Saturday, May 21, 2005

I got this at The Atlasphere

The Only Path to Tomorrow
by Ayn Rand
The greatest threat to mankind and civilization is the spread of the totalitarian philosophy. Its best ally is not the devotion of its followers but the confusion of its enemies. To fight it, we must understand it.

Totalitarianism is collectivism. Collectivism means the subjugation of the individual to a group - whether to a race, class or state does not matter. Collectivism holds that man must be chained to collective action and collective thought for the sake of what is called "the common good."

Throughout history no tyrant ever rose to power except on the claim of representing "the common good." Napoleon "served the common good" of France. Hitler is "serving the common good" of Germany. Horrors which no man would dare consider for his own selfish sake are perpetrated with a clear conscience by "altruists" who justify themselves by - the common good.

No tyrant has ever lasted long by force of arms alone. Men have been enslaved primarily by spiritual weapons. And the greatest of these is the collectivist doctrine that the supremacy of the state over the individual constitutes the common good. No dictator could rise if men held as a sacred faith the conviction that they have inalienable rights of which they cannot be deprived for any cause whatsoever, by any man whatsoever, neither by evildoer nor supposed benefactor.

This is the basic tenet of individualism, as opposed to collectivism. Individualism holds that man is an independent entity with an inalienable right to the pursuit of his own happiness in a society where men deal with one another as equals.

The American system is founded on individualism. If it is to survive, we must understand the principles of individualism and hold them as our standard in any public question, in every issue we face. We must have a positive credo, a clear, consistent faith.

We must learn to reject as total evil the conception that the common good is served by the abolition of individual rights. General happiness cannot be created out of general suffering and self-immolation. The only happy society is one of happy individuals. One cannot have a healthy forest made up of rotten trees.

The power of society must always be limited by the basic, inalienable rights of the individual.

The right of liberty means man's right to individual action, individual initiative and individual property. Without the right to private property no independent action is possible.

The right to the pursuit of happiness means man's right to live for himself, to choose what constitutes his own, private, personal happiness and to work for its achievement. Each individual is the sole and final judge in this choice. A man's happiness cannot be prescribed to him by another man or by any number of other men.

These rights are the unconditional, personal, private, individual possession of every man, granted to him by the fact of his birth and requiring no other sanction. Such was the conception of the founders of our country, who placed individual rights above any and all collective claims. Society can be only a traffic policeman in the intercourse of men with one another.

From the beginning of history, two antagonists have stood face to face, two opposite types of men: the Active and the Passive. The Active Man is the producer, the creator, the originator, the individualist. His basic need is independence - in order to think and work. He neither needs nor seeks power over other men - nor can he be made to work under any form of compulsion. Every type of good work - from laying bricks to writing a symphony - is done by the Active Man. Degrees of human ability vary, but the basic principle remains the same: the degree of a man's independence and initiative determines his talent as a worker and his worth as a man.

The Passive Man is found on every level of society, in mansions and in slums, and his identification mark is his dread of independence. He is a parasite who expects to be taken care of by others, who wishes to be given directives, to obey, to submit, to be regulated, to be told. He welcomes collectivism, which eliminates any chance that he might have to think or act on his own initiative.

When a society is based on the needs of the Passive Man it destroys the Active; but when the Active is destroyed, the passive can no longer be cared for. When a society is based on the needs of the Active Man, he carries the Passive ones along on his energy and raises them as he rises, as the whole society rises. This has been the pattern of all human progress.

Some humanitarians demand a collective state because of their pity for the incompetent or Passive Man. For his sake they wish to harness the Active. But the Active Man cannot function in harness. And once he is destroyed, the destruction of the Passive Man follows automatically. So if pity is the humanitarians' first consideration, then in the name of pity, if nothing else, they should leave the Active Man free to function, in order to help the Passive. There is no other way to help him in the long run.

The history of mankind is the history of the struggle between the Active Man and the Passive, between the individual and the collective. The countries which have produced the happiest men, the highest standards of living and the greatest cultural advances have been the countries where the power of the collective - of the government, of the state - was limited and the individual was given freedom of independent action. As examples: The rise of Rome, with its conception of law based on a citizen's rights, over the collectivist barbarism of its time. The rise of England, with a system of government based on the Magna Carta, over collectivist, totalitarian Spain. The rise of the United States to a degree of achievement unequaled in history - by grace of the individual freedom and independence which our Constitution gave each citizen against the collective.

While men are still pondering upon the causes of the rise and fall of civilizations, every page of history cries to us that there is but one source of progress: Individual Man in independent action. Collectivism is the ancient principle of savagery. A savage's whole existence is ruled by the leaders of the tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men.

We are now facing a choice: to go forward or to go back.

Collectivism is not the "New Order of Tomorrow." It is the order of a very dark yesterday. But there is a New Order of Tomorrow. It belongs to Individual Man - the only creator of any tomorrows humanity has ever been granted.

* * *
Interestingly, one of the pages of Rand's article contains a boxed insert with a statement by Wendell Willkie:

"In the process of winning this war the American people have accepted centralization of government, regimentation of activities and restriction of liberty to a greater extent than ever before in their history.

"Totalitarianism has an insidious, a sinister appeal. It appeals to those who prefer leadership to initiative, blueprints to enterprise. It appeals to those who find it difficult to bend democracy to serve their economic or political self-interest.

"At the end of the war the freedoms we have lost must be rewon and restored, not part, but all of them; not sooner or later, but sooner. If we fail to do that, then history will write it down that in this war - as in many others - the victors were the vanquished."

Whoops! I didn't read the update: I've been informed that Rand's article "The Only Path to Tomorrow," which was originally published in the Reader's Digest, had already been reprinted in The Ayn Rand Column, a book of Rand's weekly newspaper articles written for the Los Angeles Times. I didn't realize the article was in there, because I thought the book included only her newspaper articles, but it turns out that it also includes some of her other writings.

That means that ARI holds the copyright. If they ask me to cease and desist I certainly will, but I think this article is a wonderful intro to her works and purpose. And jibes very well with mine.

Friday, May 20, 2005

I think I'm in love

with Janice Rogers Brown after reading this post at The New American Revolutionist.

A coupla good posts on military base closings

besides mine: Liberty Dog has BRAC Attack, and CDR Salamander has Don’t BRAC me, don’t BRAC thee; BRAC that Congressional District behind yon tree.

If you're new to the discussion, the order in which I've put the three links is the easiest by which to gain an understanding of it. Don't forget the links at the various posts.

Thursday, May 19, 2005

I just found another guy I think I'll like:

Razorback Lawyer. Check him out.

In other news, my buddy Oldsmoblogger (I haven't talked about my love of Oldsmobiles yet, and haven't dredged far enough to learn about his) has a great post on why you should ignore Marxist economics: he calls it, Math is Fun:
The argument is this: The "middle fifth" as described above had a smaller share of the nation's wealth in 1997 than it did in 1989; therefore, it was worse off in 1997 than it was in 1989.

Was it?

That's the great thing about math, not to mention the Internet; we can find out. In what I'd characterize as barely more than a back-of-the-envelope analysis, I spent half an hour poking through tables at the Bureau of Economic Analysis, and another half hour with Microsoft Excel, and here's what I learned.

Ho ho! Read the whole thing, or RTWT as I like to say.

Wednesday, May 18, 2005

Proof that the Universe is indeed benevolent:

From Derby’s wild ride:
Christopher Hertzog knows how to lose things. Valuable things. Once, the 16-year veteran of the Phoenix Fire Department lost a $10,000 Rolex watch while fishing.

But that’s nothing compared to the winning Kentucky Derby superfecta ticket Hertzog "lost" on Saturday at Turf Paradise Race Course. The $1 ticket was worth $864,253.

But through a strange series of events, Hertzog was reunited 24 hours later with his ticket and collected his winnings, less $259,276 withheld for taxes.

Thanks to Omni's funnier article. [Yes, I was just catching up with you today, Omni. As always, it's all interesting and chuckle-worthy (I'm sure I got that term from Ayn Rand).]

Have you contacted that guy yet?

Say your local military base is closing,

Ft. Devens, MA shows the conservative solution:
What happened after the closure of Fort Devens is a model for how communities facing the loss of a major military installation can come together to create an opportunity for economic rebirth.

Much of this was made possible by a $200 million state bond issue that sparked nearly $500 million in private investment by the dozens of small and large companies that sprang up on the 9,400 acres that once made up Fort Devens.

"We got lucky," said Kyle Keady, then a selectman and now town administrator in Shirley. "The economy was booming and we had a plan that included contributions from the local, state and federal governments."

It's a good thing the government(s) could spare the time to think about you. It can't, always. I wonder how much money was actually saved by closing that base. And what will happen when the governments have to turn their attention to other matters. If all the new businesses there work to become independent of taxpayer largesse, it'll be fine.
But overall, the GAO reported that almost 85 percent or 110,086 of the 129,649 Department of Defense civilian jobs lost on military bases because of past closures or realignments have been replaced as the properties have been redeveloped. This does not include other jobs created off the bases.

I credit conservatives because they've moved toward privatization. Both Democrat and Republicans would want this kind of solution. It'll work as long as the recipients work hard and are honest. But it's not the libertarian way. The trouble with subsidies is that they mislead people into thinking they don't have to think and work as hard as one has to in their absence. And corruption is rampant where cash is easy to come by. People like to avoid thinking and working hard.

Here's another problem:
The plan that was eventually adopted unanimously by town officials and accepted by the state called for the redevelopment to be administered by a quasi-public corporation called MassDevelopment.

"It was a long, drawn-out process to come to that agreement," said Meg Delorier, MassDevelopment's chief of staff. "There was a lot of concern about what type of development to allow, who would make decisions over a period of time and so forth."

Full recovery would have been a long, drawn-out process in any case, but how much recovering was going on while everybody sat around waiting for the government to do its thing?

Tuesday, May 17, 2005

Well, in case that didn't do it for you,

it's been almost nine full months since I typed in the lotus position.

Continuing from where I left off in The Surangama Sutra:
The Lord Buddha interrupted:--Ananda, you are now sitting in the lecture hall, are you not? And when you are looking out to the Jetavana Grove, can you tell me where the hall and the grove are situated?

Certainly, my Lord. This quiet and splendid lecture hall and the Jetavana Grove are both situated in Anathapindika's beautiful park.

Now, Ananda, what do you see first, the people in this hall or the park outside?

I first see my Lord, then I see the noble audience, and other things in turn, and only afterward do I see the grove and the loverly park outside.

True, Ananda! Now tell me, while you are looking outside at the grove and park, what is it that enables you to distinguish the different views that your eyes see?

Noble Lord! It is because the windows and doors of the lecture hall are open wide. That is why I can see the distant views from inside the hall.

Then the Blessed Lord, in view of the great audience, reached ou his golden hand and softly stroked Ananda's head, at the same time speaking to both him and the great assembly, saying:--

There is a particular Samadhi called, The Highest Samadhi, which was the Lord Buddha's Crowning Experience, and by it he attained a perfect realization of all manifestations and transformations. It was a wonderful door that opened to the mysterious Path that all the Tathagatas of all the ten quarters of all the univeres have followed. It is of this Highest Samadhi that I am going to speak. Listen very carefully.

Then Ananda and the great audience bowed to the ground in deep adoration and then resumed their seats and waited humbly for the Master's solemn teaching.

The Lord Buddha then addressed Ananda and the great assembly, saying:--

Ananda, you have just said that from the inside of the lecture hall you can look out to the grove and the distant park because the windows and doors are open wide. It is possible that there are some within this very audience that only see these outside things and who are unable to see the Lord Tathagata within. [Here it is particularly clear that "Buddha" is not a particular god, but is that indefinable entity or state of perfect wisdom achieved by the godly.]

Ananda interruped:--But my Lord, how can it be that anyone in this hall who can see the grove and streams without can fail to see the Lord within?

It does seem absurd, Ananda, but it is just that way with you. You say that your mind exists within your body and that it is quite clear of all obstructions, but if this clear mind really exists within your body, then you ought to see the inside of your body first of all. But there are no sentient beings who can do this, that is, see both the inside and outside of their bodies. Though they may not see all the inside thing--such as the hear, stomach, liver, kidneys, etc.--but at least they ought to see the growth of the finger-nails, the lengtheing of the hair, the knotting of the sinew, the throbbing of the pulse. If the mind is within the body, why does it not see these things? But if the mind is within the body and can not see the things within, how can it see the things without the body? So you must see that what you have said about the perceiving mind, abiding within the body, is untrue.

With a respectful bow, Ananda said to the Lord:--Listening to the words of my lord, I begin to realize that my mind, after all, may be outside my body. It may be like a lamp. If the lamp is within the room, it will certainly illumine the room first and then shining through the open door and windows will illumine the yeard outside. If it was like that, why is it that one seeing only outside objects does not see the things within? It must be that the mind is like a lamp placed outside of a room, for then it would be dark within. If one can clearly understand what his mind is, he would no longer be puzzled, but would have the same intelligence and understanding that the Buddhas have. Would it not be so, my Lord?

I'd say the analogy is faulty.
The Lord replied:--Ananda, this morning all of the Bhikshus followed me to the city of Sravasti begging for food in regular order and afterwards all returned to this Grove. I was fasting at the time, but the others ate the food. What think you, Ananda? If only one of the Bhikshus ate the food, would the others be satisfied of their hunger?

Ananda replied:--No, my Lord, and why? Because, although all of these Bhikshus are Arahats, yet their physical bodies are individually separated. How could it be, that one Bhikshu eating, could satisfy the hunger of all?

The Lord Buddha replied:--Ananda if your perceiving, undertanding mind is really outside your body, then what the mind perceives could not be felt by the body, and what the body feels could not be perceived by the mind. Look at my hand, Ananda. When your eyes are looking at it, does your mind make any discriminations about it?

[Paraphrasing: "Yup." ...]

Why do I feel tired all of a sudden?

How about a good dose of Fred to clear your palate

On Pitying the Poor [in America] [It's column no. 274 - I can't figure out how to link it directly.]:
When the victim is to blame, blame him. If I get drunk and suffer a hangover, is it your fault? Jim Beam’s fault? Why?

Some will object that the (slight) poverty of the American poor somehow forces them to make bad decisions, which they know to be bad decisions. Well, if the poor have no free will, and haplessly do what their environment ordains, can not the management of McDonald's plead the same?

If the poor of America were truly penurious, and forcibly kept so, I would see things differently. The sweated children of New York, the slaves of the South, the virtual slaves of the Industrial Revolution in England-these had a cause for complaint. They suffered greatly, and had no way out.

Neither did they have the subsidized housing of today, the welfare, and the leisure consequent to these, nor free medical care, nor public schools which by law they had to attend, nor free libraries, nor the array of special and unearned privilege called "affirmative action." Today's poor do have them. They also live in a society that has begged them, prodded them, enticed them to do something with and for themselves. They haven't. They aren't interested. And neither, any longer, am I.

There are more attractive options, in this country, for bored, idle minds (and hands).

Wait, this link ought to work. It does, but it eliminates the sidebar, with all the navigation stuff.

Monday, May 16, 2005

The Teflon Man has two posts everyone should read.

One that I won't try to describe - better you read it in his own words - and Two: an exerpt of Kahlil Gibran's The Prophet: on Giving.

Let us try to rise with him on the wings of these gifts.

It would behoove me to write an essay on each side

--or, rather, all (or, at least, many) sides, as I insist that there are more than two sides to every issue--of the points raised in Russell Madden's Freedom Quiz. There are fifty questions, which would amount to about 200-300 essays. ...Take me about a year.

The first question alone, "1. Our taxes may be too high, but I enjoy roads, mail service, public schools, and other benefits the government provides. Taxes are simply the price we pay for civilization. Yes No," could be broken down into five or six parts, each with an 'always, sometimes or never' answer, and 'sometimes' can be broken down into seldom, who cares?/why not?, and usually.

All I've gotta do is split my personality half a dozen ways and express each one. When it's all said and done, I should know the hell out of myself.

Friday, May 13, 2005

WCCO TV news made this story an issue about licensing to carry a firearm

This story, I mean. I see the issue isn't raised in this article.

Earlier in the week Channel 9's "FOX 9 Investigors" presented this bit of news:
In the interest of public safety, you don't want a mentally unstable person getting a gun, much less a permit to go and buy one.

It’s already happened at least once, with deadly consequences.

The question is will a flaw we found in the system allow it to happen again?

Both pieces failed to ask crucial questions.

First: as I understand it, you don't need a permit in Minnesota to buy a handgun. You need a permit to carry a concealed handgun. You can't carry one openly unless you're a cop. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong. Maybe rent-a-cops can get a license to carry openly on the job.

Second: the reformed "Shall Issue" law has been struck down by the State Supreme Court since February. That law said that if you weren't mentally ill, nor a convicted felon, you shall be issued a license to carry a concealed weapon if you asked for one. It was struck down because a few liberal churches contested some fine points in the restrictions. And a goofy grammar flaw that the politicians and lawyers didn't catch. [And you wonder why I hate them. Blatantly frickin' obvious to anyone with two weeks of logic instruction under his or her belt!]

Permits were issued under that law for about 6 months [correction: it was 15 months] before a court struck it down. [Apparently, even its opponents were logical morons.] I believe those permits are still in effect, but I notice that neither of these articles ask the question, "under which regime were these permits issued?" The old (and current) regime allows police chiefs and county sheriffs to issue permits to carry concealed firearms (I reiterate: permits to buy any kind of gun are not required, though registration is) at their own discretion. Some of them licensed nearly anyone who asked (I know of some real doozies in St. Louis County), and, particularly in the Twin Cities Metro area, some would license very few, close comrades.

I'd bet that neither of these people should have been issued concealed carry permits under either regime, but the MSM didn't ask.

I grew up in a place where there were few directions (which were made very clear to me by both of my parents - as I understood it, on pain of death, at either of their hands) in which I could not unload my semi-automatic .22 safely. Or, for that matter, fire off any kind of firework I wanted, although all fireworks beyond sparklers were illegal. (We lived in the Wild West of Douglas County, Wisconsin.)

I'm sayin': I learned from a very early age, that you don't go shootin' a firearm where an innocent person might get hurt. It would be a tragedy beyond words if an innocent person were killed. I understood.

Guilty people were another matter: if you catch somebody red-handed trying to hurt someone, they're fair game.

Oh! I forgot to mention that the Minnesota Personal Protection Act has been amended and is up for debate this week. My buddy (whom I haven't met as yet) Mitch is on the case.

[And another correction: the MPPA creates a 'shall issue' permit to carry. There is nothing about concealment in the law. It passed the MN Senate with flying colors. It'll pass the Republican-dominated House even easier, and Gov. Pawlenty will sign it.]

Ach! It's been a tough day for gettin' at my blog(s).

I kinda got pounded at work - not so much that I doubted my abilities, but timewise...

In the breaks, I managed to do a little surfing... cleaned up my email inbox... researched some interesting stuff that'll bear fruit later (or might--I never write anything down, though it's amazing how old studies come back to me sometimes when I sit down to write).

But sitting down to compose anything was just impossible, and that followed through to the evening, as well.

But, I've had some thoughts. Give me a minute or thirty. The TV news has pissed me off twice this week. I'm gonna see if I can make something of it.

More fun with online dictionaries:

From the LookWAYup online Dutch English dictionary:
6. verkeer [n] (sexual_intercourse, intercourse, sex_act, copulation, coitus, coition, sexual_congress, congress, sexual_relation, relation, carnal_knowledge) the act of sexual procreation between a man and a woman; the man's penis is inserted into the woman's vagina and excited until orgasm and ejaculation occur. More...

I'm still unclear on that. How do you get started?

Thursday, May 12, 2005

While wandering whiggishly around the Web,

searching for a reminder of what the Assize of Clarendon was about, I made a surprising discover. The ass sizes of the inhabitants of any or all of the (at least) four US cities by that name, are much larger (close as I could get, sorry) than those of the original Clarendon.

I thought that maybe if I insulted them just right, they'd by me a ticket over there to prove me wrong. Or at least send pictures of fit butts.

I'd also like to see the birthplace of the Jury Trial.

But, if I want to go, I'll have to pay my own way. It's uninhabited.

That guy there mentions the Constitutions of Clarendon.

There's a Great Discussion of the PATRIOT Act

at The Balance Of Power; two Conservatives, two Liberals and one Libertarian all agree that the Act overreaches and allows for breaches of human rights, though there has been little news of any as yet.

What will the next Administration bring us. I was pretty pissed about Waco and Ruby Ridge. Do the lefties have any equally egregious examples? (I know; Mumia says he's innocent...)

Wednesday, May 11, 2005

I've been remiss, as usual lately...

My speed-reading efforts have thus far come to naught.

I have only now been able to respond to a missive from Ayn Clouter. I really have to be more sensitive to her urges.

She's written a wonderful piece mingling art-criticism, suspence and (presumably) satire, that, among other things, skewers the former First Lady.

I caught a glimpse of an article about democratization efforts in Bahrain

in todays Wall Street Journal. Looks like they're having a conservative (in the most literal sense - the tyranny is striking back) backlash. Their liberals need to consider this timeline and have patience; their conservatives need to consider this, this (my favorite), this and this.*

And how about these moderates?

And we should all remember how things went for the Weimar Republic.

AMERICAN
CHRONOLOGY

Timeline for the Period of the Revolution

1765. Stamp
Act. Colonial Congress in New York.
1770. "Boston Massacre."
1773.
Destruction of tea in Boston Harbor.
1774. September 5. Continental Congress
meets in Philadelphia. Boston Port Bill.
1775. April 19. Fight at Lexington
and Concord.
May 10. Capture of Ticonderoga. Meeting of Second Continental
Congress at Philadelphia.
1775. June 17. Battle of Bunker Hill.
December. Daniel Boone settles in Kentucky.
1776. July 4. Declaration of
Independence.
August 27. Battle of Long Island.
December 26. Washington
captures Hessians at Trenton.
1777. June 14. Flag of stars and stripes
adopted by Congress.
September 11. Battle of Brandywine.
October 17.
Surrender of Burgoyne.
Washington encamps at Valley Forge and Howe occupies
Philadelphia.
1778. French-American alliance.
June 28. Battle of
Monmouth.
December 29. British take Savannah.
1779. September 23. Naval
victory of John Paul Jones.
1780. May 12. Charleston taken by British.
August 16. Battle of Camden.
October 7. Battle of King's Mountain.
1781. Adoption of the Articles of Confederation.
October 19. Surrender
of Cornwallis at Yorktown.
1782. November 30. Preliminary treaty of peace.
1783. September 3. Final treaty of peace signed.
November 25. British
army evacuates New York.
December 4. Washington's farewell to his officers.
1786. Shays's rebellion in Massachusetts.

Other links on that page:

Timeline for American Colonization (1000-1764)
Timeline for the Making of the Constitution (1787-1860)
Timeline for the Civil War and Modern Times (1861-1904)
See also: World War II Timeline (1939-1945)


*The Puritan Revolution (The English Civil War), The Glorious Revolution 0f 1688, The French Revolution and The Russian Revolution.

Tuesday, May 10, 2005

I felt the need to go back and check out my old buddy Justin Raimondo

No, I don't know him. I'm the stereotypical basement blogger (except for the whole house and family thing). I don't get out much.

Speaking of that, congrats to Jackie on her decision not to 'step out' much!

Where was I?

Oh, yeah. I rather enjoy a lot of the Anti-War.com historical revisionism, which is mostly a revival of the thoughts of writers who were not treated kindly during the Twentieth Century as it turned to collectivism and 'scientific management' of society with such horrific results. In case you don't get past the first three sentences, here's an exerpt:

[President Bush] took out after the Russians and the postwar Soviet occupation of Europe: "For much of Eastern and Central Europe," he averred in a speech in the Old City's Small Guild House, "victory brought the iron rule of another empire." Well, yes, thanks to the U.S.-Soviet alliance and Franklin Delano Roosevelt's enthusiastic cooperation, but to the astonishment of many, the president not only acknowledged that - he also tried to atone for it:

"This attempt to sacrifice freedom for the sake of stability left a continent divided and unstable. We will not repeat the mistakes of other generations - appeasing or excusing tyranny, and sacrificing freedom in the vain pursuit of stability."

This act of presidential contrition, while certainly welcome, does not go nearly far enough. By entering the war at all, and opening up a "second front" in the West - at the urging of American leftists and other friends of the Soviet Union - the U.S. saved the Bolsheviks from probable extinction at Hitler's hands. Without American support via the Lend-Lease Act, the Soviet regime might not have survived the war - which was precisely the hope of those conservative opponents of U.S. intervention, supporters of the America First Committee such as Colonel Robert R. McCormick, the publisher of the staunchly anti-interventionist Chicago Tribune. When Hitler turned against Stalin, his ally and ideological soul-mate, and German panzer divisions drove toward Moscow, McCormick presciently warned in an editorial that while "our war birds" would "welcome" the dissolution of the Nazi-Soviet alliance "as reason for getting into the war," the people still didn't want it:

"To other Americans, the majority of them, it presents the final reason for remaining out.... Should we aid Stalin to extend his brutalities to all of Finland, to maintain his grip on the Baltic states, or to keep what he has of Poland and Rumania? Should we enter the war to extend his rule over more of Europe or, having helped him to win, should we then have to rescue the continent from him?"

I'll add editorial comments tomorrow. Though making such a promise is a sure way to inspire me to think of many other things to write about.
......

['Nee-na' as she calls herself (long in bed, I saved this for you), would like to say "Eye-dowich bidowy!" (Standard American pronunciation rules - long 'y') to you all. She speaks some kind of language. We just don't know what it is. Kinda sounds like Ojibwe.]

Monday, May 09, 2005

I spoke of 'seed corn' a while back

Here, in fact. And also here (in the updated part).

Mandel's got a little piece on the subject today. Reason for optimism.

The Politics of Trade Deficits

Ashish's Niti links to an interesting point about the trade deficit from Business Week, By Michael Mandel:
The Trade Deficit vs. Human Capital

Sure, U.S. imports far exceed exports, but those figures don't tell the whole story, especially the value immigrants bring to the country.

I'm getting tired of people whining about the size of the trade deficit. Yes, the U.S imported $617 billion more in goods and services in 2004 than it exported. And, yes, $617 billion is an awfully large number, even for a country as big as the U.S.

I wonder if the Balance of Trade is still calculated the as it was when Bastiat ridiculed it.

In that chapter, he tells of examining the books of an exporter friend of his who sent a shipment of goods to the US, valued at £ 200,000. The shipment sold for £ 320,000, minus a US tariff of 20%, leaving a profit of £ 40,000. The cash was converted to cotton, and with additional shipping expenses was entered at the Le Havre customs house as valued at £ 352,000, which was then sold in France for £ 422,400.

According to the French Government, France had lost £ 152,000 on the deal, whereas, the fact is that the French businessman's bottomline was actually increased by £ 70,400.

Another such shipment left LeHavre and sank, but was entered in the customs books as £ 200,000 pure profit for France. That's where the ridicule comes in. Read the last couple paragraphs of the linked chapter for the punchline.

Ha! I said something more succinctly than Bastiat!

I imagine government economists are more sophisticated in their sophistry these days, though watching the perfidy produced in the Senate debates lately does not build confidence in our political classes.

But, that's a bit of a digression. Mandel's point is this:
The benefit of such human capital is crystal clear in the case of, say, the foreign engineer who helps start a Silicon Valley tech company. And the U.S. also gets something from a hard-working landscaper or construction worker who recently came from another country. It's even true for the foreign college graduate who comes to the U.S. to get advanced training, and stays. In each case the U.S. has gained someone who can contribute productively to the economy, without most of the earlier costs of raising or educating that person.

Human minds and bodies are valuable assets, and more so in an economically free society, is the point I take from Mandel. RTWT.

What I want to know is, why can't I find a Minnesota

political blogger who writes like this. I know a lot more about Wisconsin politics than Minnesota's because of this guy. (And I learned WI history in school there. LaFollette was more interesting than anybody I've found in MN history, since statehood anyway.)

Don't make me have to do it!

Friday, May 06, 2005

Oh! I meant to mention!

Oldsmoblogger's put up a great business ed post that libertarians should consider.

Looks like he's qualified for 25 For Freedom, if he wants in. (Michael has background options on the left side (under "skin me"), if you don't like the one you're looking at.)

What motivates these online quizmeisters

They keep coming up with quizzes I actually want to take. This one's Stan's and Trevor's fault (Dante doesn't seem to have noticed that sin--dodging responsibility--and spouting off before you think):

The Dante's Inferno Test has banished you to the Second Level of Hell!
Here is how you matched up against all the levels:
LevelScore
Purgatory (Repenting Believers)Moderate
Level 1 - Limbo (Virtuous Non-Believers)Very Low
Level 2 (Lustful)Very High
Level 3 (Gluttonous)High
Level 4 (Prodigal and Avaricious)High
Level 5 (Wrathful and Gloomy)Moderate
Level 6 - The City of Dis (Heretics)Very Low
Level 7 (Violent)High
Level 8- the Malebolge (Fraudulent, Malicious, Panderers)High
Level 9 - Cocytus (Treacherous)Moderate

Take the Dante's Inferno Test

It's been too long since I posted a song.

The equal of anything at LibertyBob, Oldsmoblogger or tif (I feel like I'm missing somebody):
Dumping the water
Dumping the water
Dumping the water on the baby's head

And she'll scream
And she'll cry
And she'll say it's all a bunch of crap

Dumping the water on the baby's head.

Guess the tune, the context and, what the heck, the author.

For Continuing Education, these guys are a pretty good deal.

I wonder if this link will work for general use, it's a transcript of an introductory lecture on DesCartes...part of it, anyway.

These guys sell audio and video courses from eminent university professors.

I want this one, Joy of Thinking: The Beauty and Power of Classical Mathematical Ideas.

I bought
Argumentation: The Study of Effective Reasoning(24 lectures, 30 minutes/lecture)
Course No. 499

Taught by David Zarefsky
Northwestern University
Ph.D., Northwestern University

I've listened to 6 lectures so far. Pretty good stuff. Lost track of the study guide. I think it fell behind the coffee table.

Wednesday, May 04, 2005

Robert Capozzi said,

here:
"Libertarians agree with Thomas Jefferson who said 'Government which governs least governs best.' We are in the center of American politics. When Libertarians are elected, we take the oath of office and the US Constitution seriously. We invite all Americans to join with us to take our country back from the politicians and the special interests."

That quote might make it into my header.

I'm afraid I've failed the master, heretofore,

like the proverbial spoon with a pig up it's butt.

A whole day spent without thought of his wisdom is a day shot to Heel.

And more.

Tuesday, May 03, 2005

A-ah! Damn!

What he said.
The closest thing to a utopia our earth has ever seen, the United States, was specifically designed to not be a utopia, by men who repeatedly predicted its imminent collapse. The United States was designed to prove the maxim, "Freedom is not utopia. It is only infinitely better than all other alternatives ever attempted."

Sadly, we've gotten away from that since then. Sweden was probably a freer country that the US between 1974 and 1984.

Dude, I'm waiting for the starting gun, but if you get Bastiat first, I will concede to the faster runner. But I'd say that you are vastly better qualified to handle either Rand or Mises than I am.

I've said that my goal is to combine Objectivism, Libertarianism, Austrianism and Lutheranism into a coherent philophy. The above link is to a post that goes a long way toward that coal by combining the teachings of Ayn Rand, Bastiat and Ludwig von Mises in a debate against a couple of strong-minded religious conservatives, pressing a point I'm trying to make myself: that Nature and God aren't enemies. The problem only arises because of, what I like to call Erkkila's dictum: Wise people die and ignorant people are born. Or, as Tom Sowell put it, "Every generation is an invasion of little barbarians, who must be civilized, before it's too late."

Another quote from Tom's dispute with Someguy:
There are two modes of action: vertrational and zweckrational. [I don't know if it helps, but I'd quick-translate the former as "value-rational", and the latter as "goal-rational".] The former is action toward a goal which is rationally derived. The latter is action toward a goal which is not rationally derived, yet the action chosen is. The Holocaust is an example of zweckrational behavior: there is no rational justification for the slaughter of an entire race- yet, the means by which the national socialists persued this goal was the most rational method of action. They desired to kill millions, and the most rational method was industrialized murder- they did not decide to start singing drinking songs. It is this rational approach to an irrational goal which has produced most of the modern criticisms of the national socialists as led by reason- and it is such neglect of the origins of their goals that lead to false discord among people who would otherwise stand on common ground. Look to the tiers of goals they chose: they sought prosperity by extermination, everlasting peace in murder. They chose cattle trains and death camps as the means to extermination as the means to prosperity and peace. The chain itself is irrational, yet the portion that is frequently observed- the adoption of the most rational means toward their irrational and hateful subservient goal of annihilation, is assumed to have been also behind their ulterior goal.

On my way to bed, I happened to notice that I have finally achieved 10,000 visitors!

Since I got my SiteMeter anyway.

Visitor No. 10,000 came in search of an image of Sabrina Ferilli, which I sadly excised in fear of legal reprisals. I haven't excised all my scantily clad women from my archives, but it would require considerable effort exhume them.

The image, for which I am apparently so unjustly famous - which has accounted for quite a number of my hits, may be found here.

As I say, it may no longer be found here.

Monday, May 02, 2005

I can't help it; I identify with Christians

whether fundamentalist or moderate. (I don't get the left-wingers though. They seem to have forsaken Jesus for Marx.)

You may have noticed that I was busy all weekend. I was studying Bastiat for a blog assignment and babysitting* the kids.

*A most inaccurate term for playing with, supervising, protecting, instructing, feeding, bathing, dressing, taking to church, shopping, etc. On the weekends, I try not to make any of these things seem to be a chore, and I avoid rushing (and football analogies).
....
Some preliminary notes:

It's amazing what you miss in a first reading. I'm trying to think of something to write about him that introduces the subject, adequately explains his heroism and doesn't rely too heavily on quotes. The problem with Bastiat is, what do you not quote. Every paragraph is brilliant, and builds on the previous ones.

He has one weakness. His theory of value is too much based on Turgot, Smith and Say, and thus remains little more than an elaboration of the Labor Theory of Value. An improvement on Ricardo, Malthus and Marx, but not a breakthrough which could explain, say, the diamond/water paradox [Why are diamonds, which are almost useless, more vastly more expensive than water, which is almost infinitely useful?].

Anyway, in his introduction/dedication to Economic Harmonies, To The Youth of France, he says,
If the laws of Providence are harmonious, they can be so only when they operate under conditions of freedom, for otherwise harmony is lacking. Therefore, when we perceive something inharmonious in the world, it cannot fail to correspond to some lack of freedom or justice. Oppressors, plunderers, you who hold justice in contempt, you cannot take your place in the universal harmony, for you are the ones who disrupt it.

Does this mean that the effect of this book would be to weaken the power of government, endanger its stability, lessen its authority? The goal I have in view is precisely the opposite. But let us understand one another.

The function of political science is to determine what should and what should not fall under government control; and in making this important distinction, we must not lose sight of the fact that the state always acts through the instrumentality of force. Both the services it renders us and those it makes us render in return are imposed upon us in the form of taxes.

The question then amounts to this: What are the things that men have the right to impose upon one another by force? Now, I know of only one, and that is justice. I have no right to force anyone to be religious, charitable, well educated, or industrious; but I have the right to force him to be just: this is a case of legitimate self-defense.

Now, there cannot exist for a group of individuals any new rights over and above those that they already possessed as individuals. If, therefore, the use of force by the individual is justified solely on grounds of legitimate self-defense, we need only recognize that government action always takes the form of force to conclude that by its very nature it can be exerted solely for the maintenance of order, security, and justice.

All government action beyond this limit is an encroachment upon the individual's conscience, intelligence, and industry—in a word, upon human liberty.

I force myself, with difficulty, to cut off the quote.

Some of you may have noticed that I have difficulty excerpting. To a large degree, it's because I have an aversion to it. RTWT [Read The Whole Thing] is almost a religious tenet to me. When I exerpt, I'm trying to sell you on reading the rest.

My goal, in the end, is to give you a basic feel for the audience he faced and the courage of the man who faced them. [Those who know the story are chuckling, in a rueful way; but not to the extent they might if we were discussing Thomas More or John Lilburne.] And to hint at the convictions that gave him such courage and that there is good reasoning behind them.

And why you should read them yourself.

Saturday, April 30, 2005

I grew up under the security umbrella of the AFL-CIO MEBA

District 2.

That means US shipping in fresh water: basically the Great Lakes boats and Mississippi/Ohio/Missouri barges. (I would dearly love to hear from anyone who wants to differ with the latter categorization; I know nothing about them.)

The Union provided us with a wonderful living until the late '70s. I do, indeed, give them the credit. But then, it all went to He'll. As an interested party, I should do more research on the matter, but I've been more interested in conservative and libertarian politics since then.

Suffice to say that union economics look too damn much like classical communism to me. There's a place for collective bargaining, but unions need to fire their crypto-communist lawyers and accept the results of the Fall of the Berlin Wall, before I'll consider them respectable again.

This is a Heal of a long intro to a link to a Great Lakes sailing tale by Oldsmoblogger, but I just wanted to reiterate my credentials to talk about it. More on that in my comment on this post.

Friday, April 29, 2005

Tag! I'm it!

It's the dreaded book meme!

Liberty Dog tagged me, but Hamster Motor has the best explanation:
Most people seem to have forgotten what this means. In the end of the book, you find out that there exists a hidden society in which each person has preserved a book or several books in their memory. They literally become books. This society is the repository of human knowledge and thus they will be the ones to rebuild civilization after the nuclear attack. Accordingly, I must ask what is the most valuable thing to possess, what is the most important piece of information that can be passed down?

You're stuck in Fahrenheit 451. Which book do you want to be?

Okay, assuming they survive the fall of Civilization (the world of Fahrenheit 451 is something other than civilization), and their chosen books are preserved, I would choose the Anti-Federalist Papers.

Have you ever had a crush on a fictional character?

Dominique Francon gets me hot.

The last book you brought is:

Ho ho! You thought you'd catch me out! It was The Gulag Archipelago, by Solzhenitsyn.

What was the last book you read, and what are you currently reading?

All the way to the end, Blog, by Hugh Hewitt. Currently, I'm reading, in my usual scatter-brained way, The Gulag Archipelago, Economic Sophisms, by Frederic Bastiat, Aristotle I, from the Great Ideas Series [OK, that's not exacly what I'm reading, but it's about the series], and Guerrilla Capitalism (about a third of the way down), by Adam Cash. [Wow! Lot's of fun stuff at Loompanics.com! But, oddly enough, this book isn't there now.]

What five books would you take with you on a desert island?

Hopefully, before the plane crashes, I'll be able to get ahold of whatever Lileks is coming out with. We'll need a laugh. Atlas Shrugged is always worth rereading. The Bible never fails to reveal something you didn't notice before. Blackstone's Commentaries on The Law, edited by Bernard Gavit (a legal Positivist, whose comments on Blackstone constitute a lesson on how the law shouldn't be understood). And, finally, Selected Essays, by Frederick Bastiat: Sophisms has "The Petition of the Candlemakers", but it doesn't have "The Law". Both are included in The Selected Essays, and much more besides. That choice is made tougher by the fact that Sophisms is very well organized conceptually, but I want to restart civilization, and "The Law" and "The Petition" are the flint and steel. The other books are the char cloth, tow, tinder and wood. (Ha ha! See if you can carry out an analogy any further!)

Who are you going to inflict with this meme?

Oo-ooh! You can see by the evil glint in my eye that I'm going to tag the Cheesehead brothers and their uncle. Steve, Mister Pterodactyl and Lance Burri.

Wednesday, April 27, 2005

An exchange that doesn't deserve to Die The Death

customary to HaloScan comments. From this post (essential to read if you want to understand the conversation fully, but the links from there provide an even fuller understanding):
"To expect the government to prevent such fraud from ever occurring would be like wanting it to provide cushions for all the children who might fall. To assume it to be possible to prevent successfully, by regulation, all possible malpractices of this kind is to sacrifice to a chimerical perfection the whole progress of industry."

Turgot's commentary is perhaps even more poignant in light of the doctrine of strict liability, n'est ce pas?
Ken Hall | Homepage | 04.26.05 - 3:52 pm | #

---------------------------------

I am only slightly aware of the works of Turgot. Looks like he is certainly someone that is deserving of more study.
Liberty Dog | Homepage | 04.26.05 - 4:08 pm | #

------------------------------------

Agreement! Well done.
Todd | Homepage | 04.26.05 - 9:02 pm | #

-----------------------------

It is possible, Turgot conceded, that, on the free market, there will sometimes be "a cheating merchant and a duped consumer." But then, the market will supply its own remedies: "the cheated consumer will learn by experience and will cease to frequent the cheating merchant, who will fall into discredit and thus will be punished for his fraudulence."

Yeah, right.

Tell that to all the people taken in and robbed by the Corporations and individuals who have gone unpunished. What was Enron if not fraud on a massive scale?

Tell that to all the people who were killed in Ford Explorers before the tyre problem was sorted and Chev Corvairs before they were discontinued. (If selling junk merchandise is not fraud then what is it?)

Tell that to the people who buy junk bonds on Wall St on a daily basis. OK, so they are stupid - should know better... Tell that to the millions who were fleeced by fraudulent share issues in the 1920s.

Tell that to the people taken in by the NZer who fleeced them of $5 million (at latest count and still going) with fraudulent hedge funds...

So, decriminalise fraud - caveat emptor applies.

Would I buy American? Not on your life would I. Would I buy Japanese? Not on your grandmother's grave would I.

Which Bank would you trust? Citibank? How much would be lost by how many before the "honest" banks were sorted?

No. Turgot (sure it was not Turbot? He makes as much sense as a poisson) is wrong.
probligo | Homepage | 04.26.05 - 11:16 pm | #

------------------------------------
Nobody is talking about decriminalizing fraud. Nor about abolishing courts. You are arguing against anarchy, which I occasionally claim to support when I'm being silly, but English common law had solved all these problems 200 years before Turgot.

History didn't begin with Hegel, and our understanding of it wasn't much improved by his successors.
Old Whig | Homepage | 04.26.05 - 11:35 pm | #

------------------------------------

"The Wealth of Nations" owes a lot to a book Turgot wrote, and Adam Smith knew him and counted him as an influence. Actually I had never heard of him either, but I saw a highly praised book advertised at THE Online Book List (see sidebar); fortunately for me, the public library had a copy.

The book's not perfect, but has a great list. I will try to post a book review soon, with the list.
invadesoda | Homepage | 04.27.05 - 12:32 pm | #

-----------------------------------

Oh, you mean MY sidebar. I was looking around over there to see what he had on Turgot on the site.

That Site is actually an advertisement for The Triumph of Liberty, but he has a lot of material right there, and links to more.
Old Whig | Homepage | 04.27.05 - 5:54 pm | #

----------------------------------

"But then, the market will supply its own remedies: "the cheated consumer will learn by experience ..."

Well, you sure fooled me with your quotation.

I assumed that your quotation in fact was promoting the principle of market remedying wrongs rather than the enforcement of law.

"To expect the government to prevent such fraud from ever occurring would be like wanting it to provide cushions for all the children who might fall. To assume it to be possible to prevent successfully, by regulation, all possible malpractices of this kind is to sacrifice to a chimerical perfection the whole progress of industry."

Ok, so if you are not talking about prevention of fraud, about the application of justice to the crime of fraud, what does this para mean?

Oh, I get it.

The whole item is in American - where words mean different things to different people. Caught out again Bob.
probligo | Homepage | 04.27.05 - 9:39 pm | #

---------------------------------

Actually, it's translated from French, where they're known to speak in flowery language.

We old whigs are fond of law being discovered in the course of living, not imposed by geniuses from above who are in reality no smarter than the rest of us. We like juries of peers and humble judges and we are suspicious of administrators, regulators and bureaucrats. Also policemen and prosecutors. And any other investigators who might bring the power of the government on the heads in innocent people.

I realize that there are people who believe that a government title embues a person with greater wisdom than the rest of us.

Those are the people I politely call "Liberals."

Just because I believe in politeness, you see.
Old Whig | Homepage | 04.27.05 - 11:44 pm | #

Anybody know where to get Turgot's book?

Or, while I'm talking about my wish list, Benjamin Franklin's book on how to succeed in business?

Update: I neglected to mention that force and fraud are both impossible to prevent without prior knowledge and the prior application of force.

Know anybody who's omniscient, Probligo?

Here's a brilliant Pro-Life argument from the libertarian perspective.

Although you might not think that's where he's headed at the beginning.

[Can I put links in my titles anymore? Oh, well, here.]

I agree with the argument on the moral plane, but I still want the police to reserve their efforts to combatting violent murderers, robbers, rapists, batterers and arsonists (and also the less violent property violators: burglars, vandals, shoplifters...). I hold abortion to be a greater moral wrong than prostitution and drug-dealing, but I consider all those, and gambling, to be too difficult to combat with the limited resources of the government.

Are any starlets offering "special services" for that political opinion?

Tuesday, April 26, 2005

That Mises: Such a Shrinking Violet!

From Lord Keynes and Say's Law
The unprecedented success of Keynesianism is due to the fact that it provides an apparent justification for the "deficit spending" policies of contemporary governments. It is the pseudo-philosophy of those who can think of nothing else than to dissipate the capital accumulated by previous generations.

Yet no effusions of authors however brilliant and sophisticated can alter the perennial economic laws. They are and work and take care of themselves. Notwithstanding all the passionate fulminations of the spokesmen of governments, the inevitable consequences of inflationism and expansionism as depicted by the "orthodox" economists are coming to pass. And then, very late indeed, even simple people will discover that Keynes did not teach us how to perform the "miracle ... of turning a stone into bread,"[3] but the not at all miraculous procedure of eating the seed corn.

Seed corn?

Great Frenchmen in History: Turgot

Link. H/T invade soda (via email).

It is possible, Turgot conceded, that, on the free market, there will sometimes be "a cheating merchant and a duped consumer." But then, the market will supply its own remedies: "the cheated consumer will learn by experience and will cease to frequent the cheating merchant, who will fall into discredit and thus will be punished for his fraudulence." Turgot, in fact, ridiculed attempts by government to insure against fraud or harm to consumers.

To expect the government to prevent such fraud from ever occurring would be like wanting it to provide cushions for all the children who might fall. To assume it to be possible to prevent successfully, by regulation, all possible malpractices of this kind is to sacrifice to a chimerical perfection the whole progress of industry.

Turgot added that all such regulations and inspections "always involve expenses, and that these expenses are always a tax on the merchandise, and as a result overcharge the domestic consumer and discourage the foreign buyer." Turgot concludes with a splendid flourish: "To suppose all consumers to be dupes, and all merchants and manufacturers to be cheats, has the effect of authorizing them to be so, and of degrading all the working members of the community."

There's more, RTWT.

Monday, April 25, 2005

Heck, I bet you can understand this.

Trying to find a Belgian report on the previous post, I ran across a bit of Belgian humor:

HET BUITENBEEN [FVN]
Volkswagen wil een gepantserde pausmobiel bouwen voor Benedictus XVI, en dat ter gelegenheid van de Wereldjongerendagen in Duitsland in augustus. Indien de nieuwe paus dat wenst, zullen we voor hem een gepantserde wagen bouwen, zei een woordvoerder van het bedrijf. Het zou gaan om een Touareg 4x4 of een Phaeton en niet om een Polo, gaf hij nog mee. Eerder bouwde een andere Duitse autoproducent, Mercedes, al een specialegepantserde wagen voor paus Johannes Paulus II. Haha... daarom wordt Ratzinger ook Panzerkardinal genoemd...

My Dutch is bad (the difference between Dutch and Flemish is minimal - I can't see it), but I got the joke. I highlighted the punchline.

Well, that's a fine how-do-you-do!

Spies lose licence to kill after drunken agent opens fire

Not ours. And since it's the Telegraph, you're thinking it's the British.

Nope, it's the Belgians.
The civilian agents of the Sûreté de l'Etat, the equivalent of Britain's MI5, are already among the most powerless intelligence operatives in the Western world, with no right even to tap telephones.

Now, they have had their handguns confiscated on the orders of their general administrator, Koen Dassen, a Belgian newspaper reported. A working group has been established to work out who is armed and why, after Mr Dassen realised that controls were "worse than approximate".

Tsk tsk.

They'll have to start thinking like MacGiver. Hopefully they've got a lot of magnesium lying around for those daring escapes they'll be doing so much more of.

Maybe I should send over my flint and steel.

Oh, why, you ask?
"For the moment, everybody has had to hand in their guns because we had this incident, in October or November last year, during which an agent shot at another."

Mrs Onkelinx was reportedly distressed that she only learnt of the incident, in which no one was hurt, from the press four months after it took place in Brussels.

The agent suspected of firing his gun in the general direction of his colleague's head was said by the media [? They knew this before his employers did? What is this? Euro-Affirmative Action?] to be an alcoholic with a dependency on anti-depressants.

I'm sure you'll be shocked to discover that I don't think this guy should have been employed in a gun carrying profession. I don't want people like this packin' anywhere.

I like their collectivist reaction: one nut goes off and they disarm all the sane trained, government agents. Actually, that's an idea!
Belgium's internal security arrangements have proved a source of frustration for their Western counterparts.

We had a Belgian in our school. He was a sorry excuse for a human. But, then, he's always said the same of me. I tried to like the guy, but I couldn't. I couldn't hate him even though he seemed to consider me his nemesis. He just seemed so cuddly.

[You realize that I hope he reads this.]

Sunday, April 24, 2005

Why I hate the f*%$in' government and the UN:

If God Was Process Oriented
by Joe Gandelman

[Grammarian's note: should be 'were,' not 'was.' It's a condition contrary to fact. Fortunately.]

Saturday, April 23, 2005

Do you remember that boy with cancer that I was praying for?

His father has a blog.

And his daughter has Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma.

Daniel's Neuroblastoma is pretty much incurable, but "they" have a good record with Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma.

Two kids. Two cancers.

Help me pray for them.

Friday, April 22, 2005

Ah, here we go:

Anti-Human Earth Day
By Edward Hudgins

Executive Director
The Objectivist Center
ehudgins@objectivisatcenter.org

Today is a religious holiday that should make us all into atheists. April 22, 2005, marks the 35th anniversary of Earth Day. For many people it's simply a day to think warm and fuzzy thoughts about clean air, crystal lakes, verdant forests and soaring eagles. Until the 1990s May Day marked the worship by the communists of an abstraction called the "workers" at the expense of real flesh-and-blood workers and every other human being on the planet. The result was human carnage. Now Earth Day marks the worship by eco-extremists of the planet itself at the expense of all we [ed. note: this is the object of the preposition 'of' and should be 'us'] humans who inhabitant it. If the cult continues to grow, the results will be the same as that wrought by the Reds.

There is nothing wrong with individuals wanting to keep woods, flowers, ponds and the like on their own private property for their own enjoyment, nor with wanting to reduce the real, measurable damage caused to humans, for example, by air and water pollution. In any case, the worst pollution problems have pretty much been dealt with in past decades.

But today the eco-extremists have converted legitimate concerns into a cult. Tell someone you don't recycle, for example, and they treat you like someone might have a century ago if you made fun of Jesus. When recycling makes economic and environmental sense, a market develops for the recycled items and there is no need for government involvement. (As a kid I collected newspapers to sell to recycling centers to earn spending money.) But often recycling imposes millions of dollars in net costs and harms the environment. What with fleets of trucks to collect your bottles, which you're first supposed to waste water washing out, and those energy-gulping facilities that grind up or melt down the glass, it is often better just to bury the stuff.

Much has been written about the inability of environmentalists to show how many alleged problems actually harm humans. Does reducing the amount of some substance in the water from two parts per billion to one part really make any difference?

Much has been written about the bad science behind many environmental programs and serious problems those programs create for humans while delivering microscopic benefits. DDT is not the danger some made it out to be, but failure to use it to eradicate disease-carrying insects has resulted in thousands of deaths.

What requires more attention is the fundamental values problem with environmental extremism. The ultimate source and standard of all values is human life. Rocks and mud, oceans and mountains, fish and fowl are of no intrinsic worth in and of themselves. They're neither good nor evil. They just are. It is in relation to we [object of the preposition again: should be 'us' - Leonard Peikoff would not make this mistake] human beings that things are of value.

We must use our reasoning minds as individuals to discover the means of our survival and flourishing. An animal is of value because we can use it for food or admire its beauty. Water is of value because we can drink it or swim in it. Rocks and trees are of value because we can build houses with them for our shelter or climb them for our enjoyment. Swamps might not be of value because they are at just the spot on which we want to build a house.

[Or, if we enjoy just looking at them enough, we might spend our own money to buy them an preserve them as is, or form an alliance with others to do the same.]

And, of course, "we" does not mean some abstract collective. It means each of us as individuals. That's the point of private property. We each should be free to own and use assets for our own good as individuals.

Eco-extremists take human individuals out of the picture. They speak of the value of eco-systems, habitats and wetlands without reference to humans in general or to specific individuals who might own and make use of material assets. In effect, the eco-extremists create an Earth cult that puts humans second. Many eco-extremists now say as much openly, for example, labeling people as pollution on the planet. There's even a Voluntary Human Extinction Movement. Its creed: "Phasing out the human race by voluntarily ceasing to breed will allow Earth's biosphere to return to good health."

[Please do. I'm all for voluntarism.]

Most individuals who celebrate Earth Day by cleaning up trash beside the road no doubt mean well. But they and all of us must recognize that the philosophical premises on which one acts will lead inevitably to certain consequences over time whether one intends them to or not. The premises behind the eco-extremists are anti-human and, if acted on consistently, would lead to worse carnage than that wrought by communists. On Earth Day we should reflect not on the planet but on the inhabitants who can make it of value.

Emphasis added.

I didn't know Camus was one of us.

Pedro Blas Gonzalez says he was, in this Friesian.com review of Camus' last, unfinished work: The First Man (Le Premier Homme).

One question: does anyone know what trevialations are? An attempt to anglicize a Spanish word maybe? Trivializations?

Oh, well, it's not important. I just wanted a WOD.

Thursday, April 21, 2005

Not sufficiently utopian

A phrase used in this post at Anti-Strib.


Everybody who reads this needs to consider this phrase and write a blogpost about it. Or email a letter to your favorite blogger about it.

Why is this an insufficient reason to embrace Socialism or Communism or anybody's idea of a "Third Way"?

For research, I recommend Ludwig von Mises' Liberalism, Socialism and Bureaucracy.

Or use your own favorite sources.

Post results on May Day.

The future of Conservatism may depend on it.

Wednesday, April 20, 2005

Speak of the Devil! No sooner do I mention Ralph Raico

but he pens another good article for Mises.org: Authentic German Liberalism of the 19th Century. After some interesting, introductory comments about Liberal thought in other nations, he introduces us to the German tradition:
A master-concept used by many historians in recent decades has been of the Germany's Sonderweg—its special or peculiar path of historical development. Whatever heuristic value this concept may have had, there is little doubt that it has been very much over-applied. Germany after all is not Russia. The German experience included: the free towns of the Middle Ages; scholasticism and the doctrine of natural law taught in the universities; the Renaissance and the Reformation; the rise of modern science; and an outstanding role in the Enlightenment of the eighteenth century.

The twelve-year experience of National Socialism, with all its atrocities, was terrible. But it should not lead us to forget that for a thousand years before Hitler, Germany was an integral part of western civilization.

Dietheim Klippel is a leading scholar of German liberalism in the later eighteenth century.[10] He has suggested some of the political factors that have at different periods conditioned the acceptance of either a negatively—or sometimes a positively—charged concept of the German Sonderweg, or special path of historical evolution. In particular, Klippel has effectively criticized the view of Leonard Krieger, author of an influential work on German ideas of freedom.[11] This book, Klippel complains, pitted "a peculiar German attitude towards liberty" against an (undefined) "western" conception. But the fact is, that, besides the publicists and scholars influenced by the French Physiocrats, there existed in Germany in the eighteenth century "a wide stream of democratic and liberal ideas in all possible shadings."

Klippel has paid particular attention to the younger German school of natural law, which succeeded the older, absolutist-oriented natural-law doctrine of the school of Christian Wolff. Methodologically under the influence of Kant and contentatively inspired by John Locke, this school provided a theory of the priority of civil society as against the State; of private property, private enterprise, and competition as the essence of the self-regulating society; and of the need to protect social life against state usurpation.

It's getting late, and my brain is frying, but let me throw in this section, and perhaps I'll think of good editorial comments to throw in tomorrow.
Given this flowering of liberal ideas in eighteenth century Germany, what happened to change things? Why did such a reversal of opinion occur in German political culture?

There is no doubt that a major—perhaps the major—reason for the change lies in the political and military history of the period: basically, the attempt of revolutionary France to conquer and rule all of Europe.

The Jacobins who rose to power during the Revolution undertook to force their ideas onto Europe at the point of French bayonets. The rights of man, popular sovereignty, the French Enlightenment with its hatred of the age-old traditions and religious beliefs of the European peoples would be imposed by military might. To this end, the victorious, irresistible French armies invaded, conquered, and occupied much of Europe.

In the nature of things, these invading armies, bringing with them an alien ideology, produced hostility and resistance against that ideology, a militant nationalist reaction. That is what happened in Russia and in Spain. Most of all, that is what happened in Germany. Individualism, natural rights, the universalist ideals of the Enlightenment—these became identified with the hated invaders, who subjugated and humiliated the German people. This identification was a burden that liberalism in Germany had to carry from that time on.

The lesson that one could reasonably draw from that experience is this: if you wish to spread liberal ideas to foreign peoples, in the long run example and persuasion are much more effective than guns and bombs.

Like most of Raico's articles, it's a wonderful bibliographical essay.

Tuesday, April 19, 2005

I missed commemorating a great day in American history!

Oldsmoblogger has posted the entire Longfellow poem The Midnight Ride of Paul Revere.

I found him while checking the BS (BlogoSphere, I mean) for comment on Joseph Ratzinger's ascension to Pope. I always look to Ayn Clouter to stretch my intellect when I'm in that mode, and, though she has nothing on her own site yet, there were more commenters on the last post I linked.

As an aside, I added a second comment to Ayn's post:
I'm beginning to believe you're serious. Although your apparent repudiation of Lincoln belies that somewhat; he and the American Whigs, whom I repudiate, pretty much founded American corporatism and, hence, Progressivism. (Read historian Gabriel Kolko.)

[Anti-War.com's Ralph Raico does a better expose on that than I ever have. So read him, not me.]

I agree with what you say in that our corporations, in their current state, aren't actually enslaving people and that they now spend a great deal of money trying not to discriminate or pollute, and they try way too hard to cater to anyone who claims they aren't doing enough on those scores.

But...they're still too entwined with the Guys with Guns (I mean the government - yeah, I'm a nut) for my taste. Subsidies, tariffs, taxes and regulations - that exclude the little guy from entry into their field, and thus solidify the current class structure - are their tools.

And Oldsmoblogger has a great post on "the nature of evil: more precisely, the difference between the Boethian (from Boethius, author of The Consolations of Philosophy) and the Manichean (or dualist) views." It's a summary of a book, if not quite a review, but worth a look.

Congratulations to Cardinal Ratzinger, Pope Benedict XVI

and the Catholic Church.

I know there are many disappointed people who wish the Pope weren't Catholic. Better luck next time.

"We're sorry for the inconvenience."

Update: Look to the round-up of round-ups at The Moderate Voice. (Oops, forgot the link. Now fixed.)

How do I feel? I'm happy the Catholic Church has decided to remain Catholic. If you want to disobey Catholic teachings, you should leave.

Look, the future belongs to the people who reproduce at at least replacement level. "Liberals" are taking themselves out via the "Roe Effect," and conservative religionists will take their place. Let me speak plainly: conservative sex is the only safe sex for the future of YOUR kind (whatever your kind is). That is, sex must be restricted to very carefully and thoughtfully chosen partners. If you don't do so, you end up having to use birth and STD (sexually transmitted disease) control and abortion to control the consequences. Failure of the method of birth and STD control, or failure to practice any method, leads to the abolition by Nature [and Nature's God] of your genetic strain. Either through disease or the stupidity of your offspring, who will most likely eliminate the strain via either disease or the embrace of violence.

Update: sorry, I got tired.

So there's no point in a 2000-year-old institution catering to your blip of an aberration in human thought.

Monday, April 18, 2005

Liberty Dog's 25 for Freedom icon

is an online quiz all it's own.

Let's see how many I can name (avert your eyes, if you want to take this test yourself):

Murray Rothbard, Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, Ayn Rand, Frederic Bastiat, ...is that James Buchanen? ... , Aristotle, Ludwig von Mises, and I don't know who that chick is.

A little pre-packaged Blogger Helper.*

Personality Disorder Test Results
Paranoid |||||||||| 34%
Schizoid |||||||||||||||| 62%
Schizotypal |||||||||| 34%
Antisocial |||||| 26%
Borderline |||||||||||| 42%
Histrionic |||||||||| 38%
Narcissistic |||||||||| 38%
Avoidant |||||||||| 38%
Dependent |||||||||| 34%
Obsessive-Compulsive |||||||||||||| 58%
Take Free Personality Disorder Test
personality tests by similarminds.com

Wow! That's a lot of code!

Sorry to say, except for a mild tendency toward Schizoid and Obsessive-Compulsive behavior, I'm sub-par. I tend to agree with this diagnosis, but they recommend that you take it several times. I can imagine answering some of the questions differently at different times of the day.

*And you thought I wasn't learning anything from you, LibertyBob.

Oh! I forgot to credit The Teflon Man for this find. The guy who convinced me that I should stop padding my blog with online quizzes.

And hey, Singapore's getting two casinos! The shopping and the food weren't enough, eh? Now they gotta import stupidity.

Sunday, April 17, 2005

So I decide to check the links over at Bourgeois Philistine...

And I'm nonplussed by what I find at Falafel Sex.

Seriously, what did I expect, after all.

What's a "round onion?"

Saturday, April 16, 2005

It rained most of the day.

Free Image Hosting at www.ImageShack.us
Reminded me of home. Superior, Wi has weather very similar to Seattle. Maybe worse. We got much, much worse winters.

Although, there's something to be said for those sunny, below zero days in February, when the snow on the swamp is hard enough for a big guy like me to walk on like pavement. You get to look at things that the muck and the mosquitoes usually drive you away from. Unfortunately, those days all look gray and white in all the pictures I've tried to take. I'm afraid the pleasure I've taken in them cannot be shared vicariously.

Well, let me try.

The air is clear, clean, still and cold. You're dressed warm - in long-johns, undershirt, jeans, t-shirt, flannel shirt, a snow-mobile suit and gloves, thermal socks, boots, hunting hat.

The cold isn't a problem beyond your nose, lips and cheeks. When it starts to settle in somewhere, you walk a little faster. Sometimes you need to close your eyes and face the sun directly. It's always amazing how much that helps.

There are no natural barriers to any part of the property, so you examine every square foot of the swamp, the deepest woods. It's not deer season, so you wander onto the neighbors' land. None of them mind hikers. Or, if they do, they'll let you know.

I'm trying to express a feeling of freedom, I guess. Freedom from the usual natural constraints. On those days, you were allowed several square miles of free roaming. Of course, the list of winter-wear needed comprises another sort of natural constraint, but this comprises my notion of freedom.

The spring brings another kind of freedom. The Little Amnicon River always overflowed in the spring. It washed out the road about every other year. Unfortunately, we lived on the school side of the river, so we never got a day off because of it. Nor did anyone else, due to the course it meandered.

The beavers were always blocking it up on our property as I was growing up, hence the swamp. They moved across the road when we sold the house to my uncle Dave (an Oklahoman, who got into 'sailing' because of my Dad). There's only a chronological relationship there, not a causal one. Beavers are what they are. We didn't feel any need to change them, though the DNR did, once or twice.

But those are the natural restrictions. The natural freedoms are mostly related to the clothing. I still take advantage of that first opportunity to run around the yard barefoot and to work or play for hours outdoors in shorts. As I get older, I find I have to push harder to pretend to be working, but work and play sort of run together now. They're both outdoor activities. But of course I have the little girls now, so I also have an excuse to play.

"Look at that old, grey-bearded Grandpa out playing with the kids!"

That's my advice on how to enjoy life.

Ayn Clouter alerted me

to this book review by Barbara Ehrenreich [sorry, the link was too long for the title] in the New York Times. She takes the gloves off her usual level of satire in her post. Or maybe not. You have to read both and decide.

As a Second Amendment advocate - as well as all the other nine in the Bill of Rights - I find both her attack on direct action and John Brown's actions overblown. I should emphasize that I think John Brown's actions in Pottawatomie, Kansas were, in fact, terrorism. I doubt that about his other actions. In those cases they were simply acts of war, politically besmirched by his terrorism at Pottawatomie.
On the other hand, there are points where Reynolds might have been stronger in Brown's defense. After the Fugitive Slave Act (1850) and the Dred Scott decision (1857), white people of conscience could no longer content themselves with supporting the Underground Railroad. A slave was a slave anywhere, the law declared, and for all time. Violence was beginning to look like the answer, not just to Brown, but eventually to Lincoln too.

But, Ms. Clouter says this argument also justifies the actions of Earth First. I say there's an obvious difference between the actions and arguments of the abolitionists - they were fighting a clear violation of human rights - and those of the enviro-wackos: the latter are not obviously right.

I was inculcated in environmentalism in school in the 1970s. I was raised in the country that was supposedly under assault. I've seen nothing but improvement since then. Saner heads have prevailed without violence.

Liberty Dog had a project for libertarians

that I want in on.

He explains it best himself.

Friday, April 15, 2005

Hey, look!

The Acting Person, by Karol Wojtyla!

I got the link from Two Men From Galicia, by Christopher Westley on the Mises Blog, in which he discusses the similarities to be found in the late Pope's and Mises' writings.
Both Mises's and John Paul's philosophies center on the human person, as suggested by the titles of each man's important treatises—Mises's Human Action and John Paul's The Acting Person. In both of their writings, there is a strong emphasis on the sanctity and centrality of the individual. The key difference, however, is that John Paul offers a broader philosophical foundation for how persons act (and how those acts affect our understanding as individuals of what it means to be human). In contrast, Mises's objective is narrower, and some might say somewhat easier, in that he only wants to explain human action. Nonetheless, their efforts complement each other and reflect a similar approach to social science.

Now, that's just gross!

Thanks to Tiny Voices in My Head, I found this article.

Thursday, April 14, 2005

Invade Soda drew my attention to a Sharon Harris article,

The Invisible Hand is a Gentle Hand, that I missed.

It shouldn't be missed.

I don't want to bury the Carl Fish post

I want the guy to find me.

And I'm surprised one of you jokers didn't demand your Carl Fish back after a long contemplation of that clean rectangle above your fireplace, but...

Vinod Vallipoli has an excellent post with parallel examples of the reporting on the same data by USA Today and The Strategy Page. (I'm only linking Vinod, he has links to the others.)

I notice Vinod links SDB (under "...more...")...

God! I miss that guy!

Do you heal anyone anymore, Lord? Please heal Stephen den Beste.

"The tree of Liberty must be watered from time to time with the Blood of Patriots."
- Thomas Jefferson.

I'm quite certain that Jefferson was no more happy about that than I am, but necessity doesn't go away no matter what my wishes might be.

Carl Fish!

I have something of yours.

Tell me what it is and we can make arrangements to get it to you.

If you don't know what I'm talking about, I mean a different Carl Fish.

St. Augustine

Strive to acquire the virtues you think your brothers lack, and then you will no longer see their defects, because you yourselves will not have them.

acquired from Catholic Packer Fan.

Wednesday, April 13, 2005

A pacifist post and my comment:

The Lone Codeman's post

and my comment:
[Äh! Needs editing.]
I don't buy pacifism as a primary principle, but I buy self-defense and self interest, and persuasion as the means of aquiring assistance in those matters. Government is a short-cut in persuading others, but it's not [a] primary [principle either].

I'm afraid that none of that convinces me Bush was absolutely wrong to do what he did, but I'm never surprised to find people who disagree.

Good thing we have a voluntary Military.

But will their [the volunteers] joining in with the Collective solve our problems [in Iraq and with terrorism around the world] or make them worse?

I'm afraid that the way the world is now (and the way America has been since Theodore Roosevelt), Bush's way is as good as it gets.

I want to get back to Grover Cleveland's vision, but there'll be a great deal of hard work to get there, and it won't be simple or bloodless.

Cleveland was a Democrat.

Catching up on my emails

I find that Edward Hudgins, of The Objectivist Center, has a commentary piece, Tax Wars, in the Wash Times.

Here's his conclusion:
The tax code is a monstrous mess that sets individuals against each another. Those hated 1040 forms are instruments of social conflict. Abolition of the current tax code and its replacement with a flat tax or national sales tax would be a small but significant step in the right direction.
Ultimately we must reject the immoral premise behind that code. Only then can social discord be replaced by social concord and civility, and the harmony of interest produce the beautiful music of freedom.

Edward Hudgins is executive director of the Objectivist Center.

Amen.

Tuesday, April 12, 2005

And now, a peeve.

WOD-style:

Flaunt and flout are not interchangeable. They're not synonyms, they're nearly opposites.

To flaunt means that you "show off" certain aspects of yourself. This can be done in order to make people like your more or think that you are better than you were before you flaunted.

Hm. No flout in The Free Dictionary.

But they do have this in their Frequently Misused Words section:
One flouts a rule or law by flagrantly ignoring it. One flaunts something by showing it off.
Standard: If you've got it, flaunt it.
Standard: He continually flouted the speed limit.
Non-standard: If you've got it, flout it.
Non-standard: He continually flaunted the speed limit.

So there!

Oh, look, another quiz.

Yankee or Dixie?

My score? 43% (Yankee). Barely into the Yankee category.

Not surprising. Mom's from Oklahoma, but I was raised in Northern Wisconsin. Not to mention, I've lived in Minnesota more than half my life now and my wife's a native. (Although, the Iron Range ought to be a separate place. I guess it's interesting to discover that so many of my answers peg me as being from the Western Great Lakes region. I thought my accent was more generic than that, and more influenced by Mom's Okie.

Lance led me to Laurie who led me to it.

The 200th Anniversary of the Death of Friedrich Schiller

will be celebrated in Weimar, Germany on May 9th. I mention it now to remind myself.

I don't have the money to go.

Boo hoo.

Or "büü hüü" as they say in Germany.

Oh, there's a Schiller blog, consisting mostly of daily quotes from his works. It's like he's blogging himself. There's also news on the progress of the Schiller Year.

Just a few more blocks and the Tower will be complete.

Heave ho! Immortality is just around the corner.

Oh, don't worry, the multiculturalists will stop us.

Oh, I see what I did. I missed the mark with the link. Here it is.

I'm like, "What the...!"

Monday, April 11, 2005

I love spinach and I love Virginia Postrel

so it shouldn't be surprising that I find her post on spinach to be especially pleasing. (Is it too obvious how I found it?)
Even as a spinach-loathing child I liked the stuff as salad greens, but back then the only way to get fresh spinach was to grow it yourself, pick it early before it got bitter, and spend a lot of time washing the dirt out of the leaves' many wrinkles. The process was all very bioregionally correct but not exactly a recipe for year-round consumption.

In the late sixties and early seventies I was convinced by Popeye cartoons that spinach was the secret to great physical strength, so I choked the s41+ down as best I could. At first it was canned, reheated and eaten with yellow banana peppers. Then we started a garden and had it fresh in salads. Since then there have been myriad recipes including spinach as a main ingredient, that have truly made it palatable.

Grab some at the local salad bar with your lettuce. You won't regret it.