jriggenbach
-
Posts
577 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Store
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Articles
Posts posted by jriggenbach
-
-
Jack Bauer, or whether or not Ayn Rand would've been a fan of 24 (I doubt she would; she liked romantic fiction rather than 'gritty hardboiled 'realism''), is irrelevant to debates on real world foreign policy.
I admit that sometimes, ARI Watch's tone can get 'bitchy' (for instance, saying that Andrew Bernstein is spiritually corrupt because he also enjoys South Park), but it clearly isn't "quasi-Pacifist." Pacifism is the belief that war is unjustifiable, even in self-defense. ARI Watch clearly rejects that proposition; what it argues is that Neoconservative foreign policies are not self-defense.
Wait a minute. Do you mean to say that if someone attacks you and then you retaliate by going to some completely different neighborhood (or maybe even a different state or a different country) - some neighborhood or state or country where the people who attacked you don't live - and kill a bunch of people and maim and cripple a bunch of others and destroy a bunch of homes and businesses with bombs . . . you mean that's not self-defense? If that's not self-defense then I'd like to know what is!
Dennis Hardin
-
Re: the "stupid ignoramus" Ann Coulter--
The new book by Ann Coulter—Demonic—appears to have a theme that is very similar to a taped lecture presentation by Dr. John Ridpath.
The description of Ridpath's lecture at the Ayn Rand Bookstore:
By John Ridpath
The 18th-century saw two great social revolutions. One—the American Revolution—was the outcome of Enlightenment ideas, and was fueled, in particular, by the ideas of John Locke. The other—the French Revolution—was the result of anti-Enlightenment ideas, and was fueled, in particular, by the ideas of Jean Jacques Rousseau.
These two lectures offer a case study in the power—for good or evil—of philosophical ideas. By contrasting Locke and Rousseau, Dr. Ridpath explains the diametrically opposite products of their respective philosophies.
Book review of Demonic:
In her new book "Demonic: How the Liberal Mob Is Endangering America," Ann Coulter says liberals and ultra bloody regime changes like the French Revolution and its Terror -- the origin of the word "terror" -- have much in common.
Coulter traces the history of the liberal mob to the French Revolution and Robespierre's revolutionaries -- as contrasted with the carefully drawn legal brief-like Declaration of Independence from America's founding fathers -- who simply proclaimed that they were exercising the "general will" before slaughtering their fellow citizens "for the good of mankind."
Coulter says liberal mobs, from student radicals like Bill Ayers and his privileged suburban wife Bernardine Dorhn to "white-trash racists to anti-war and pro-ObamaCare fanatics today," have consistently used violence to implement their idea of the "general will."
Coulter attibutes the long-term success of the American revolution to the influence of another Enlightenment thinker, John Locke.
Locke was concerned with private property rights. His idea was that the government should allow men to protect their property in courts of law. . .Rousseau saw the government as the vessel to implement the 'general will'. . .Through the limitless power of the state, the government would 'force men to be free'.. .
Demonic, p. 130
Such a stupid, ignorant, clueless woman. No insight to offer at all.
True. None whatever. Glad you've seen the light on this bimbo, Dennis. Her absurdly oversimplified view of the revolutions of the late 18th Century is comical, though, you have to admit.
JR
-
Guilliani also made it possible for families with children to walk along Broadway and Seventh Avenue between the 40 block and the 50 block. You should have seen it before. Whores, pimps, junkies and scum lined the sidewalks.
<...>
I assume by "scum," you mean "police officers."
JR
If JR had to work as the mayor of NYC for some time, I bet he'd be glad to have what he calls "scum" to help him do the job.
JR wouldn't ever have to work as mayor of NYC or anywhere else. He wouldn't run for the office, and, if somehow "elected" to it anyway, would refuse to "serve." He gets no kicks out of telling other people how to run their lives, much less out of locking them in cages and seizing their property if they don't take his advice.
JR
-
This is not an introductory course in Anarchism 101. Go and read the obvious sources - Friedman's Machinery of Freedom, Rothbard's For a New Liberty and Power & Market, the Tannehill's Market for Liberty, Ghs's "Justice Entrepreneurship in a Free Market." For some fictional examples of how such a system might work, see Robert A. Heinlein's The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress. If you have questions about what you read, come back and ask them. If I'm not around, maybe Ghs or one of the other anarchists around here will step in and help out.
Which sources would you recommend for the strongest arguments against anarchism? Who, in your opinion, offers the best criticisms of the ideas of Friedman, Rothbard and Smith, which I might use to supplement my studies in Anarchism 101?
J
I've never seen any arguments against anarchism that I regarded as other than inept. Almost all of them are directed at straw men.
JR
-
While the "C&C" cocktail (Christian faith + Capitalism) she serves to the public may not be to your taste, that Coulter is a fervent advocate of capitalism cannot be denied.
Yes, it can. I deny it. Ann Coulter is an ignoramus and a moron. She doesn't even understand what "capitalism" (in the Objectivist sense of completely unimpeded markets) is.
Since Coulter is no Objectivist, there is no reason for her to adopt Rand's idea of "capitalism" in the Objectivist sense of completely unimpeded markets.
If you look at it that way, then Coulter's status as an "advocate" of "capitalism" turns out to mean that she advocates whatever she advocates and she calls it "capitalism" whether it is or not. I, for example, am an advocate of socialism - not what the Marxists mean by socialism, because I'm not a Marxist; rather what I mean by socialism, which is a system in which everyone has lots of beer. Presto! I'm an "advocate" of "socialism."
Coulter is far from using the term capitalism in a similarly odd way as you describe it with socialism in your above example.
When she exclaimed during the health insurance debate: "What we want is Capitalism!", the basic definition of capitalism covers exactly what she has in mind:
"Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for profit, usually in competitive markets." http://en.wikipedia....wiki/CapitalismWhat Coulter had in mind was the Republican proposal, which is an example of "capitalism" only in the Marxist sense in which capitalism means what we free marketeers would describe as mercantilism, state capitalism, or simply fascism. Because she is an ignoramus and a simpleton, Coulter doesn't realize that this is not the same as what you've just so helpfully defined. Apparently, you don't realize it either. Why does this not surprise me?
I think what really goes against your grain is that people like Coulter sit in that capitalist boat as well (impossible to kick her out there), hence your attacks against her as not being an advocate of ['true'] capitalism. [True'] capitalism translated as the anarcho-capitalist version you happen to adhere to.
Anarchism, and, hence, "anarcho-capitalism" has nothing to do with this. You could have a completely free market, true capitalism, under the sort of government Ayn Rand advocated, one that had no power to tax. That government would not interfere in the market, which is to say, it would not interfere with people's economic activities. Yet it would not be what you half-comprehendingly describe as "anarcho-capitalism." Ludwig von Mises, no anarcho-capitalist by any standard, also advocated a completely free market under an extremely limited government, which would not interfere in market processes. Ann Coulter wants a government that interferes more or less constantly in market processes, mostly to benefit "businessmen" who would rather use the power of the State to enrich themselves than do it "the old-fashioned way" - by competing for their riches in the marketplace.
JR
-
I suppose even the most die-hard advocates of free market capitalism will draw the line when other fundamental values they have are being attacked.
Then, as usual, you suppose wrong.
So they won't draw the line when other fundamental values they have are being attacked?
What does for example a die-hard advocate of of free market capitalism - but who is also an animal rights activist and opposed to rearing hens in far too small cages - do if the cage eggs sell a lot better on the market? Can you definitely say that the animals' rights will take a back seat then in this person's mind and he/she'll opt for monetary profit instead?
Your obtuseness never fails to startle me, Xray. I'm not giving you a law of nature which will enable you to predict the behavior of particular individuals. I'm telling you that there are people who advocate completely and utterly free and unimpeded markets - what Objectivists and most other libertarians call "capitalism." Whatever personal preferences they may have (for eggs laid by free range chickens, for example, a preference I happen to share), these folks appear to understand that they have no right to force others at the point of a gun to honor those preferences.
Or would you accord the label 'free market' only those economic transactions where no kind of coercion in the production process is involved?
That's correct. If some people violate others' rights in the process of manufacturing and marketing products, they can be prosecuted for those rights violations. That is a separate issue.
It is actually a key issue, especially from an anarchist perspective. It has always interested me in what way rights violations are dealt with in Anarchia. Do the offenders get prosecuted as well? If yes, how is it done?
This is not an introductory course in Anarchism 101. Go and read the obvious sources - Friedman's Machinery of Freedom, Rothbard's For a New Liberty and Power & Market, the Tannehill's Market for Liberty, Ghs's "Justice Entrepreneurship in a Free Market." For some fictional examples of how such a system might work, see Robert A. Heinlein's The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress. If you have questions about what you read, come back and ask them. If I'm not around, maybe Ghs or one of the other anarchists around here will step in and help out.
While the "C&C" cocktail (Christian faith + Capitalism) she serves to the public may not be to your taste, that Coulter is a fervent advocate of capitalism cannot be denied.
Yes, it can. I deny it. Ann Coulter is an ignoramus and a moron. She doesn't even understand what "capitalism" (in the Objectivist sense of completely unimpeded markets) is.
Since Coulter is no Objectivist, there is no reason for her to adopt Rand's idea of "capitalism" in the Objectivist sense of completely unimpeded markets.
If you look at it that way, then Coulter's status as an "advocate" of "capitalism" turns out to mean that she advocates whatever she advocates and she calls it "capitalism" whether it is or not. I, for example, am an advocate of socialism - not what the Marxists mean by socialism, because I'm not a Marxist; rather what I mean by socialism, which is a system in which everyone has lots of beer. Presto! I'm an "advocate" of "socialism."
Do you have any other pointless word games you'd like to waste our time with?
JR
-
Coulter & Co interest me as an object of study; here in Europe, we don't have the type of politicians or other public figures who advocate capitalism in combination with quoting from the Bible. Imo one could call these people "capitalism evangelists".
Does Coulter believe in a free market in heroin? In "pornography"? Then she does not believe in a free market. And she does not "advocate capitalism."
JR
I suppose even the most die-hard advocates of free market capitalism will draw the line when other fundamental values they have are being attacked.
Then, as usual, you suppose wrong.
Let's do the test on pornography: do the free market advocates really devote no thought as to the conditions which provide the basis for this flourishing market? For example, third world parents selling their daughters into prostitution and for pornography films?
If coercion is involved in the production of porn (or heroin), how do free market advocates deal with that?
How do you deal with it? What is your position? If it should clash with any NIOF/NIOC principle you advocate, what do you do? Is it still a 'free market' to you then?
Or would you accord the label 'free market' only those economic transactions where no kind of coercion in the production process is involved?
That's correct. If some people violate others' rights in the process of manufacturing and marketing products, they can be prosecuted for those rights violations. That is a separate issue.
While the "C&C" cocktail (Christian faith + Capitalism) she serves to the public may not be to your taste, that Coulter is a fervent advocate of capitalism cannot be denied.
Yes, it can. I deny it. Ann Coulter is an ignoramus and a moron. She doesn't even understand what "capitalism" (in the Objectivist sense of completely unimpeded markets) is. Like everyone else in the political mainstream, she's a garden variety fascist.
JR
-
Guilliani also made it possible for families with children to walk along Broadway and Seventh Avenue between the 40 block and the 50 block. You should have seen it before. Whores, pimps, junkies and scum lined the sidewalks.
Yes, I remember it well. It was a terrible problem. You see, if there's a "whore" or a "junkie" on the sidewalk, then children can't walk on that sidewalk. (I've forgotten just why, exactly, but I'm confident there's an explanation. If they try to walk on that sidewalk, their legs give out and they collapse to the ground.)
I assume by "scum," you mean "police officers."
JR
-
Ultimately our standard of living will even out to the level of the standard of living of our major importer--China--urban China, not rural. This will resolve the import-export balance of trade issue.
There is no "import-export balance of trade issue." Those who think there is do not understand economics.
JR
-
Coulter & Co interest me as an object of study; here in Europe, we don't have the type of politicians or other public figures who advocate capitalism in combination with quoting from the Bible. Imo one could call these people "capitalism evangelists".
Does Coulter believe in a free market in heroin? In "pornography"? Then she does not believe in a free market. And she does not "advocate capitalism."
JR
-
For everyone's information, here is the link to the Wikipedia page about Ron Paul's political positions, and the very first section is about foreign policy.
http://en.wikipedia....ons_of_Ron_Paul
I don't have the gumption to analyze and rank them as to "top 5," but off-hand, I'd say that non-interventionism and non-coerced-foreign-aid and non-regulated-foreign-trade and non-military-conscription and non-Patriot-Act would be way up there.
Does anybody have a problem with ~any~ of these views? Does anybody see ~other~ Paul views as being higher in the ranking order, and as objectionable in some way? (E.g., I think his notion that Iran should be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons is pretty nutty. I agree that the U.S. military should not be used to take out those installations, but surely his idea of fighting terrorism with Letters of Marquis and Reprisal is a valid and proper libertarian alternative to military intervention, and the Iran situation a proper potential application of that alternative.)
REB
Here are a couple of crazy ole Uncle Ron's foreign policy positions from the wikipedia site which Roger mentioned.
Israel
During the 2009 Gaza War, Paul addressed Congress to voice his staunch opposition to the House's proposed resolution supporting Israel's actions. He stated: "Madame Speaker, I strongly oppose H. Res. 34, which was rushed to the floor with almost no prior notice and without consideration by the House Foreign Affairs Committee. The resolution clearly takes one side in a conflict that has nothing to do with the United States or US interests. I am concerned that the weapons currently being used by Israel against the Palestinians in Gaza are made in America and paid for by American taxpayers." He then went on to question the very purpose of America's support for Israel, asking: "Is it really in the interest of the United States to guarantee the survival of any foreign country?"
When later asked about his comments by Russia Today, Ron Paul added: "[This support has] been going on for more than 50 years, because there has been a pretty strong case made for the Jewish people being treated quite badly, and emotionally there was an argument for having a place they can call their homeland, and people bought into this. But even then there was no justification for us to be using our money for doing that. There's one thing being friends, getting along with people and trading with people versus subsidizing them."
Iran
Paul rejects the "dangerous military confrontation approaching with Iran and supported by many in leadership on both sides of the aisle." He claims the current circumstances with Iran mirror those under which the Iraq War began, and has urged Congress not to authorize war with Iran. In the U.S. House of Representatives, only Paul and Dennis Kucinich voted against the Rothman-Kirk Resolution, which asks the United Nations to charge Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with violating its genocide convention and charter.
[emphasis mine]
All I can say is: Are you people f**king serious? This is not merely nutty. This is sheer insanity!
We should do nothing to help protect Israel as our one crucial ally for freedom in the Middle East? We shouldn't make every effort to "guarantee their survival?" We shouldn't take sides in their ongoing conflict with the Palestinians who challenge their right to exist?
We should join the spineless pacifist Dennis Kucinich in embracing Mahmoud Ahmadinejad despite the Iranian leader's speeches advocating the destruction of Israel and the US? Paul wants to remain neutral with Iran, the foremost state sponsor of terrorism in the world, whose leaders are abetting the killing of our soldiers in Irag and Afghanistan? If we will only "mind our own business," they will surely stop knocking down our skyscrapers and blowing up our planes.
Did you also happen to note that Paul's de facto pacifism is a product of "everything he was taught as a Christian"? He has absolutely no grasp of the ethical principle of self-interest and our right as a nation to act on it.
The devotion of Ron Paul supporters is a genuine inspiration. I'm beginning to think he could argue that the world was flat and his defenders would say: "Oh, that's okay. That's just lovable ole Uncle Ron being his cantankerous self. He's a great ole guy. Don't hold that against him."
In Thursday night's debate, He articulated his wildly bizarre view that it's fine if Iran has the bomb. So what? The U.S.S.R. had the bomb for decades and we were just fine. His legions of knee-jerk supporters burst into applause.
The problem, of course, is that M.A.D. ("mutually assured destruction") only works if the enemy views death and destruction as unthinkable. Mahmoud and his merry band of jihadist fanatics believe they are on a mission to wipe the Zionist menace and the Great Satan off the face of the earth—and they believe Allah will reward them for their noble deed in paradise if they should perish in the process. To them, their own survival is a secondary issue. The Soviet Union was a bastion of lucid rationality by comparison.
This craziness only serves to marginalize libertarianism as a movement from the lunatic fringe. His campaign has as much realistic chance of success as anarcho-capitalism has as a viable political system.
So now crazy, lovable ole Uncle Ron's supporters are thrilled that he came in second in the Iowa straw poll. Wow. The Ron Paul juggernaut looks unstoppable. 4671 votes. He only needs about 65 million more votes to get to the White House. With his foreign policy views, he'll be lucky to get one million.
I know it's useless to try to talk sense to Ron Paul's lock stepping hordes of devoted acolytes. I just like to remind them that there are plenty of us who think they're nuts.
When an Argentinian donkey begins braying, the racket can become intense. It is said that the sound of millions of them braying all at once (ordinarily about anti-concepts and floating abstractions like the "rights" of nations and the crying need for a nation in North America to have "allies" in a desert halfway around the world) can strip the paint from a Humvee in ten minutes flat.
JR
-
A lot of libertarians are Godless (laughs) and although I can't say ...
I saw her books back in 2003 and was hopeful, but after a few pages, I realized that she is vacuous. Since then, having seen her on talk shows, I am all the more certain that she is a mean, evil, spiteful, hateful mouthpiece whose job it is to be ridiculous so that Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck (and John Boehner) seem reasonable. She is troll.
And she looks like a troll. See her without the long blonde hair and you see a monster, which is what she is.
I think it would be a mistake to underestimate Coulter. She is a very savvy media whore who had made herself rich by spoon-feeding pablum to the infantile contingent of the conservative movement. If you watch Coulter in spontaneous debates, you will see that she is a smart cookie who obviously knows what she is doing. Coulter knows how to put on a good show, from her micro skirts on up.
Ghs
I guess it all depends on what sort of "show" one considers "good."
JR
-
"Show Your Work" -- one can scarcely imagine a more appropriate thread title to mark Phil's return from self-imposed exile.
Ghs
Yes! For example, it's both civil and benevolent!
JR
-
If I spent years writing a 600 page book for students explaining many of the essential ideas of Objectivist epistemology and demonstrating how to use those ideas in everyday thinking and problem-solving, and then I visited OL and there was another Objectivist bashing me for the way I phrased a sentence—or for not dealing explicitly with metaphysical issues (e.g., identity) when I explained why that was not my immediate purpose with this book--I would be feeling very discouraged, and I would start to wonder why the hell I want to be productive at all.
[. . . ]
I see now that expressing my misgivings along with approval and optimistic anticipation constitutes "bashing."
In fairness to Dennis, Roger, I think you have to acknowledge that it would certainly seem that way to a donkey from Argentina. I mean, they've had severe problems down there with the beasts losing their motivation so utterly that they stop eating the vegetation that grows on those vast, grassy plains they have down there (I can't remember what they're called, just offhand), and the result is mass starvation - literally, piles of corpses. Under the circumstances, anything that looks even slightly like bashing - the scurrilous remarks Brian Doherty has made about Ayn Rand, for example - is likely to be taken perhaps a bit more seriously than you or I might be inclined to take it.
Just sayin' . . .
Helpfully,
JR
-
(DELETED FOR UNEXPECTED, UNUSUAL AND SERIOUS REASONS.)
-
I can speak only for myself, of course, but I know that I am struck dumb with admiration by the way the American system of checks and balances has left no opportunity, no legal loophole for the development of tyranny. Every time I think about it, it brings tears to my eyes.
Come on, Jeff.
Us against them again? The same rhetorical gimmick again?
Nobody I know of claims that the system of checks and balances closes all loopholes against tyranny. It just slices power up. In fact, the only people I know of who are perceived as claiming your meaning are people who don't, but are misrepresented by being misassigned that meaning like with your remark above.
The wording in my remark above was taken verbatim from Ayn Rand, Michael, from the quotation you introduced into the discussion.
As for the rest of your reply, I can only describe myself as speechless with wonder at the prospect of being led back to freedom by Glenn Beck.
Best,
JR
-
Speaking of checks and balances, here's a cute little quote from the big lady herself (my bold):
In mankind's history, the understanding of the government's proper function is a very recent achievement: it is only two hundred years old and it dates from the Founding Fathers of the American Revolution. Not only did they identify the nature and the needs of a free society, but they devised the means to translate it into practice. A free society—like any other human product—cannot be achieved by random means, by mere wishing or by the leaders' "good intentions." A complex legal system, based on objectively valid principles, is required to make a society free and to keep it free—a system that does not depend on the motives, the moral character or the intentions of any given official, a system that leaves no opportunity, no legal loophole for the development of tyranny.The American system of checks and balances was just such an achievement.
This is from "The Nature of Government" in The Virtue of Selfishness.
Some people disagree with Rand on this, but I don't. From what I have learned over life and study about human nature, she was spot on.
I may disagree with those people who disagree, but I won't call them names like Rand did. I realize that she was lonely in her own fashion and had her own ways of getting attention.
Michael
I can speak only for myself, of course, but I know that I am struck dumb with admiration by the way the American system of checks and balances has left no opportunity, no legal loophole for the development of tyranny. Every time I think about it, it brings tears to my eyes.
JR
-
I wonder what happens when you give a banana to a monkey and tell him you trust him not to eat the banana.
Mostly because you don't really approve of monkeys eating bananas.
You elucidate that it results in low-quality monkeys.
But then he eats the banana.
What do you do?
sigh...
Michael
You introduce checks and balances, of course. These will magically mitigate the unimaginable excesses committed by monkeys doing what they naturally do, just as checks and balances magically mitigate the unimaginable excesses committed by politicians doing what they naturally do (abuse the power they have been naively given by the voters, who naively trusted them not to abuse it).
But you know all this.
JR
-
You know you're fucked when you talk about missing Phil.
Rich, my fellow madman iconoclast, there are a couple of us here (at least) who have been keeping in touch with Phil. From all reports he is doing well and feeling pretty sprightly. He shares with me from time to time some fun things he has written. I paste one such below. . .here is Phil the light-hearted:
I'm just preparing to teach a course this fall called "a survey of great poetry". Thirty five poems in six weeks.It's a pity Phil's no longer here. I'd love to read his comments on "Fern Hill" by Dylan Thomas.
JR
-
I guess when we look out at the world, we tend to see what we expect to see - what we're looking for.
This is correct.
After being beaten to a pulp a few times by bullies, who somehow were always immune to my stunning intellect and impeccable arguments from principle, I decided to start looking out for them and finding ways to restrain them before the beating.
Or, to be more exact, you decided to start yelling for someone else to restrain them before the beating. Some people, after being beaten to a pulp a few times, might conclude that they had been foolish to entrust their personal security to the State. They might conclude that the State was useless for personal security (it is, of course, since its actual purpose is something else entirely). They might conclude that they should provide for their own personal security from that point forward - just as they provide for their own footwear. After all, they don't sit around explaining on Internet forums why the State needs to provide everyone with footwear because if people don't have footwear bullies might step on their toes.
You seem to have concluded none of this. You seem to have concluded that it was obviously necessary for the State to take care of your personal security - and everyone else's, too. Was this because the State had done such a good job of providing you with personal security up to that time? I'm a little confused, here. Did I miss a meeting?
JR
-
So long as I am on this kick about human nature, I want to add something I see all around me.
Whenever a crowd gathers, if one individual within it starts accusing and scapegoating someone near who is different, and the accuser's arguments are loud enough and sound like they a minimum amount of plausibility, irrespective of how tortured the rationalization may be, the crowd gradually turns into a lynch mob.
I keep seeing this over and over in human history and I keep seeing it currently in human society.
I keep seeing good people temporarily turning into bullies under the right circumstances.
It's all over the place. It happens so much, I say this has to be part of human nature.
And I worry about the scapegoat. I want him or her to be protected against bullies and mobs.
But, hell... that's probably because of my own tendency to get carried away with conspiracy theories...
Michael
I guess when we look out at the world, we tend to see what we expect to see - what we're looking for.
JR
-
I think what Michael is trying to say here, Nick, is that principles are inconvenient things, because they keep leading you to conclusions you don't want to reach. It's better to rely on "common sense," i.e., whatever seems right and reasonable to you for whatever reason it happens to seem right and reasonable. That way, you can have your cake and eat it, too.
Actually, this is inaccurate.
I hold that political principles have to apply to human beings to be valid, i.e., they must be based on human nature--which in MSK-speak includes (among other things) the tendency of individuals to periodically bully others when they can get away with it.
I hold that forcing human beings into a mold not suited to them in order to make sense of a principle with incomplete conceptual referents, but pretending you are not doing that, is trying to have your cake and eat it, too.
It's probably my limited intelligence that leads me to conceive of such things...
Michael
EDIT: For further clarification, I don't mind letting equals duke it out--in the name of principle--when one gets the itch to be ornery and starts smacking the other around, but I do support giving the underdog a handicap when he or she is severely outgunned or just plain too weak to fight a bully.
(I'm not too big on the right of bullies to start bullying at whim...)
Oh, yes. I'd almost forgotten. Because there are bullies, we must take an institution that was originally invented by bullies to enable their bullying, an institution that in all of human history has never been anything but a tool to further the goals of bullies, and put our faith in that institution to protect us from bullies. Uh huh. The logic of this is so compelling, I can't believe it slipped my mind when I was writing my earlier misguided post.
JR
-
Nick,
More context. The trouble is saying "government" and lumping it all together, so a constitutional republic becomes equal to a bloody dictatorship.
Here's a case for you. Suppose, in a country that is governed by a constitutional republic, I buy 4 or 5 acres of land right next to a city and right near the water supply, power source, railway station, and largest public transportation system. Then suppose I build huge fences all around and reinforce them with barbed wire. Next, I start stockpiling bazookas, have a few tanks delivered, cases of hand grenades, and so on. People constantly see cement mixer trucks going in an out. And, everyday, people can hear military-like drills going on with a group of people who I recruit to live there. I could go on, but I think you get the picture.
Now, suppose every time someone comes to the door to ask questions, I, or one of my representatives, always say I am 100% for peace and love. I have no intention whatsoever to use the ordnance I am accumulating, nor deploy to people I am training. And if you don't believe me, just ask the others who live in the compound. They will say the same thing. Peace and love, baby. That's what we're about.
There's a moment when you say to me, "You can't do that anymore here." I say--in no uncertain terms--that I will not stop. So you come and make me--bringing armed units to use force against me if necessary.
That is one situation.
Here's another.
I live under a dictatorship. I want to have a reading club to study works that are on the government's censorship list of banned books--works like Atlas Shrugged or, say, The Satanic Verses, or even The Turner Diaries. So I set up a group and we meet in secret. A government agent from the secret police infiltrates us and, after a while, armed units eventually come for us. I'll leave the rest to your imagination.
There is a fundamental difference between these two situations--and it isn't based on initiating force. It's not even based on the threat of using force.
It's based more on balance within context than on blind adherence to a contextless principle.
Some people in our neck of the woods see no difference in government activity in these two situations. They hold that the government is violating the individual rights and freedom of the people within those two groups.
I see a huge difference. The boundaries between prevention and oppression can get a bit fuzzy, I admit, but that does not mean I will throw common sense right out the window in certain situations. I hold that prevention is a higher moral good than retaliation in those cases.
Michael
I think what Michael is trying to say here, Nick, is that principles are inconvenient things, because they keep leading you to conclusions you don't want to reach. It's better to rely on "common sense," i.e., whatever seems right and reasonable to you for whatever reason it happens to seem right and reasonable. That way, you can have your cake and eat it, too.
Helpfully,
JR
-
The double-jeopardy rule has always seemed completely senseless to me. Why should a crime go unredressed, just because crucial evidence had not been found at the time the accused were getting their speedy trial?
Because otherwise, trials could be repeated indefinitely until the prosecutors' desired guilty verdict came in.
Just as they can be in Canada.
JR
In Defense of the Hack Writer, by Jeff Riggenbach
in Jeff Riggenbach Corner
Posted
I'm very sorry that you're unable to comprehend what you read, "Pippi," but I'm afraid I'm unable to help you with that problem. My deepest apologies.
Best,
JR