Frediano

I'm afraid that you've gotten the rhetoric correct, yet it's backwards. it's the right-wing of american politics that has brought up 'founding fathers' points of view. OTH, the left is far more modernist, saying, in effect, that what's past is past, so we should deal with ,modern circumstance on our own terms, not theirs. Having let the cat out of the bag, certain on the right whine that obtaining a realistc picture of FF's is 'unfair sophistry', etc... but they've only themselves to blame. EM it's the right-wing of american politics that has brought up 'founding fathers' points of view... and will continue to do so, without any reason not to. It's the left-wing that has countered with the 'argument' of 'simple facts' -- that freedom, Monticello, and UVA were all built by slave holders in Charlottesville, and so, let us use these orthogonal facts to ... throw away freedom and yet retain architecture and public universities. Its an entertaining argument when impotently spouted by foaming at the mouth fringe WFPers down on lower east side sidewalks. Safely fringe and ineffective in a free nation. The good news, Fred, is that your seemingly ad-hoc 'left' as now been reconstructed into a narratology called 'Fredoia' here at Dust Bunny U! More to the point: to the extent that slaveholders write about freedom, they're writing about their own freedom to own slaves. As for UVa itself, beyond the Fredoia that leftists want to burn the buildings, the demand is, in actuality, that the descendants of slaves be fairly compensated for their labor. EM In case my point was too subtle("and yet retain"), it is precisely the fact that the leftists don't want to burn the buildings that is the point; the leftists are remarkably selective about the orthogonal facts surrounding 'slave holders' that they want to taint with their 'slave holder' spraypaint. That you are reduced to inverting my meaning by 180 degrees as all you got is what reassures me that you and the entire Lit Department serving at your beck and call got... absolutely nothing. Go back to the Lit Department and make sure they've sobered up from the catastrophic PA Renaissance Faire junket; they should have called first, the parking lot is still full of un-melted snow. Ask them to put away the damp velour and brocade and interpret "and yet retain" for you. Give them time, because let's not waste them corn dogs and light beer on the long bus ride home weigh heavy on the soul of mankind. Oncle F

What would you communicate to Ms, Mac Donald about her voluntary choice in this particular situation? http://abcnews.go.com/Health/reporter-mac-mcclelland-violent-sex-ease-post-traumatic/story?id=13995013 Think link with the red arrows goes to her personal article which is particularly powerful. I'd tell her I share her abhorrence of that which makes rape 'rape,' and that her anthem was fully read and understood. I don't see me, however, voluntarily voting for either a Democrat or Republican any time soon to try to cure me of my abhorrence of totalitarianism. regards, Fred

Michael: What characteristic distinguishes an act of rape from a sexual act between two people? It is not the physical act. It is not even 'rough' sex. It is precisely the characteristic free association vs. forced association. It is exactly the non-consensual aspect of the human interaction. Ditto 'slavery.' This hardly seems subtle. If it is some other characteristic that you think makes rape abhorrent, let me know. Similarly, if you don't think the issue of free vs forced association in any way relates to libertarian principles, then why not? regards, Fred

Eva doesnt like the rape illustration because Eva has no answer for it at all, other than that the illustration is impolite and not a proper topic for this polite debate. There is a name for candidate rape victims who politely discuss the question of rape with rapists: "The raped." There is a name for candidate slavery victims who politely discuss the question of slavery with slave owner wanabes: "Slaves." There is a name for the advocates of free association who politely discuss the question of forced association with totalitarian emperor wanabes: "The un-free." In the context of a free nation, it is impolite to raise the question of forced association. It is as absurd as "Excuse me, can we politely discuss the terms of your rape?" Such questions of the initiation of aggression are met with superior aggression(aggression raised in response to the first use of agression)with a clean conscience, and exhortations by rapists to be quiet, sit still, lay back, and enjoy it are equally ignore-able without a moments hesitation..

Michael: Some storylines are so easy to understand that the gymnastics required to make them complex are revealing. Rapists rape, and what makes rape 'rape' and not an act of love is forced vs. free association. I'm not confused in the least between political paradigms based on that which makes rape 'rape' and the free alternatives. Not even a little bit. Sleep like a baby in that certainty, and have no concept at all about what defect in human character would allow other of my peers to cling to their paradigms shared by rapists. That would take some gymnastics, and does. They want what they want. Well, so do rapists; nothing special about what folks want. regards, Fred

I'm afraid that you've gotten the rhetoric correct, yet it's backwards. it's the right-wing of american politics that has brought up 'founding fathers' points of view. OTH, the left is far more modernist, saying, in effect, that what's past is past, so we should deal with ,modern circumstance on our own terms, not theirs. Having let the cat out of the bag, certain on the right whine that obtaining a realistc picture of FF's is 'unfair sophistry', etc... but they've only themselves to blame. EM it's the right-wing of american politics that has brought up 'founding fathers' points of view... and will continue to do so, without any reason not to. It's the left-wing that has countered with the 'argument' of 'simple facts' -- that freedom, Monticello, and UVA were all built by slave holders in Charlottesville, and so, let us use these orthogonal facts to ... throw away freedom and yet retain architecture and public universities. Its an entertaining argument when impotently spouted by foaming at the mouth fringe WFPers down on lower east side sidewalks. Safely fringe and ineffective in a free nation.

Earlier generations of Americans delivered their young to a better and more free world. Not so this past 50 years of tag team Dem/GOP pursuing only control over an ever increasing CronyFest on the Potomac. The alternative to the No Hope for Freedom Dems is not the False Hope for Freedom GOP. And so I sense in the current twentysomethings a politics described as "a pox on both your failed houses." Because when it is nut crunching time, human beings love their lives, and the living of them, and will finally focus up first at least on what they know -isn't- a solution, no matter what they've been spoon fed in the mandrels of thought, and move on from there. What species delivers their young to this? And so, those of us who have failed -- failed to do anything but grow a once federal government into the national government -- should help them save this nation from the cul de sac it allowed itself to meander into, by backing out and trying anew. Our founding fathers were slave holders and the relevant word is 'were.' Of freedom, Monticello, and the University of Virginia, all built by slave holders and slaves, which of freedom, architecture, and public universities should today be cast aside because of the sophist application of 'simple facts?' The enemies of freedom have been beating a dead horse with that logic. Why are they anything but laughed at? regards, Fred

Ellen: From your link Review by a Michael Quante of a book about autonomy in biomedical ethics by Elisabeth Hildt Although the diversity of subjects and methods gives the impression that neuro-medicine cannot be a unified subject of biomedical ethics we should revise this impression since in it we ultimately deal with the question, “wer wir als Menschen sind, wie wir sein wollen und was wir akzeptieren können, wollen und sollten” Translated: since in it we ultimately deal with the question"who we are as human beings, as we want to be and what we can accept, want and should" What I see in that is the aggressive political variant of my meta-definition of religion. My meta-definition of religion: any pondering of the questions "Why am I here, and what am I supposed to be doing as a result of that?" My definition does not assume there is a singular answer to those questions; as individuals, we all answer those questions implicitly; our individual answer is our individual life. To me, if and when any of us consciously ponder those questions then we are engaged in religion. Indistinguishable from philosophy? Precisely as it is in many university departmental taxonomies... Some may freely, as in, under a model of free association, seek socius to ponder those questions, and accept group answers. Those are churches, plural, and long may they wave in freedom. But note how subtly those questions can be aggressively politicized(as in, his assertion of what 'we' are about, above:) "Why are we here, and what are we supposed to be doing now as a result of that?" The implication is not the 'we' of this one of many churches, plural, but the 'should' for all of mankind. Religion as politics on the way to war. It is a religious assertion that there is only one answer to those fundamental questions. The naked assertion of that leg-lifting 'we' -- that assertion would be applicable to a totalitarian theocracy. It is that assertion that needs to be questioned. Is there only one answer to those questions, sufficient to justify enforcing that singular answer by force onto others? When is, and when is not, coercive force justified? Example: are speed limits coercive paternalism without justification, and what is the justification? To me, the justification is ultimately to inhibit forced association. When we speed down the highway, we subject others to our potentially lethal deployment of kinetic energy/momentum. But speed limits are inhibitions, not prohibitions. Just as double yellow lines, no matter how thickly painted, are not prohibitions. We could but don't enforce speed limiters on automobiles. We are still free to purchase automobiles capable of 150 mph+ in a nation with no Autobahn. If a need arises for speed, we are free to speed. When our inability to control that speed forces association of our incompetence into the lives of others, there are legal consequences. Few regard speed limits or double yellow lines as coercive paternalism, so it is clear that mankind is able to wrestle with these concepts without resorting to that. Clean air laws? An example of the state applying coercion...in order to prohibit forced association with the impacts of the commerce of others. Justified based on a readily discoverable principal of freedom. Contrast with other laws in our 'mixed' economy state that themselves serve to force association. A free state is not a state without laws: a free state is a state with laws themselves restricted to laws consistent with freedom, and not the unchecked whims of elite emperor wanabes. Yet, a nation that cannot define freedom cannot defend freedom, and that includes, limiting itself to laws consistent with freedom. This erosion continues with every unchecked assertion thrown up by the existentially terrified enemies of freedom. regards, Fred

I was surprised to discover that Education and the Barricades is still in print. I'll take a look at it again myself. I likewise don't remember the 60s and 70s as displaying "monolithic thinking." The era seems to me a time of splintering - Yeats' "Second Coming" - anything approaching a unified world view falling apart. Ellen Ellen: Me, stretching an analogy too far, as usual, follows: We fracture boulders of the 'wrong' shape into smaller rocks. We grind some of those smaller rocks into screening. We then use cement to create an aggregate, which can be reformed -- literally poured into a mold -- into our vision of the right shape. Constructivists reconstruct after deconstructing. The paradox of modern freedom had erupted in the midst of a world of ancient tribalists; the idea of a state limited by free association -- a state defending our right to be free from each other by force -- was an idea so powerful that it earned the fealty of a nation of free people willing to paradoxically mob up to defend that idea that they were all free from each other. To the tribalists, with their fealty to their atavistic herd mentality genes, this was a dangerous idea loose in the world, one which was an existential threat to the supremacy of the tribe uber alles under the whims of elites. It was a boulder of the wrong shape looming over the village. It had to go. And so, human lives as aggregate, their freedom blown apart, to serve the visions of some for their self-assigned noble cause: the destruction of human freedom, the resurrection of the tribe uber alles under the whim of elites; the elite gig must be protected at all costs, or else they might need to get a vocation other than 'rule others using value/resources and even lives provided by those same others." Because after all, "S"ociety=God, as in, Durkheim's summary in Religious Formes: Society is not at all the illogical or a-logical, incoherent and fantastic being which has too often been considered. Quite on the contrary, the collective consciousness is the highest form of psychic life, since it is the consciousness of consciousness. Being placed outside of and above individual and local contingencies, it sees things only in their permanent and essential aspects, which it crystallizes into communicable ideas. At the same time that it sees from above, it sees farther; at every moment of time it embraces all known reality; that is why it alone can furnish the minds with the moulds which are applicable to the totality of things and which make it possible to think of them. That church educates its acolytes in the Ivies, then licenses them to roll their eyes into the back of their heads and divine from that which is placed outside of and above individual and local contingencies...that is why it alone(with a little help from emperor wannabe elites, our own old tribal men in theocratic robes)can furnish the minds with the moulds, and so on, and fill them with the deconstructed aggregate of the human lives of their ... once free peers, united by their freedom. Because the one thing that can unite meat eaters and vegans, artists and businessmen, PETA and Outback Steakhouse, farmers and urbanites, jocks and goths, red and blue, deontologists and consequentialists, on ad infinitum, is their right to live free from each other except under a model of free association. regards, Fred

That would include lies, cheating, extortion, deceit, betrayal, blackmail... sounds about right. Greg It not only would, but does. Damn right. And the above also overlaps the application of the trader principle in some instances. Pure commerce is not always pure commerce, that is a given. That is part of the deal with the restricted definition of politics as well (the art and science of ruling others.) It can be thought of a kind of 'value for value' transaction. A peer tells you "Give me control over your life, enforceable at the point of a gun by your consent. In exchange, I will use that power only to enforce good things coming your way, like restrictions on cheating, extortion, deceit, betrayal blackmail." What he doesn't tell you: "You will provide all the means of my being able to do any of that. You will provide all the value on both sides of this transaction. You will fund and staff the police. You will fund the armies. You will build the airplanes. Your children will fight and die in the wars. You will be subject to the ACA. You will fund your defined contribution pension after funding my defined benefit pension. You will be subject to insider trading restrictions, I will be free to trade on my inside knowledge. ... You will do. I will rule. Is that a good deal for you? " Or maybe they promise free cheese and band aids, to payoff your mortgage, to arrange things so you never need to worry about filling up your gas tank or buying bread at the 7-11. Or maybe they promise to keep you from being eaten alive. And, this all starts out by someone suggesting we hire painters to paint the double lines fairly down the middle of the road...then, plumbers to keep the plumbing of state clean and free flowing...and after 200+ years, the paint brushes and plungers have morphed into scepters, and it is time again to hang tyrants from trees.

Fred, In a contextless uber-rational world, I would agree with you. The problem is people like to bully each other at times. There's no way to eliminate that with deduction from a principle. The potential is part of human nature, and in many people, it's not just potential. They are bullies because they like being bullies. The only thing you can do is put constraints on this as best you can. A syllogism will not make it go away. The best I've seen so far is checks and balances on sliced-and-diced power. (Thank you, Founding Fathers.) I have yet to see anyone identify a power virus and come up with a cure for it so it can be eliminated from human life. Or worse, argue power out of human nature. I've seen people try that, but it doesn't work. Power is a stubborn troublesome little sucker. Either ethics is for human beings as they exist, or it is for what Robert Bidinotto used to call "premises with feet." I'm of the human being school. Michael Michael: For sure. Those constitutional restrictions, without enforcement -- without the use of force -- are ineffective wishes on paper against endemic bullys. If you or I, or even, you and I together, are 1 or 2 in a sinking lifeboat filled with existentially terrified bullies, we will probably be eaten alive, because force can do what force can do. And so, I conclude, if there is to be any defense against those who embrace forced association and the first use of force, it is necessary to embrace the concept of superior violence-- the just use of force. The paradox of violence. A paradox because there is no way around it. Even Ghandi realized this. There is no real question that force/power rules; force/power can do what force/power can do. A syllogism does not repeal that, but what a syllogism can do is ethically clear the way for the defense of freedom using force when necessary. Unwilling to defend freedom is unable to defend freedom, and unable to defend freedom, in a world of endemic bully's, is the road to slavery. There is a centuries old political attack on freedom that proposes that it is unethical to defend freedom. Well no shit. I say, fuck that idea, first and foremost, and that is something that a syllogism can readily do; fuck that idea. regards, Fred

Mikee: In my broad definition of politics, absolutely. But with the word 'politics' it is necessary to define one's meaning of the word 'politics.' Politics(as I define it): the art and science of getting what we want from others using any means short of actual violence. The super-set that includes violence, I call mega-politics. Trading value for value is for sure,without a doubt, one means of getting what we want from others. It is not the only means. But maybe 'simply' is the wrong descriptor; the Trader Principle is an ethical means, and not only that, it is most often a win-win means. My definition of politics also includes lying, deceit, and fraud as being 'short of actual violence.' Politics defined as "the art and science of ruling others" is a special instance of my broad definition-- when what one wants from others is, 'to rule them.' With that restrictive definition, I don't thing TP is a form of that. Politics defined as "the art and science of deciding who gets what" is again a special instance of my broad definition-- when what one wants is "to be the ruler of who gets what." I don't think TP is a form of that. With my broad definition of the word politics, it is clear(to me)why the word is so often deliberately undefined, and left vague. When the meaning has anything at all to do with 'ruling others' the last thing in the world anyone would want is for others to have the first clue what it is that is being discussed. I twice asked -- two separate occasions -- of a 4th year Syracuse and a 4th year Duke PolitSci major, to provide for me their working definition of the word 'politics.' It was like I had C4 strapped to my chest, the horror was that deep. I wasn't asking for 'the' definition or even a dictionary definition, but their working definition. One(the Syracuse student)grunted for a while and then gave me an answer "You know, political parties and stuff(!)", and the other hemmed and hawed and then blushingly admitted, "You know, I never really thought about that." What I learned is that in modern, very good universities, it is possible to study something called 'Political Science" for four years and have only the barest of clues what the word 'politics' means to you. I don't blame them; I believe the reason for this is political. That is not deliberately funny. It is, in fact, alarming. regards, Fred

No. What makes that specific obvious is also what should make the generalization obvious; there is no ethical justification for forced association by the state, except to prohibit forced association. So what is interesting is, what politically necessary gymnastics hide the obvious for the generalization of the specific case? What isn't obvious is, why that isn't obvious. regards, Fred

On multiple occasions, I've shown that checkerboard illusion to people who are befuddled by it; "What are you talking about? The two squares are different shades of gray, clearly." To the point of being angry, like I was lying to them, or playing some word game. I sympathize, because the first time I saw the image, it was nearly impossible for me to 'see' anything but a dark and light square, no matter how hard I tried. And since seeing the 'proof' in more than one way, ever since, I find it now next to impossible to 'see' anything but identical shades of gray. I have to strain a bit to try and perceive them as different. To some so predisposed, this is an indictment of perception as a limiting pathway to any objective reality. To others, the experience in total is exactly the opposite: it is objective evidence that we can rationally comprehend the world, as it is, via our understanding of our perception engines within that world. And in this specific readily accessible instance, actually run the experiment ourselves and experience our higher level comprehending mind actually re-weighting our lower level perception engines and allow us to correctly see the world, via new knowledge that was waiting for us to come to it, patiently, all along. No matter how many millions see two shades of gray, and even, vote on it; no matter how many villagers in New Guinea have no idea what a checkerboard is. Mankind still landed on the Moon. regards, Fred

Fred, 'Nice to hear from you again. Lots of tests are routinely done with optical illusions in other cultures to see if the illusion is innate or learned.many Indicate learning, particulary in cultures in which rigid corners are not taught as geometrically 'axiomatic' --rather, variants of a curve. The classic example are the Xhosa, of South Africa (Nelson Mandela). Kahneman describes the susceptibility to illusion as yet another 'heuristic', to be overcome by type2 slow thought, or what is called 'reasoning'. It is nice to know, however, that MIT graduates have no such problem. Eva It might also be noted that, within research psy, the only epistemic grounds for using 'perception' is to distinguish the various responses from different people-- the given sensation being the same for everyone. the best example of thiis is the variance of 'perception' of an optical illusion which, in many cases does not cross cultural boundaries. True; some MIT grads have no such problem. But kind of sad to hear that 'research psy' has meandered into a cul de sac. But there is hope; are you speaking for all of it, or just some of it? I've just provided a concrete example of "epistemic grounds for using 'perception' to distinguish various responses from the same person over time, which normalizes out 'cross cultural boundaries.' Should I believe my own lying eyes? Let me know. Perhaps it is a question of the tools at hand; however, I've never quite understood the tools necessary for some tasks. For example, which tools are used to tap into the consciousness of consciousness(or, if you prefer, the collective unconsciousness, take your pick) that alone can see all and know all from above, as it is, removed from all mere local individual /contingencies? I'm guessing you'd at least need a ladder. But be careful; rolling your eyes into the back of your head and climbing ladders is just, well, asking for it. Oncle F.

We can meander into cul de sacs which won't get us to our goals. When we do, the path to our goals is to back out and try again on another direction. FDR himself used this argument to sell away freedom. Since the early 1900s, America has meandered into the cul de sac of increasingly centralized state control. It is long past time to back out of the cul de sac. Books like "Against Autonomy: In Defense of Coercive Paternalism" are exhortations to ignore the flames around us in this cul de sac and stay the course. No thanks. regards, Fred

I used the term 'meander' without really defining it. It is a process that differs, I think, from some of Rand's romantic vision, of what her idealized driven heroes do. Her romantic imagery describes man as navigating in a straight line from where they are, directly to their goals, which they see clearly. She very effectively creates that imagery, and that imagery evokes a glamorous response in some. It inspires some to be more 'navigational' in their choices. I am an admirer, and her romantic visions certainly inspired me. But in observing nature, the universe as it is, I (and others who I've been inspired by) have also noticed the strategy of 'meander.' Meander is still goal driven, but it is goal driven in a reality of imperfect knowledge. In order to navigate directly to our goals, we not only need perfect knowledge of our goals/destinations, but of the entire route along the way. In many domains and contexts, there is no such perfect knowledge, and so, a strategy to cope with that is 'meander.' We move in a direction, based on our imperfect knowledge -- our best informed rational guess -- and then we constantly re-evaluate. Better, worse, new information? We refine our goal, as well as our path to our goal. We 'meander' to our destinations, and even, sometimes along the way, change our destinations. This is a strategy for seeking value among the Universe's gradients without perfect knowledge. Here is a concrete example: Dupont's Teflon. Wildly successful product. In Rand's romantic vision, the inventor of 'Teflon' was driven clearly by a vision, armed with knowledge of chemistry and materials science, and strained with incredible focus to reach that goal. In reality, DuPont was working on refrigerant compounds and trying many of them. A rail road tanker car full of one formulation sat out under the hot Sun down in Delaware, heating up, and cooked what was inside. [Wiki has a different detail here; I am repeating the story as told to me in the early 70s as to how the result came about.] When the researchers opened up the valves, nothing came out. Inside the tank, they found some 'goo.' The 'goo' had interesting properties, which they applied reason and new knowledge to uncover, and the goo became Teflon. Rational men of science, straining to apply imperfect knowledge and create a new refrigerant, meandered to Teflon via their intelligent efforts. Natural processes in the Universe are filled with examples of meander. It is what we often do. That isn't an either/or to Rand's romantic vision, that is an extension of it. I don't regard meander as a flaw; I regard it as an acknowledgement of the Universe, as it is, and man within it, intelligently dealing with a boundary condition of imperfect knowledge about that Universe and its gradients. How many people do you know who are, 20 years out of university, still working in their once area of study? Some are, many are not. They have meandered. I think this extends beyond professional considerations; I think this is often what happens in our personal lives. It takes perfect knowledge, or luck, to navigate directly and deliberately to personal happiness. (Entire industries have sprung up claiming to offer navigation aids.) But for those of us mortals lacking that perfect knowledge, there is hope, and reason not to despair. We can still use the strategy of meander, and often do. Gradients drive everything in the Universe, and 'love' is an example of one of the most intense gradients there is. The social exhortations to 'love all equally' is really a request to not love at all. The essence of love is the intense inequality of it, usually one more than all others, or, in the case of polygamists, maybe five, tops. Glamor can serve that meander. Here is an image of what appears to be happiness; that is invoked within us, is our reception. So we can assess the image that invoked a feeling of glamor within us, of happiness, and ask, how is that obtained? What is the path there? Is it real or faked? And even if faked, totally artificial, is the fact that I responded to that image of glamor informing me of something within myself? Rand's romantic art is one source of possible imagery that can evoke the glamor response. That is the purpose of her romantic novels. That is what initially attracts others to read her essays-- her romantic imagery, and our response to it. When we think back to how we discovered that initial attraction, did we navigate there, or did we meander there? regards, Fred

Rightly or wrongly, that happens frequently. Examples: parent -- child teacher -- student doctor -- patient (I, being irrational, don't take orders from doctors but most people do.) the Pope -- catholics policeman -- law abiding citizen In addition to one individual making a decision for another individual, it is common for people to follow the crowd instead of making decisions. Examples: Why do people start smoking? -- Other people smoke. Monkey see, monkey do. Why do people start drugs? -- Other people do. How do people choose a religion? -- Usually they accept the religion that is chosen for them. Choice of food? -- Whatever other people are eating. Taste in music? -- Whatever is popular. Doesn't matter how bad it is. What books to read? -- Whatever is popular. Most common argument used by doctors. -- Not generally accepted. (Doesn't matter whether it is true.) It seems many people suffer from a psychological need to conform. I agree with John Stuart Mill's statement that people should cultivate individuality even to the point of eccentricity. I do not think highly of people who are afraid to be different. It is important to distinguish between: 1. Letting other people make a decision for you. 2. Getting knowledge/insight/advice from people who have special knowledge or experience or smarts for the purpose of making the right decision. Dead on. To the point, I wonder sometimes if that need isn't deeply embedded in some vs others, like dominant herd mentality genes? I'd extend getting "knowledge/insight/advice" with "inspiration," still with the important distinction of your #1. Steve W. over in RoR posted a great interview with Virginia Postrel discussing her book "The Power of Glamor," where she describes glamor as the reception in others to the inspiration of an image or idea. She distinguishes that from charisma, which she identifies as an attribute of a person, an individual; an attractor of the attention of others. The power of glamor is neutral; the projection of glamorous imagery can't insure a glamorous reaction in any single individual, but it can be directed at populations with agendas, where the goals are not to evoke the glamor response in any one individual, but in 'enough' individuals. Hollywood, Madison Ave, and politicians do not target individuals, they target enough individuals to meet their goals. But imagine a neutral 'Library of Glamorous Imagery.' (By neutral I mean, agenda free.) Individuals perusing this Library of Glamorous Images could freely choose their inspirations to guide their personal meander. The reception to those images that is 'glamor' is still within their bounds of control. I think, even with the addition of agendas, plural, and biases, plural, Hollywood's products largely succeed at being a kind of 'Library of Glamorous Imagery.' So, when we respond to the Library of Glamorous Imagery, is our response primarily decided by the responses of others, or are we neutrally responding to what we individually find glamorous? Still not the same for each of us. Rand's romantic art is an example of imagery which some, not all, respond to, and in fact, those of a certain bent will respond negatively precisely because of their intense fealty to social conformity. Your smoking example is a great example. We were all 14 once. Many of us tried smoking because we saw others apparently enjoying the activity. We each then made a personal decision; to continue the activity, or not. a] Some enjoyed the practice and continued. It brought them pleasure, joy, fulfillment, or value. b] Some did not enjoy the practice and discontinued it. Did not bring them pleasure, joy, fulfillment, or value. c] Some enjoyed the practice but discontinued it, acceding to arguments against, or, for economic reasons. Insufficient value. d] Some did not enjoy the practice particularly, but continued it because of the way they perceived themselves in the eyes of others, sought the acceptance of others seeking validation for the parking of their own receptions. Displaced 'social' value. Madison Ave might have helped with the projection of imagery; the reception and evaluation was still in our hands. I was a b]. Rand, apparently, was an a]. She could easily, as well, have become a c], but not me, because it brought me no value at all. I could have been a d], but only if I had been delivered a massive blow to the head, or, if I had an addict's fealty to my atavistic herd mentality genes. It is the d]s that are the dangerous cancer running loose in world. regards, Fred

Oh, I see. I did know the affiliations, so that interpretation didn't occur to me. That remark takes me back to my first job in New York City. (I moved to NYC from the Midwest in early September, 1968.) I was still considering going to graduate school in psych. (I later made a couple abortive attempts at graduate school before ending up, happily, in publishing.) The first job I got was on a project for Vassar - I think it was still Vassar College then. The administration at Vassar was planning to fund one or another of several candidate special programs, and various distinguished academics had been asked to present proposals for the respective possibilities. One possibility was an interdisciplinary program - science/humanities, bridging "the two cultures." The person hired to write that proposal was Charles Frankel, a noted Columbia philosophy professor who had been Under-Secretary of State for Educational and Cultural Affairs in John Kennedy's administration. (The Wikioedia article about Frankel says Johnson's administration, but seems to me it was while Kennedy was alive that Frankel was appointed.) Frankel asked the woman who had been his administrative assistant in Washington to do the actual organizing of arranging meetings with advisors and writing the basics of the proposal. I was hired to assist her and to type the manuscript. During the time when the proposal was being put together there were numerous of the campus sit-in/take-over incidents, including one at Columbia. Frankel was terribly conflicted about the whole thing. On the one hand, "academic freedom," the students' say should be heard. On the other hand, such instincts of reason and academic honor as he had felt revolted and desirous of calling what was going on "evil." But he couldn't bring himself to say this in so many words. And, note, as a participant in the Kennedy Camelot dream of academics having a direct say in government policy, he was already contaminated himself by spores of the disease. Among his many books, he wrote one on the campus confrontations called Education and the Barricades. The book reflected his being undecided, torn, unable to take a strong stand against the Marxist infiltration of student thought and the behavior of the student protestors. Ellen Ellen: I've ordered the book, thank you. The 'Boomers' starting to come of age in the 60s and 70s are sometimes today regarded as a monolithic thinking whole. I don't remember it that way at all; I think it was the first of increasingly divided generations of Americans. What was once an external struggle became an internal struggle, and although the seeds of that internal struggle were festering for most of the 20th century, it was the Boomer generation that saw that erupt into a widespread internal conflict. I'm sure there are a list of reasons for that a mile long, but ... cui bono? What were once fringe, radical ideas earlier in the century are today , well, holding titles such as the Administrator of Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs...brought to us by Carter on the way out the door, today carrying out the double-speak of Executive Order 12866, brought to us by Clinton. And yet, did any intervening GOP administration ever clean up this mess? (Or, was there ever anything so egregious as Nixon's 1970 Economic Stabilization Act?) Read the following and just ... laugh? Cry? 1993...just 4 years after the visible global failure of centrally planned, command and control 'the economy' running, America was putting it in writing. EXECUTIVE ORDER #12866 REGULATORY PLANNING AND REVIEW The American people deserve a regulatory system that works for them, not against them: a regulatory system that protects and improves their health, safety, environment, and well-being and improves the performance of the economy without imposing unacceptable or unreasonable costs on society; regulatory policies that recognize that the private sector and private markets are the best engine for economic growth; regulatory approaches that respect the role of State, local, and tribal governments; and regulations that are effective, consistent, sensible, and understandable. We do not have such a regulatory system today. With this Executive order, the Federal Government begins a program to reform and make more efficient the regulatory process. The objectives of this Executive order are to enhance planning and coordination with respect to both new and existing regulations; to reaffirm the primacy of Federal agencies in the regulatory decision-making process; to restore the integrity and legitimacy of regulatory review and oversight; and to make the process more accessible and open to the public. In pursuing these objectives, the regulatory process shall be conducted so as to meet applicable statutory requirements and with due regard to the discretion that has been entrusted to the Federal agencies. Accordingly, by the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows: Section 1. Statement of Regulatory Philosophy and Principles. The Regulatory Philosophy. Federal agencies should promulgate only such regulations as are required by law, are necessary to interpret the law, or are made necessary by compelling public need, such as material failures of private markets to protect or improve the health and safety of the public, the environment, or the well-being of the American people. In deciding whether and how to regulate, agencies should assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives, including the alternative of not regulating. Costs and benefits shall be understood to include both quantifiable measures (to the fullest extent that these can be usefully estimated) and qualitative measures of costs and benefits that are difficult to quantify, but nevertheless essential to consider. Further, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, agencies should select those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity), unless a statute requires another regulatory approach. The Principles of Regulation. To ensure that the agencies' regulatory programs are consistent with the philosophy set forth above, agencies should adhere to the following principles, to the extent permitted by law and where applicable: Each agency shall identify the problem that it intends to address (including, where applicable, the failures of private markets or public institutions that warrant new agency action) as well as assess the significance of that problem. Each agency shall examine whether existing regulations (or other law) have created, or contributed to, the problem that a new regulation is intended to correct and whether those regulations (or other law) should be modified to achieve the intended goal of regulation more effectively. Each agency shall identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing information upon which choices can be made by the public. In setting regulatory priorities, each agency shall consider, to the extent reasonable, the degree and nature of the risks posed by various substances or activities within its jurisdiction. When an agency determines that a regulation is the best available method of achieving the regulatory objective, it shall design its regulations in the most cost-effective manner to achieve the regulatory objective. In doing so, each agency shall consider incentives for innovation, consistency, predictability, the costs of enforcement and compliance (to the government, regulated entities, and the public), flexibility, distributive impacts, and equity. Each agency shall assess both the costs and the benefits of the intended regulation and, recognizing that some costs and benefits are difficult to quantify, propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Each agency shall base its decisions on the best reasonably obtainable scientific, technical, economic, and other information concerning the need for, and consequences of, the intended regulation. ) Each agency shall identify and assess alternative forms of regulation and shall, to the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than specifying the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must adopt. Wherever feasible, agencies shall seek views of appropriate State, local, and tribal officials before imposing regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect those governmental entities. Each agency shall assess the effects of Federal regulations on State, local, and tribal governments, including specifically the availability of resources to carry out those mandates, and seek to minimize those burdens that uniquely or significantly affect such governmental entities, consistent with achieving regulatory objectives. In addition, as appropriate, agencies shall seek to harmonize Federal regulatory actions with related State, local, and tribal regulatory and other governmental functions. Each agency shall avoid regulations that are inconsistent, incompatible, or duplicative with its other regulations or those of other Federal agencies. Each agency shall tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, including individuals, businesses of differing sizes, and other entities (including small communities and governmental entities), consistent with obtaining the regulatory objectives, taking into account, among other things, and to the extent practicable, the costs of cumulative regulations. Each agency shall draft its regulations to be simple and easy to understand, with the goal of minimizing the potential for uncertainty and litigation arising from such uncertainty. You know, like the ACA. The lament today by the Progressives is that OIRA and 12866 are too limited in scope. Their desired scope of action is much broader than that Jell-o goo. So much for the concept of 'limited government.' Limited by what? Our imaginations? regards, Fred

You talk about that in your post #68 (on the RoR thread). I was tempted to quote the post in full. From long experience knowing many academics, I think your depiction is accurate. (It's wider-spread than the Ivies, although they're epitome and core examples.) I don't understand what you're saying "might seem a little contradictory." Being against autonomy meshes with the elitism of the Ivies' faculty and alums considering themselves better qualified to make decisions for the non-initiated than those folks are to make decisions for themselves. I noticed that the final reviewer describes the book as an important read for the defenders of autonomy, and I don't understand that comment. I'm intending to look into who that reviewer is, and to see if I can find the full review. Possibly the person meant it in this sense: Having been alerted to the book (thanks for the alert), I am going to acquire it so my husband and I can peruse it as case study background for his forays in various academic battles. But something about the wording gives me a "double-speak" feel. Ellen Ellen: All I meant by "seems a little contradictory" is that the bylines in the reviewers list don't explicitly list any Ivy League schools-- you need to know that the author came from PU and the first four reviewers were all educated at Harvard. And yes, these self-serving ideas of coercive paternalism by elites have found lots of soft landing zones, not just the Ivies. But it is so -thick- in the Ivies-- so heavy handed, that I'm convinced they were once deliberately targeted. What I can't imagine is, what would have stopped such an attack? Not our non-police state. Not our open borders. Not our open campuses. Not the receptive, soft landing zones to be found. Not the benevolent feeling of goodwill towards the concept of freedom by our once global competitors. The Ivies are tiny, inbred, elite choke points-- mandrels of thought-- with long established four lane paved highways into the machinery of state, as well as the faculties of other institutions. All of that would have made them natural selective targets for a global competitor having a desire to kick the intellectual legs out from underneath freedom. What in the world was going to stop that attack from happening and largely succeeding(resulting in today's institutional bias?) The very idea of freedom was used against it. Fair minded people were convinced that the greatest academic sin would be to freely study cancer with the goal of finding a cure, that instead, complete academic freedom demanded of us to actually embrace cancer and consider it as an alternative to health, only it wasn't cancer: it was Marxism/collectivism/statism in the context of a free nation. What once was an external conflict has long morphed into an internal conflict. regards, Fred

Ellen: It reproduced the feeling of looking underneath the porch of a beautiful summer home and finding termites. Lots of termites. The original context was, the chokepoint of elitism that is the tiny, inbred Ivies; mandrels of thought. When you look at that list of reviews, that might seem a little contradictory. But the author of the book is a Princeton alum, and the backgrounds of the first four reviewers are all Harvard educated, right down to termite extraordinaire, Cass Sunstein. (The final reviewer regards it as an important read for the -defenders- of autonomy,) Dean pointed out a good point, basically, the advocates of state centered coercive paternalism found a soft landing in the Ivies, who have not only embraced the concept with an institutional bias, but met it with candy and flowers. regards, Fred

It might also be noted that, within research psy, the only epistemic grounds for using 'perception' is to distinguish the various responses from different people-- the given sensation being the same for everyone. the best example of thiis is the variance of 'perception' of an optical illusion which, in many cases does not cross cultural boundaries. The best example? The Hell you say. The best example is the variance of perception of an optical illusion in the -same- person, over time. Proving that it is possible to objectively understand perception. As in, the checkerboard square illusion. When first exposed to it, nearly impossible to see the two squares as anything but light and dark squares. After applying human reason to our perception(and literally re-weighting our perception engines with our new chosen values), nearly impossible to see the two squares as anything but the same shade of medium gray. Sort of begs the Holy culturally contextual question: what 'cultural difference' is not being crossed by the observed variance in perception of that illusion by the same individual, when that individual transits from ignorance to knowledge? Not my wheelhouse, and it is unfair to drag in an illusion from MIT; as well, I haven't been thoroughly doused with the group think/Holy cultural water. http://web.mit.edu/persci/people/adelson/checkershadow_illusion.html Oncle F

The Anti-Slavery Society of Great Britain repeatedly published reports about the cruelties of slavery and played a key role in its final abolition in 1833. Is it impolite to notice that, after thousands of years of human history, and a fine history of its own, that the Anti-Slavery Society of GB repeatedly did this only after losing the American Colonies and a primary interest as one destination in the three cornered trading routes, and that according to Rhodes, the great global crusade against all those Muslim slave trading centers were, cynically, in the end, defined as "colonialism is philanthropy, plus 5%?" Whatever did Rhodes mean by that? 12 Years A Slave won the oscar last night; a Yale debutante made millionaires weep with her performance. A Columbia/Harvard educated slavery swiller won the White House. We are so over it. Or are we? The slavery swillers have officially beaten a dead horse over the remnants of a thousands of year old practice of forced association. If slavery is such a terrible thing, which it was, hundreds of years of ago, then what crackpots in 2014 are still advocating for any form of forced association Is rape suddenly a good thing, too? Or is it unmentionable in polite political discussions?

"Politics:" the most used and least defined word in all of politics. Politics, in its broadest sense: the art and science of getting what we want from others using any means short of actual violence. (The superset that includes force/violence I call mega-politics.) Examples of what we want from others: The TV remote, affection, money, their vote, their validation for the parking of our souls, to ride them like a tribal public property pony, to be left alone. (What a rapist wants and what a rape victim wants are both wants, just, not ethically equivalent wants.) What a rapist wants is for a rape victim to believe what they want is pointless. Said another way, what some politicos advocate for is free association, while other politicos try to justify their paradigms based on forced association. In a nation of peers living in freedom, when we love our neighbors we ask, we don't tell, or else that act of love appears more like an act of rape. In a nation of paternalistic megalomaniacs unchecked as emperor wannabes, folks are told, they aren't asked. Even the double yellow lines are a suggestion. Even speed limits are suggestions. (There are no state mandated speed limiters on your automobiles. Yet.) There are exceedingly rare instances of justifications for forced association, not many and unfettered, over any scope imaginable. The tribe is easily able to tell when the tribe has stepped over that polite line by the widespread divisions in the nation. The tribe has stepped over that polite line.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/05/science/at-400000-years-oldest-human-dna-yet-found-raises-new-mysteries.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&smid=tw-nytimes&_r=0 Love that artist rendering. The guy in the lower left? I've seen that exact look before; he's just not buying any of whatever shit is being said by anyone around him. The guy right above him? He is definitely wondering "Who just farted?" Without a doubt, it was the greybeard with the deadpan look on his face. The young guy in the middle front? Trying not to breath for a few moments. Clear as a bell. This could be any section of the 700 Level of Vet's stadium at any Eagles home game from the 70s.