only those who are inspired by what those few are elite at. (There is a hint of V. Pestrol's definition of Glamour in that.) That, times a million examples of races. Single handed round-the-world yacht racers, who sail from Newport to Newport, the long way.

There are elites at chewing gum and walking at the same time. Generally, a race with a tie. Too many to list here.

There are elite criminals who are the absolute best at being criminals.

There are elites who are the best at convincingly telling lies to others in order to rule over them.

Example:

Obama: "What is wrong with asking the wealthy to give a little more?..." That is his political argument for conceding power to him. But he isn't advocating that we grant him that power to ask anyone anything; he is arguing for the power to take without asking. An honest argument -- and an honest agreement with that honest argument, would be based on his honest disclosure, "What is wrong with taking from the wealthy without asking them anything at all?" And our fellow louts who snicker and nod along, 'Yeah, what is wrong with 'asking' them?' as their excuse to mob up and take at the point of a gun, without asking, must absolutely love the lies that form their embrace of pure democracy. Hey, the man asked, we voted, and so nobody's got any beef.

Clinton's variant of the same lie in 1993: "To make those who unfairly benefited from the 80's finally pay their fair share." (The 'except for shady Arkansas land deals' was implicit.) That was some laser focused reason for that symbolic boob-bait tax. And yet, it wasn't aimed at those people; it was aimed at anyone earning over $250,000/yr in 1993, retroactively.

Elites who are the best at lying to the mob, to divide the nation against itself in order to rule it, are a special subset of 'elite' deserving disdain.

Better those busybody elites would be best at lying to the mob in order to encourage their peaceful liberation, in freedom. That benign elitism needs to know when to stop the opposite of disdain before it becomes the eater of freedom, and even, the deliberate eater of freedom, in the name of some locked down, constrained peaceful management of bees in a bee colony managed by elite beekeepers. Free people aren't bees. They dance dances, plural, not 'the dance.' They run races, plural, not 'the race.' They run economies, plural, not 'the economy.' They form societies, plural, not 'the Society.' The aggregate of all societies is a nation, and mankind even forms nations, plural, not 'the Soviet Union' or Germania. Free people rail at over-constrained unity. Can 'the world' tolerate even one nation dedicated to the idea that the only force binding us is our right to be free from each other, paradoxically, a right we are willing to mob up to defend?

[Ellen Stuttle]

Ellen:

From your link Review by a Michael Quante of a book about autonomy in biomedical ethics by Elisabeth Hildt

Although the diversity of subjects and methods gives the impression that neuro-medicine cannot be a unified subject of biomedical ethics we should revise this impression since in it we ultimately deal with the question, wer wir als Menschen sind, wie wir sein wollen und was wir akzeptieren können, wollen und sollten

Translated: since in it we ultimately deal with the question"who we are as human beings, as we want to be and what we can accept, want and should"

That quote, although it does come from a review by Michael Quante, is in a review of a book by M. Stier, not in the review of a book by Elisabeth Hildt.

This review starts on pg. 6 of the linked Short literature notices.

Stier, M.: 2006, Ethische Probleme in der Neuromedizin: Identität und Autonomie in Forschung, Diagnostik und Therapie. Campus Verlag. 377 pages. EAN 9783593380339, Price: Euro 39.90.

The overall aim of Stier is to defend the thesis that we should regard neuro-ethics as a unified ethical complex of problems. Although the diversity of subjects and methods gives the impression that neuro-medicine cannot be a unified subject of biomedical ethics we should revise this impression since in it we ultimately deal with the question, wer wir als Menschen sind, wie wir sein wollen und was wir akzeptieren kö nnen, wollen und sollten (19).

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

I haven't had time yet to read either of the reviews by Michael Quante which I linked. I only quickly skimmed them. The impression I pick up is very much along the lines you're saying. Same from a couple other things of his I found. I think Quante is subtly pushing for state control of medical decisions, maybe even with a "eugenics" underlay.

I've subsequently read the reviews by Quante. Although I think there is a possible eugenics drift to his thinking, it's more cautious and conflicted than I thought on first impression, and his review of the Conly book, Against Autonomy, does express reservations about her thesis.

His review concludes (this is the paragraph from which the endorsement quote was excerpted):

link.

From: Med Health Care and Philos (2013) 16:317-322, DOI 10.1007/s11019-0139476-2.

Every reader who wants to defend autonomy as a central value and is also interested in a solitary society structured in such a way that normal and finite human beings can lead good lives within will have to face the challenge posed by Against Autonomy. If we take into account the distinction between ethics and law, and if we do not restrict our thinking concerning autonomy to consequentialism, I am sure we can defend other solutions than those provocative ones that Conly defends. But they will not be easy to have and they will have to accept some paternalistic restrictions, too. Having shown this without any conceptual space for philosophical illusions might be the greatest achievement of Sarah Conly's Against Autonomy which should be studied by everyone who is interested in defending autonomy and liberty for finite human beings.

- Michael Quante

Münster, Germany

Ellen

[moralist]

There are elites who are the best at convincingly telling lies to others in order to rule over them.

Those who believe lies deserve to be ruled over by liars.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

There are elites who are the best at convincingly telling lies to others in order to rule over them.

Those who believe lies deserve to be ruled over by liars.

Greg

You think the lied to don't know it and want it? Look at the people who've liared their way into the White House.

--Brant

[moralist]

There are elites who are the best at convincingly telling lies to others in order to rule over them.

Those who believe lies deserve to be ruled over by liars.

Greg

You think the lied to don't know it and want it? Look at the people who've liared their way into the White House.

--Brant

I agree. People who love lies also love the liars who tell them what they want to hear. Lying politicians are only the symptom of the tens of millions of lie lovers who support them.

The planting is already done... so I recommend keeping a safe distance when the harvest comes so as not to become collateral damage from the scythe.

Greg

[Ellen Stuttle]

Again... the poll was only to confirmation the point I already know by common sense. It was only posted for your benefit and not mine, because you put more faith in polls more than in your own common sense.

Wow, you really don't track.

The polls I wondered why you consulted were not posted by you for my benefit or even on this thread but instead referenced on a different thread - here - about 15 hours after you poo-pooed statistics generally.

And you are not in a position to know how much "faith" I put in polls, or in my common sense either.

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

Elitism is really what hollowed out the good parts of the American left... it killed their antiauthoritarian/countercultural streak. As a result, today's left bears zero resemblance to the socially tolerant, "sex, drugs, rock and roll, pro-choice, anti-war" beliefs of the 60's/70's American counterculture.

You might be interested by this forthcoming book, which I saw advertised on Amazon when I was looking up Against Autonomy:

link

Against Austerity: How We Can Fix the Crisis They Made [Paperback]

Richard Seymour (Author)

This title will be released on March 20, 2014.

Book Description

Release date: March 20, 2014 | ISBN-10: 0745333281 | ISBN-13: 978-0745333281

Against Austerity is a blistering, accessible and invigorating polemic against the current political consensus. Deploying his renowned power of razor-sharp polemic Richard Seymour charts the role of austerity in radically reducing living standards, fracturing established political structures, and creating simmering social alienation and explosions of discontent.

But Against Austerity goes further making a bold theoretical intervention on the question of challenging austerity and creating radical alternatives. Beginning with an analysis of current class formation and dominant ideology, Seymour issues a call to arms, mapping a new strategy to unite the left.

Along the way, he tackles the vexed question of achieving social change, in particular issues of reform and social revolution. In an age characterised by the paucity and inadequacy of mainstream analysis, Against Austerity points a way forward to revive the left and create a new spirit of collective resistance.

Ellen

[moralist]

And you are not in a position to know how much "faith" I put in polls, or in my common sense either.

Ellen

Sure I know, Ellen...

You had requested statistical evidence of liberalism being a feminine ideology and conservatism being a masculine ideology, and I supplied it for your sake even though it's totally obvious to anyone who trusts their common sense more than polls.

Polls either confirm what is consistent with common sense... or they're wrong.

Greg

[Frediano]

Ellen:

Against Austerity is a blistering, accessible and invigorating polemic against the current political consensus.

Wouldn't it be kind of a (pleasant)shock to learn that there is a "current political consensus" for which a work titled "Against Austerity" could be a blistering polemic against?

If only it were true. Places like here, maybe. But nation wide? Where is there evidence of that in the last 80 years or so?

When it comes to embracing Austerity, I know Germany is still around, but is Estonia still with us, or has Putin rolled it up yet? The fans of this invigorating polemic against the current political consensuses in Estonia must be cheering on the Russian troops in the Crimea, as we speak. No doubt, those are 'liberating' troops about to over-run the embrace of Austerity in Estonia.

regards,

Fred

[Brant Gaede]

Sure I know, Ellen...

You had requested statistical evidence of liberalism being a feminine ideology and conservatism being a masculine ideology, and I supplied it for your sake even though it's totally obvious to anyone who trusts their common sense more than polls.

Polls either confirm what is consistent with common sense... or they're wrong.

Greg

"Liberalism" may be for more females than not but it doesn't tell us where it came from or why. The State is structured to continually expand regardless of its ideological underpinings. It has a youth, middle age and old age. In it's old age it can morph into outright tyranny as an answer to its previous unsustainability and go on as such for a while. But change is accelerating. The Roman Empire lasted much longer than the British and the American is likely to last even less than that. Economic and technological growth and change seem to be playing the major part in such rate of change. A philosophy of individualism seems so far to only work for individuals who choose not to be cattle and has no appreciable effect on state governance or the direction in which that is moving. This country was founded on top-down state governance in spite of the extant political philosophy and the result culminated in the "Civil War" killing off 5% of the population--600,000 men (50% by disease and the rest by wounds) only four score and a few years later.

--Brant

[moralist]

Sure I know, Ellen...

You had requested statistical evidence of liberalism being a feminine ideology and conservatism being a masculine ideology, and I supplied it for your sake even though it's totally obvious to anyone who trusts their common sense more than polls.

Polls either confirm what is consistent with common sense... or they're wrong.

Greg

"Liberalism" may be for more females than not but it doesn't tell us where it came from or why.

But the other clue is that Conservatism is a masculine ideology.

These two represent the gender archetypes. In America they represent the holiness of marriage under God. All is well when a decent husband (Conservative) deals with the world from a position of morality (State), works and builds (commerce), and protects the family (military). While the wife cares for the children (education, healthcare) and keeps the home (social issues). This represents a proper division of labor where each has their duties and performing them morally fulfills them as people... and as a nation.

But when that moral protocol is violated... you have the America you see today. A dysfunctional broken family. Weak liberal males who think like females. Liberal females who by the default of decent men who will do right by them, demand the government to be their husband and father to their irresponsible delinquent spawn.

The State is structured to continually expand regardless of its ideological underpinings.

The state only expands in response to the failure of people to properly order their own lives. Whenever people fail to be decent, they create a moral vacuum which is filled by government.

And this is important:

Note that it is not the fault of government...

...but of people who fail to do what is morally right.

I left your history comments unresponded because they are in the dead past and are something about which absolutely nothing can be done. In my opinion, all that matters is what is happening right here and right now...

...because that's what we can do something about.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

Sure I know, Ellen...

You had requested statistical evidence of liberalism being a feminine ideology and conservatism being a masculine ideology, and I supplied it for your sake even though it's totally obvious to anyone who trusts their common sense more than polls.

Polls either confirm what is consistent with common sense... or they're wrong.

Greg

"Liberalism" may be for more females than not but it doesn't tell us where it came from or why.

But the other clue is that Conservatism is a masculine ideology.

These two represent the gender archetypes. In America they represent the holiness of marriage under God. All is well when a decent husband (Conservative) deals with the world from a position of morality (State), works and builds (commerce), and protects the family (military). While the wife cares for the children (education, healthcare) and keeps the home (social issues). This represents a proper division of labor where each has their duties and performing them morally fulfills them as people... and as a nation.

But when that moral protocol is violated... you have the America you see today. A dysfunctional broken family. Weak liberal males who think like females. Liberal females who by the default of decent men who will do right by them, demand the government to be their husband and father to their irresponsible delinquent spawn.

The State is structured to continually expand regardless of its ideological underpinings.

The state only expands in response to the failure of people to properly order their own lives. Whenever people fail to be decent, they create a moral vacuum which is filled by government.

And this is important:

Note that it is not the fault of government...

...but of people who fail to do what is morally right.

I left your history comments unresponded because they are in the dead past and are something about which absolutely nothing can be done. In my opinion, all that matters is what is happening right here and right now...

...because that's what we can do something about.

Greg

Ah. A freedom fighter!

--Brant

who woulda thought?

[Frediano]

Ellen:

From your link Review by a Michael Quante of a book about autonomy in biomedical ethics by Elisabeth Hildt

Although the diversity of subjects and methods gives the impression that neuro-medicine cannot be a unified subject of biomedical ethics we should revise this impression since in it we ultimately deal with the question, wer wir als Menschen sind, wie wir sein wollen und was wir akzeptieren können, wollen und sollten

Translated: since in it we ultimately deal with the question"who we are as human beings, as we want to be and what we can accept, want and should"

That quote, although it does come from a review by Michael Quante, is in a review of a book by M. Stier, not in the review of a book by Elisabeth Hildt.

This review starts on pg. 6 of the linked Short literature notices.

Stier, M.: 2006, Ethische Probleme in der Neuromedizin: Identität und Autonomie in Forschung, Diagnostik und Therapie. Campus Verlag. 377 pages. EAN 9783593380339, Price: Euro 39.90.

The overall aim of Stier is to defend the thesis that we should regard neuro-ethics as a unified ethical complex of problems. Although the diversity of subjects and methods gives the impression that neuro-medicine cannot be a unified subject of biomedical ethics we should revise this impression since in it we ultimately deal with the question, wer wir als Menschen sind, wie wir sein wollen und was wir akzeptieren kö nnen, wollen und sollten (19).

Ellen

Thanks Ellen.

Medical ethics, and particularly what drew his attention, coercive paternalism is, to me, significantly different than coercive political, philosophical, or religious paternalism. I can forgive an expert who has intensely studied the effects of smoking for strenuously waving me off, especially if he's not holding a gun(or, God forbid, smoking gun)and smoking a Camel while doing so.

I'm a little less enthusiastic about a politico directing ACA at me for what he claims is my own good while excusing him and his from same, all in the name of carving up he world into his eyes rolled into the back of his head arbitrary visions of perfection. What these guys once thought was really cool back in the dorm, during their pet Soc. grad school days at Dust Bunny U, is no reason to kill freedom.

And, I've stopped holding my breath, waiting for our current POTUS to pony up the transcripts that must be no doubt politically embarrassing to him. When our children fight their way out of university and search in vain for their entry level seat in a cubicle somewhere as assistant to the assistant, they must show up with transcripts and resumes. However, if someone wants to 'run THE economy,' none of that is necessary in the least. All that is required is that they look good when rolling up their sleeves and lying into our faces about 'asking' folks things and keeping things we like, and so on.

regards,

Fred