Frediano

Michael: I have to give her credit for succeeding in totally changing my understanding of the concept glamor. There are new insights throughout her book. Her distinction between glamor and envy-as-resentment was especially thought provoking to me; folks don't normally resent that which they find glamorous; the opposite, they find it glamorous. It is an attractor. They want to move toward it, not away from it. The class warriors uber alles are not going to take lightly her illumination of that fact. My thanks to Steve W. for posting that link on RoR. What first drew my attention was something totally silly-- her resemblence to a younger Hilary Clinton. I thought it was HRC when I first saw the link. I'm not sure I would have watched the link if I only knew the title "The Power of Glamor." I probably would have scrolled by. It would have been a mistake caused by my former bias. regards, Fred

Fred,I don't think the issue being discussed in the bioethics venues is such questions as medical advice pushed on people but instead overriding the patient's "informed consent," which is how "autonomy" is being defined in the reviews I read. The under text, I gather, is such issues as, Can you require a woman to abort a fetus with certain genetic defects? And a host of other questions which will increasingly arise with advances in medical technology, including of course the already often troublesome questions of whether the doctor can override familial decisions and terminate life-support. Ellen Ellen:I just came back from Special Olympics track practice. Cold morning, tough to run, throw the softball and so on. My wife and I had our second child late in life, we were 38 at the time. She had a CVS procedure with what were our obvious intentions, which were, to not deliberately bring a child with birth defects to Nature's Table(where, according to A. Philip Randolph, there are no reserved seats.). However, not all defects are screened, and our youngest slipped by the gauntlet and showed up anyway with WIlliam's Syndrome, a sporadic genetic deletion in his Elastin gene. And of course, now we can't imagine life without him; he surprises the living Hell out of us. We did not see him coming, nor were we close to understanding what life with him in it was going to be like. Our choice, our responsibility. But being intimately -- on a first name basis, year round -- familiar with a wide community of individuals with all kinds of birth defects and learning disabilities, I can't for the life of me imagine a state in which the government inserted itself forcefully into those decisions -- either to force a woman/couple to carry to term, or equally, to force them to abort, even if the screening technology were perfect. We collectively just are not that smart in advance, and especially, from afar. I was totally clueless. My youngest snuck by our gauntlet and made it to Nature's Table anyway, and educated me,. The decisions need to be left up to those bearing the responsibility, and as well, the responsibility must be left up to those making the decision. Deviating from that either way is a state out of control; heads will no doubt roll with it, and worse when the unfettered state is allowed to roll unchecked. regards, Fred I fully agree as to who should be making the decisions and bearing the responsibility. What I'm seeing in the bioethics material I explored (which was quite a bit more than the samples I provided) is an undercurrent of softening up for taking the decisions out of the affected persons' control.I'm expecting the book Against Autonomy to arrive on my doorstep later today, or Monday. The book sounds like one which is going to become a big favorite of social planners. I can't say I'm looking forward to perusing it. Prepared. Ellen Ellen: Re responsibility from decision vs decision from responsibilty, isn't the State's on- ramp for making these decisions our acceptance of the state taking responsibility for outcomes? If the state is going to bear the costs then the state has an argument that it should make the decisions...and adult life is reduced to the endless Thirteenth Grade.

Ellen: The central thesis of Against Austerity (without saying it this way) is to blame Germany's policies/Agenda 2010 etc., for Greece's welfare state outcomes. If only Germany would endlessly subsidize Greece's magical whims, all would be fine in Europe. It's not the giant sucking from Greece that causes Greece's dysfunction, it is Germany's failure to endless supply subsidy. I can well imagine who would buy that, and why. And here is the Progressive argument: if only we would have caved in to full national socialism, there would have been 8 million more jobs in something called 'the economy' today. Trust them, their naval gazing is that good. Germany and Estonia are interesting counter examples in Europe; well kept secrets in America. Even Sweden has been long term backing out of the cul de sac. The Progressives have an existentially need to hide/distort the facts of these experiments every time they are run, because austerity works for the nation that embrace those ideals, and the century old swill still being sold by the Progressives is sucking wind. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Estonia Yes, Estonian needs to be quietly rolled up by Putin; for sure. Progressives praying for that, before the world gets wind. Can't let freedom break out so close to bootlicker central. regards, Fred

Fred, I don't think the issue being discussed in the bioethics venues is such questions as medical advice pushed on people but instead overriding the patient's "informed consent," which is how "autonomy" is being defined in the reviews I read. The under text, I gather, is such issues as, Can you require a woman to abort a fetus with certain genetic defects? And a host of other questions which will increasingly arise with advances in medical technology, including of course the already often troublesome questions of whether the doctor can override familial decisions and terminate life-support. Ellen Ellen: I just came back from Special Olympics track practice. Cold morning, tough to run, throw the softball and so on. My wife and I had our second child late in life, we were 38 at the time. She had a CVS procedure with what were our obvious intentions, which were, to not deliberately bring a child with birth defects to Nature's Table(where, according to A. Philip Randolph, there are no reserved seats.). However, not all defects are screened, and our youngest slipped by the gauntlet and showed up anyway with WIlliam's Syndrome, a sporadic genetic deletion in his Elastin gene. And of course, now we can't imagine life without him; he surprises the living Hell out of us. We did not see him coming, nor were we close to understanding what life with him in it was going to be like. Our choice, our responsibility. But being intimately -- on a first name basis, year round -- familiar with a wide community of individuals with all kinds of birth defects and learning disabilities, I can't for the life of me imagine a state in which the government inserted itself forcefully into those decisions -- either to force a woman/couple to carry to term, or equally, to force them to abort, even if the screening technology were perfect. We collectively just are not that smart in advance, and especially, from afar. I was totally clueless. My youngest snuck by our gauntlet and made it to Nature's Table anyway, and educated me,. The decisions need to be left up to those bearing the responsibility, and as well, the responsibility must be left up to those making the decision. Deviating from that either way is a state out of control; heads will no doubt roll with it, and worse when the unfettered state is allowed to roll unchecked. regards, Fred

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. 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

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. Yes, and instead of holding PM telethons("Let's help Cass's Kids") for paternalistic megalomania, and treating its victims, we hold elections. We -could- hold elections without also making them the crack houses of PM, but that would require the realization that staffing the machinery of state is more like jury duty than American Idol. Jurors make life and death and liberty decisions over their peers every day, and we select the pool of jurors that we vet randomly from voter lists and so on. We still vet the pool, but that pool doesn't have the bias of being selected from that segment of our peers with a huge desire to make life and death and liberty decisions over their peers. Not so for the political circus from which emerge our American Idol/Leader Maximus. The impetus that brings the clowns into the tent is the urge to rule others, and that results in a distinct bias in how we select our state plumbers, who we need to keep the plumbing of state clean and free flowing. They come into the process believing they are pursuing a scepter, not a plunger. A "Let's Help Cass's Kids" PM telethon over Labor Day might help.

Fred, I only have time for one right now, and please understand, I'm not playing gotcha. This stuff is important, so it needs a good shaking out. I believe that and I imagine you do, too. You must understand in your argument there is an assumption of individuals automatically assigning a monopoly on force to the government, as Rand stated. I have always had difficulty with the way Rand talked about that assignment because I don't recall assigning anything of the sort to the government. Not me, Michael. I'm not saying I'm against a government monopoly on force (except self-defense, but even then, I am for things like citizen's arrest), but I am against justifying this with a false argument. If this assumption does not underlie your argument, then what about feuds like with the Hatfields and McCoys? Do you simply go back and forth and back and forth until you arrive at the first person who started the feud and say all the people who killed from that side over all those years were initiating force and all those who killed from the other side were merely acting against force being initiated? Thus one side is all right and the other is all wrong? That's a hell of a mess to untangle with NIOF as the governing principle. And I know a pretzel might be coming. It's a shame I don't like pretzels. I think this premise needs some serious checking. Not because I believe it's wrong. But because, to me, the inclusiveness is forced--force fed with pretzels as it were , which indicates that the principle is not in the form it needs to be yet to be all-inclusive. But I think there is a good deal of validity in it to build on. (btw - I sometimes find this scope problem with Rand's arguments.) Michael Michael: I've got no problem at all with honest criticism and examination; none. re: You must understand in your argument there is an assumption of individuals automatically assigning a monopoly on force to the government, as Rand stated. I have always had difficulty with the way Rand talked about that assignment because I don't recall assigning anything of the sort to the government. Not me, Michael. Rand, I think, will have to speak for herself. I am an admirer, not a worshipper. Self defence would be outside of government monopoly, in my view of an ethical use of force. I was speaking for me; what I regarded -- in advance, before the fact, as a free adult -- as an ethical license -- as what I would regard as a just use, as opposed to an unjust use of Joan of Arc style force against me as the 'bad guy.; By the state, by a mob, by three guidos from Tiverton. That is the alpha and omega of my consideration. Because no matter what I accede to, the mob can and always will be able to do what it can and will. If I have projected some form of forced association against others, then I would accept, as an ethical response, others projection of scaled, effective reactive force at my boorish behavior. Ethically as in, I accede to it in advance-- as an informed adult/citizen. And if there is some other reason behind their agression aimed at me, without that provocation on my part, I would regard it as a unethical, unjustified act of agression. I might still burn at a stake, but I for certain will not build the stake, nor light the fire, nor do anything other than fight for my life. This is very similar to Mill's harm principle. To your point -- the implicit assignment of any license to the state, agreed to long before your (or my) arrival as informed, capable adults. It kind of goes back to that child/parent discussion a little bit. While we are children, we kind of get an existential bye from the whole process. We actually enjoy a kind of special status as children, with limited freedom. We also have no responsibility for the flames around us. We are still fed and clothed and educated. THere is at least lip service applied to the concept that we are transitioning from nothing to something, and it might take a while to get there, so timeout, Childhood is often, not always, pleasurable. I wish it was always so. For some/many, paradigms that promise an endless Thirteenth Grade of Life, with restricted responsibility, is an appealing siren's call to endless childhood. Other's can't wait to grow up and get on with it. But when we arrive, as infromed, capable, educated adults, unlike our existence as a child, we do now have an ethical responsibility. We, through no plot by others, find outselves inside of a poltiical context. At great expense of those who came before us and created this political context, we, in our poltiical context, actually have the freedom to leave it, if we don't support it. We also have other ethical choices, when we don't agree with the deal. 1] We can choose our battles, and accede. We can enjoy our freedoms in total, and live to fight another day. Not every issue is worth going to war over. 2] We can choose to work poltiically, within our political context, to change the deal. Others are free to react to those efforts. 3] We can choose to leave our political context and find a better deal elsewhere in the world. Canada. Cuba. North Korea. Estonia, if we hurry. Those are the ethical choices. In 1] and 2], we are supporting our poltiical context and agreeing to subject ourselves to its laws. In 3] we are rejecting our political context, but are still acting ethically. We are not stealing from the freedom pie baked by others. There are mega-political options. 4] We can scofflaw and choose to be outlaws in the current poliical context. Even, selectively. We can succeed at that, or we can get ready to sing John Couger Mellancamp's 'Authoriity.' The ethics of this choice depends on your assessment and my assessment. Ann Frank and family were scoff laws in their poltiical context. We can evaluate, each of us, whether we accept their actions in their poltiical context as ethical, under our concept of 'ethical.' 5] We can choose to foment revolution, and attempt to overturn the local poltiical context. Clearly a group effort.. But this option in any politiical context is based only on one ultimate truth of power; succeed, and you and yours are revolutionary heros of the next political context. Fail, and you are the latest terrorist radical criminals of the existing poltiical context. The victors get to decide, even as we all, indvidually, declare with our own ethical beliefs what we are thinking when some are being burned at the stake while yet others are celebrating around the bonfires. There is a political battle, waged by elites, to declare what is the Universal Ethical Truth; I am not speaking to that; I am speaking exactly to my accepted definition -- the license I do agree to, as an adult-- as in, similar to the one you correctly identify as never having agreed to; mine is the one I agree to. Yours might be different in some important way, or, be so similar that we arrive at similar conclusions. They could even be substantially different and we could still largely arrive at the same concensus regarding specific laws. Or, another possibility is, (this is hard to believe, but it happens) we reach different conclusions. And then, each of us, concede power to the state, our local poltiical context, and it does as it will, as always, and each of us individuals pass through that five station sieve above. Maybe there are other stations in that sieve, other alternatives. (Universal enlightenment/concensus? PETA celebrating at the Outback Steakhouse with a porterhouse, the Enlightenment has arrived!) I'd love to hear additions to those stations. regards, Fred

There was a YouUbe link to a Virginia Postrel interview on RoR-- I think from Steve W. I enjoyed the interview; I ordered the book, too.

Michael: re: To the bad guy, it most definitely is a "forced association." Yes; his preference after the fact(and maybe before the fact as well)is for the world to be a free-crime zone, not a crime-free zone. What I am saying is, my consent, in advance, not after the fact. The principles under which I accede, if I violate some readily understandable principle, for the state to lock me up/apply the reasonable level of state force to remedy my offense as the 'bad guy' are, these principles. Not whim. The state/mob always can do what the mob can do; that is not what I am talking about. What I am talking about are the ethical principles ethically limiting what the state can do. The mob doesn't have to agree with me; I can't force that. And if the mob decides that its ethical princples are some other whim that I don't accede to, of course I(or any of us)will, when being 'locked up' as the black guy -- I mean, bad guy -- consider the principles under which the mob is acting and the local state is doing what the local state can always do. Joan of Arc posessed 'rights' in her own ethical framework, even as she was burned at the stake by the local state. Not that they helped her avoid being burned at the stake. The mob always can do what the mob can and will do. re: children and forced association with their parents. I mean, by that, it is an unavoidable by human intervention biologocal fact of existence, not impressed. In fact, when children have reached an age, they are not forced to live with/associate with their parents. (Our modern economies, flat on their asses, are taking a big bite out of that naked assertion of mine; they are supposed to move the hell out, so we can spoil the grand children...) re; standards need to be applied to free and forced association. Agreed. Not vague standards. Carefull standards. Sarah Conly's "Against Autonomy: In Defense of Coercive Paternalism" is the new anthem. You mention children and parents; she is arguing not about children and parents, but elites and permanent dependents. She and her admirers purport to be no less than the modern answer to Mills. And why not, when , per wiki(sorry): Mill's On Liberty addresses the nature and limits of the power that can be legitimately exercised by society over the individual. Mill states that it is acceptable for someone to harm himself as long as he is not harming others. He does argue, however, that individuals are prevented from doing lasting, serious harm to themselves or their property by the harm principle. Because no one exists in isolation, harm done to oneself may also harm others, and destroying property deprives the community as well as oneself.[18] Mill excuses those who are "incapable of self-government" from this principle, such as young children or those living in "backward states of society". The Magic Keys to the Totalitarian Prison: each and every one of us are 'network externalities' to each other, and by that logic, infinite ethical license is granted to the Tribe to break down our doors and strain to see what is inside our homes. By abusing Mill's harm principal, even Mill can be abused to endorse that unlimited license. His argument simply shifts the debate to 'what is harm?' Harm, apparently, includes things such as what quintile membership freight train we pile onto every year to have our income summed and counted, even though none of us do any such thing. Not a choice to be seen for adult peers living in freedom, but for an endless struggle of competing emperor wanabe elites, alternating between Mill's Liberty and Conly's Coercive Paternalism. The political game seems rigged; no wonder libertarians struggle to find a soft landing in the out of control tribal mess. The tribe is struggling to reclaim what is its own. For a brief moment, the existential threat(to the Tribe)of freedom from the tribe erupted, and just like the Jungle, the Tribe has clawed back against modernity to reclaim its own, which is, every life in the tribe. re: vigilante justice/the rule of law I am not the anarchy guy. But the assumption is, the bad guy was put away under the law, and is subject to the law. A mob showing up with torches isn't free association under any ethical rule of law; that is just anarchy. I don't equate freedom with anarchy; i equate freedom with civil life in a state constrained by ethical laws. And as well, I agree an element of that is distributed/non centralized power with checks and balances. Another element is constrained, limited government, doing as little as is necessary, with a national/federal government looking mostly outward, not inward, at 50 state governments already covering the same internal dirt, unless one of those states get's a little locally jiggy with ethical principles, such as, forced dis-association, and points the NG bayonets in the wrong direction to enforce that forced dis-association. That, to me, justifies federal internal focus, as in Eisenhower sending federal troops to Little Rock to turn those NG bayonets around and point them in the other direction. (I argue that, once public school is a reality, that state segregation is an act of forced dis-association, or alternately, forced association with racist views. Our laws do not compel attendence in public schools; they compel some form of education. There are private schools and home school alternatives. But once there is public education, it is a resource of the commons, available to peers living in freedom. The mere existence of peers on the commons is not 'forced association' especially when there are alternatives to attendence in public schools. Our laws against public discrimination apply only to peers on the commons; we are all free to, and regularly do, privately discriminate in our lives using any attribute we choose. It is a totally separate political argument whether there should be public education in this nation; my argument is based on the fact that it today exists, under existing law. If we don't agree with that law, there are only so many ethical choices open to us, short of breaking the law or fometning a revolution. We can accede to it, and choose other battles. We can work politically to repeal the law. We can leave the poltiical context and seek another. Having exhausted those choices, we can break the law, if we can, or we can foment revolution, which is like a combination of breaking the law in our poltiical context and either pushing the boulder all the way up the hill(succeeding at revolution)or having it fall back on us, as criminals. regards, Fred

Michael: Re: learned helplessness You mean, projected by deceit; like indoctrination, propaganda? It is a gray area in a continuum between what I call 'politics' and 'mega-politics.' My definition of politiics. (I repeat myself, because, IMO, the word politics is the most used and least well defined word in all of politics, and the reason for that, IMO, is poltical.) None of us can possibly understand -- that is, be given sufficient information necessary to comprehend -- what each of us is saying when we use the word 'politics' or 'political' because it is deliberately so poorly defined. We dont' share a common meaning...by design of poltiicos long dead. So, to me: Politics: the art and science of getting what we want from others using any means short of actual violence. The superset that includes actual violence as a tactic I call 'mega-politics.' So things like deceit, lying, blind indoctrination, and propaganda, which are short of actual violence, are in some gray area(to me)between honest poltiics and mega-politics. There are some other general definitions of 'politics' around: The art and science of ruling/governing others. (Yes, when what one wants is to rule/govern others.) The art and science of who gets what. (Yes, when what one wants is to be the emperor over others of who gets what.) We want all kinds of things from other people.. The TV remote. (Tactic: we ask for it. Done.) Love, affection. Their vote. The car for the weekend. Carnal knowledge of them. (We ask for that, or indeed, it is rape.) Their validation for the parking of our soul. To ride them like a public property pony. Kuwait. When Saddam wanted Kuwait from others, politics was not enough, and so, he resorted to mega-politics. The hardest thing to obtain in the world, many have died trying to get this for themesleves, their families, and their children: to be left alone, except under a model of free association. What ethically limits not only what we can reasonably want from others, but our means of obtaining what we want from others? There is clearly a spectrum: ask buy/negotiate value for value convince through honest argument beg (ask with implied duress) lie, deceive use force go to war All of it is politics of some kind, as I define politics. Is a more common, restrictive definition of politics limited to state politics, and if so, is it limited to ethical state politics? It doesn't appear so; lying, deceit, indoctrination, learned helplessness, propaganda all seem well embraced and tolerated in American state 'politics.' On Madison Ave, a line has been drawn, at least, on subliminal imagery. That is a deliberate no-no. A manipulative image projection industry, fishing for Victoria Postrel's The Power of Glamour reception, aimed at a broad(or even narrowcast)population? No doubt. But the reception of that projection of imagery, at least, is in our hands. We must respond to it, even if it is fake. And so, I suppose, even with political faked imagery. (No, buying the BMW will not necessarily achieve for you the manufactured photoshiopped image of effortless grace not sweating in the sun, on the deck, looking at the sunset over the driveway with the BMW parked in it. just as trading in the iPhone3 for the iPhone5 wont secure your membership into a non-existing community of dreadlocks flailing cool...) But still, BMWs and iPhones give us pleasure, and we smile when respond to the imagery, even as we know it is not real imagery. In the end we've bought some Dove soap, not signed up for serfdom to the state. So there is a difference; in the end, nobody puts a gun to our head and makes us buy the BMW, iPhone, or Dove soap. In the end, when the reasonable man is telling us "What is wroing with asking the wealthy..." he really isn't asking us for our permission to ask anybody, he is campaigning for our consent for him to aim a gun at somebody, and yet debating the act using words like 'ask.' The outcome of his marketing/campaign lies are, in fact, a gun in his hands with the argument that we agreed to his aiming it at some. We can be sloppy with the Madison ave soap all we want, the consequences are nill compared to being sloppy with what we don't question about tribal politics. regards, Fred

Michael: I appreciate focused criticism. It is important. My terms: Superior Violence does not mean 'more violence' it means "The just response to the unjust initiation of voilence; self defense. In this case, of civil life." Paradox of Violence: Civil life ultimately must rely on Superior Violence in order to defend civil life from the initiation/first use of violence. Civil wishes on paper are ultimately insufficient without enforcement of those civil wishes. No freedom without it. Not just police, and heated jails, but also, the US Marines. They run toward the sound of gunfire. They don't start the shooting. They end the shooting. The best friends of some. The worst nightmare of others. Indispensible to the concept of freedom. In their case, they strive, professionally, not only to be the embodiement of Superior Violence, but superior violence. The function of principled restraint is to make sure that those civil wishes on paper are in fact civil. The unfettering of forced association -- for the initiation of forced association -- for a really good cause had better be done so carefully, or before you know it, it is anything a mob says it wants as its -ethical- argument. regards, Fred

Michael: The ethics of 'locking up the bad guy' as a necessary action of the state is crucial. It is not the initiation of force; it is the response to an initiation of force with superior violence/the paradox of violence. It is not 'forced association.' It is, in fact, the ethical purpose of (in a free state)an ethical state: to prohibit where possible acts of forced association; to innhibit where it is not possible to prohibit; to discourage where it is not possible to inhibit. As a minimum. Totally unneccessary icing on the state cake(because free peope do it freely)would be to actively encourage free association. Not necessary. No victim of crime freely agrees to be a victim; that would be a victimless crime. Murder, rape, theft, fraud, extortion are all examples of forced association; an ethical state is ethically empowered to prohibit/inhibit/discourage acts of forced association(especially by itself.) The response to the initiation of force/vio;ence/forced association with force/violence is not the initiation of force/violence. It is, even as Ghandi understood, a necessary fact of civi; defense in a universe where force ultimately rules; where power can do what power can do. Clean air and water laws: fouling the air as a result of the commerce of others is an act of forced association(with the industry/commerce of others) by those others. I can -see- the principle at work when the state applies force, as clean air laws, and ethically accede to the use of state force in that application. I understand and agree with the ethical foundation. It is another instance of the state responding to an instance of forced association. So I am not the 'putting the bad guys away' by the state is a bad thing anarcho-capitalist guy; I am the 'defining the clear principles under which the state defines 'bad guys' and then uses force, ethically, to put them away' capitalist guy. Simple majority rule, to me, is not the source of those principles; a gang rape is simple majority rule. Some missing axis of principled constaint is required to govern pure democracy other than what the majoirty wants. regards, Fred

Michael: The boundary condition of reality -- that a child is a child of his parents -- is no more the meaning of 'forced association' in a political context than the reality of gravity is, in this universe. The 'forceful' can't avoid it if we tried reality of a child being a child of his parents is no more human voliional force than the force of gravity, when compared with force in the context of human volitional relationships and our discretionary application of force in our relationship with our peers.. We are all 'forced' into existence beyond our non-existing will. I can live with that boundary condition of 'force' (no pun intended; I can't live without it,) And upon reaching the age of majoirity, or even awareness, we are all certainly free to void that condition and end our own lives; happens every day, so we are not forced to continue that egregious application of force, if we find it egregious. We don't choose our own parents? OK. But as Feynman said, that is some other universe. We live here, in this one. And so, we focus on what we can control,. which is, the use of force aimed at others by our volition. I don't hold any other peer accountable for the force of gravity, and the fact that it is harder to run uphill than downhill. I don't hold my parents accountable for the fact that i didn't choose them; that is a physical impossibility. I am in fact grateful to them fpr imperfectly attempting what all other generations have done, which is, as rooklie management that never did it before, attempted to raise kids. But when it comes to some human constructivist artifact, like IRS 1706 or the ACA, yes, IMO, it's time to take names and hold peers accountable for things clearly under their control, unlike biilogical facts or the force of gravity. But it is ntirely reasonable...but cumbersome...to explicitely qualify 'forced association' to the context of human constructivist interactions. Indeed, we don't choose our parents, but that is because, in this universe of space-time, we can't. My application of 'forced association' is implicitely restricted to the subset of what we can. regards, Fred

Where was reason being used against anybody? James Dean has a fast car. His rival has a fast car. Neither knows what the other has under the hood of their cars. They decide to race for pink slips. The winner gets both cars. The loser gets no car. They race, and someone wins, and someone loses. What does reason have to do with not knowing what the other person has under the hood, and gambling anyway? It is gambling. Or, is not knowing how much money one has to outbid the other in this example significantly different than James Dean not knowing what is under the hood of the other car? As long as we are cooking up examples, here is the Altruist Bed of Nails: Supposedly, it is a dilemma of some kind, and supposedly, how you respond says something very deep about you. There is a button in front of you. If you press it, then everyone in the world except those you know and love will be destroyed. If ten seconds pass and you don't press it, then everyone you know and love will be destroyed but the world will be spared. What is the ethical/moral thing to do? Just to be clear, If I was placed on that bed of nails, I'd slam my fist down on that button in a heartbeat; no need to wait ten seconds to agonize over it. I wouldn't want there to be any confusion over the ten seconds. The only moral lesson to be found is, don't build worlds with buttons in it like that. No doubt when I press that button, I take out the squirrelly bastard who built the button, along with a world that tolerated him. History could blame him. I mean, those I know and love could blame him. after they thanked me. Any world that tolerated the building of buttons like that has no business hanging around. Would the folks who dream this nonsense up ethically fault the tortured individual for pushing the button, or do reasoned folks everywhere blame the sick mofo who built that button? Lather, rinse, repeat.

Robert in absentia: If the $20 on the countertop example isn't clear to you, then no wonder you are confused. I would not take the $20, even if nobody else knew, because I would know, and my integrity is not worth losing over $20. (Especially, these days, US$20.) Fuck what anyone else thinks or knows or doesn't know, i don't give a shit primarily about what anyone else thinks or knows or doesn't know. I would be way too arrogant to take that $20, too full of my-self, too disregarding of the calculus of others. Too selfish. Unwilling to be modest about how shallow my sense of self was, that I would look left, then look right, then pocket the $20 with some rationalization, like, "If not me, then some other tribal fool, driven by their reptilian brain stem and not much else with their incessesent "Can I eat it? Can it eat me?" defintion of 'self-interest.' I -have- corrected store clerks when they fuck up in my 'favor.' I -have- returned to gas stations in the 80s, when some poor 16 yr old gas pumping kid rang up my credit card but forgot to take an imprint of my card. Because a lousy free tank of gas is not worth the cost to my integrity. (I've as well scratched my head when, in those same 80s, some other 16 yr old pumped exactly 10 gallons of gas into my tank, read the pump, and said "That will be $96.00" .... "But it was 10.0 gallons of gas?...."Yes, but the pump says $96.00".... "But that cant be right?" ... "All I know is what the pump says..." "OK...get your boss." ... who showed up and smacked the kid up the head. The boss calculated what 10.0 gallons of gas should have registered as, and apologized for the pump malfunction. But who can't multiply $1.45 times 10.0? That 16 yr old kid pumping gas couldn't, and he and his are ready to be led around by the nose by elites for thier own good, but I am not.) If your interpretation of 'self-interest' is take the $20 and run, then it seems just like talking to that crippled child, now grown up and making his way through the endless Thirteenth Grade of Life. Perhaps you accepted your once instruction, and were once crippled. That $20 in your hands is an IOU, for value offered. By you. Not value stolen. But only in a tribe of moral actors. The world you build is the world you live in. It is not about the '20'. It is about the value. If you don't have that sense of self-worth, or can't imagine it, then, well, my condolences.

Robert in absentia: Rand's romantic novels were written in giant crayon, can't be mistaken except via excessive gymnastics. It is clear as a bell what Rand's romantic art says about your question; those were the can't miss them villains of her art. To pretend to confuse the intent of her romantic vision is revealing. Not of Rand's Objectivism, but of those who would pretend not to understand her romantic art, or with even more moral bankruptcy, to deliberately misrepresent it. But that is obvious in this very first post. All I see in what remains of this thread is, MSK showing remarkable constraint. Michael, forgive me. I got sucked into viewing this by Robert. Robert, if you are asking me, I don't know why MSK allowed you to spin and prevaricate with this nonsense for as long as you did; it is patently clear from your first post on this thread. If you can read any of Rand's romantic art and not immediately see the answer to your own question, then you are either uniformed on an easily self-informable topic(just read her books, the point is made in huge crayon a mile high)or you are deliberately confused. Rand's romantic art is an example of an attempt to project glamour with an agenda; the reception or non-reception of the glamour is a kind of litmus that illuminates those exposed to it-- as is, the deliberate misrepresentation of that attempt. So Michael, where do you get your patience?

I'm kind of surprised that the advocates of forced association paradigms keep wanting to bring up slavery in the modern political context. They are kind of leading with their chin. The irony is, they should continue to feel free. Yes, indeed, slavery is abhorrent; good it was eliminated in this free nation 8 generations ago. We should be encouraging the whole world to be moving away from forced association paradigms, you know, like slavery, rape, bullying, totalitarianism/national socialism(to be distinguished from socialism)and so on. regards, Fred

Michael: When we regard the wide array of sexual acts between individuals, it is generally associated with pleasure; even those facets of same that consensually include pain, even the facets that include forceful action. All the way to the fringes of S&M and bondage and--what was the term in that article -- 'friendly gun' sex. If we add only one ingredient, and replace free association with forced association, the precise same physical acts between two people are abhorred as 'rape.' What makes rape abhorrent is precisely the non-consensual, forced association aspect of it. Forced association is what makes rape 'rape.' Forced association is what distinguishes "12 Years A Slave" from "I'm three years away from my 15 year tie clasp." regards, Fred