Archive for the ‘Philosophy’ Category
My frustrated comment to the previous post by Troy, caused him to reply with a thoughtful comment, regarding my increasingly serious flirtations with anarchy. My efforts to compose an equally thoughtful rejoinder, outgrew that somewhat off-topic comment section, so here it is as a new post specifically addressing my perspective on the subject of anarchy.
One of us is surely mistaken.
Perhaps we both are at this juncture, Troy, and now just living with very different illusory movies running in our heads, which we mistake for reality. Thanks for the thoughtful reply.
some government is needed
As you well know, I spent the first 70 years of my life convinced of exactly that; but that in no way obligates me to be submissive to any so-called authority, or support the tyranny into which the Federal government has devolved. Madison particularly despised the concept of democracy. How then, did we end up with mob rule? Why is it so readily accepted by the sheeple?
Can we agree that mankind deserves at least the level of individual Liberty he and his contemporaries enjoyed? Would you not also agree that the odds now of retrieving that worthy goal, through any nonviolent political process, are essentially nil? Must we abandon it entirely then, perhaps out of some errant sense of patriotism, or is another violent revolution inevitable?
At a quick glance, anarchy may seem to have a lot to recommend it. But, upon deeper reflection, it soon becomes apparent (to most of us) that anarchy provides a sure and consistent path to some manner of “strong man rule”.
Troy, you have had a front row seat to my slow, cautious, careful, and deliberate investigations into the philosophical underpinnings of anarchical thought. This was in no way a causal “quick glance,” and I can assure you that after reading several books, numerous scholarly essays, and countless articles on the subject, I have given it considerable ‘deep reflection.’ Interestingly, the notion that it would inevitably result in “strong man rule,” is still not at all apparent to me. With all due respect, from my perspective, reaching such a conclusion appears to be the result of distinctly shallower thought than I have invested in the subject.
As for strong man rulers, try to convince me that the average citizen Read the rest of this entry »
Hey, Troy! I just had occasion to reread the 5-year-old post here, entitled: “Fairies, Witches, Fords, and Chevys .” In the amusing comment section, you mentioned you had just finished writing an interesting book, which was only awaiting final editing before publication. I never received the promised copy of it. Whatever happened to it? ◄Dave►
It is depressing to think how much more damage the Obamanation and his lackeys can do to our Republic and to the world before we are finally rid of them (assuming we actually will be rid of them).
He, the Clintons and all of their tribe are openly behaving in a way that should get them lynched. Yet, a frightening number of the sheeple actually support the insanity they continue to foist on us.
I really wish I had reason to believe that Trump will do better. For sure, his cabinet and other appointments have been somewhat encouraging. Yet I fear that, even if he and his team operate from the purest of motives, the sheeple will combine to ensure a lack of success. These poor bastards have been brainwashed to the point that they prefer the actual destruction of the nation to the slightest change of ideas, regardless of the fact that the existing ideas have failed us completely.
I repeat, once again, my sincere wish that the States divide into several “clusters” of like minded, like intentioned citizens before the whole mess gets totally out of control and we become a bigger, badder version of the current Syria.
For instance, if states like California wish to govern themselves with a total lack of common sense and responsibility, then let them try. Just don’t let them pull the rest of us down with them.
Think about it.
Troy L Robinson
Seems nobody else has the nerve (or has too much good sense?) to comment on the latest round of exposures, rumors, lies and even a few facts.
For my part, I just want this nightmare to be over. One of these sleazebags will win and the nation will lose. It is just that simple.
I have done my duty as a citizen and thrown away my vote on the Johnson/Weld ticket, knowing that they have no chance to win but wanting to put in my 2 cents worth regardless.
BTW, I have read several articles recently about HRC’s body odor problems. Some seem to think it is disease related but I am amused to see that her campaign manager (Podesta) says she simply does not bathe often enough. This is similar to claims from her college days. Given that Trump will say anything that comes to mind, I wonder why he has not mentioned it when they have been on stage together?
More and more I find myself wishing that the Obamanation would pull the plug on this whole circus and just crown himself pasha or whatever. At least a big airplane and plenty of golf courses to fly to seems to keep him happy. Costs a lot of $$ but still better than spending it on civil war. Plus, given the obvious deterioration of people succeeding to the White House, why not quit while we are behind rather than risk getting behinder (is that a real word?)
Try not to think about it.
Troy L Robinson
Simple. They are all common methods for attempting to avoid facing reality (and these are by no means the only ones).
And, attempting to avoid facing reality is epidemic in our society. The alternative would be to acknowledge reality then admit that most of us simply do not have a clue how to deal with it.
Watch the talking heads on TV – even on FOX – and realize how often the discussions are total nonsense and totally disconnected from reality. Same with the so-called “debates”. The candidates argue over drivel and nonsense when there are real issues begging to be addressed before this whole mess explodes on us.
And, “explodes” may well be the operative word. Read the rest of this entry »
Users who have LIKED this post:
Although one of my favorite sites is The Objective Standard, I rarely share links to the excellent content there, because much of it is behind a pay wall. While I have been a subscriber for years, I can’t expect others to be. However, today’s article, “9/11 and America’s Failure to End the Jihad,” is openly available to all, and worth considering:
The anniversary of 9/11 is here, and another year has passed without America naming, much less eliminating, the cause of the attack.
The cause of the attack on 9/11 and, more broadly, of the jihad against the West is the fact that Islamic regimes—most notably those in Iran and Saudi Arabia—take Islam seriously and thus seek to convert or kill everyone who doesn’t. Toward that end, these regimes materially and spiritually support jihadist groups such as al-Qaeda and Islamic State, who, in turn, attack and murder Americans and others who refuse to submit.
That, in a nutshell, is why al-Qaeda attacked America on September 11, 2001. And it is why jihadists and their supporters are constantly planning or sponsoring more attacks. Everyone paying attention knows this. But the U.S. government refuses to acknowledge the cause and thus refuses to eliminate the source of the problem: the Islamic regimes that sponsor jihad.
Like he said, we all know this; but it is not considered Politically Correct to say so out loud. A very good question is why? Read the rest of this entry »
One frequently encounters the sentiment that people get the government they deserve. This is usually found in the context that those suffering tyranny in foreign lands, should rise up and overthrow their rulers. I must admit that I have in the past been persuaded by this logic, especially during debate over the notion that we somehow have a moral obligation, to go abroad seeking dragons to slay, on behalf of oppressed people.
I am pretty clear in my assessment that we have no such obligation; but is it even true that oppressed slaves deserve their masters, for lack of will to depose them, violently if necessary?
In a comment section here the other day, CT referring to Hillary said:
It boils down to CHARACTER … who has it and who does not.
I am not talking about CHARACTER of the candidates I am talking about character of the American voter who clearly is about to get exactly what they deserve.
From my increasingly anarchistic perspective, I was tempted to quip that this would be their just deserts, for legitimizing the oligarch’s Kabuki dance by voting at all, regardless of the winner of their sham election. The “Deep State” could care less who wins an election; because normally they control both candidates. The jury is still out; but this is the first time in at least a generation that this may not be true.
I have just finished reading probably the most important essay of this political season, which concluded with:
The election of 2016 is a test—in my view, the final test—of whether there is any virtù left in what used to be the core of the American nation. If they cannot rouse themselves simply to vote for the first candidate in a generation who pledges to advance their interests, and to vote against the one who openly boasts that she will do the opposite (a million more Syrians, anyone?), then they are doomed. They may not deserve the fate that will befall them, but they will suffer it regardless.
The pseudonymous author was referring, of course, to the #NeverTrump faction of the conservative intelligentsia, which he repeatedly excoriates with the delicious metaphor, of comparing them to the Washington Generals. Read the rest of this entry »
First, I would like to point out my “Cultural Bigotry” essay, which I wrote a few months back, before I ever heard of the “Alt-Right.” Since Hillary’s speech introducing the term to the rest of us, much is being made of the alleged ‘racist’ or ‘white supremacist’ nature of some of those associated with it. The research I have been doing, has revealed that multicultural challenges, are seen as much more important than race to these young folks. For one thing, they are actually intelligent enough to understand that terms like ‘Muslim’ or ‘Mexican,’ do not refer to the race of those they label. However, here is a short discussion of the diversity within the movement, by one of its founders:
Certainly not PC; but I find his positions reasonable, and certainly worthy of open discussion in the marketplace of ideas. I also note his push back, regarding whether either Breitbart or Trump, Read the rest of this entry »
This is the modern Internet at its best. A world class philosopher at home in Canada, and a world famous cartoonist at home in California, sharing an utterly fascinating discussion over Skype, with the whole world via YouTube:
Don’t be dissuaded by the title; surprisingly little of their thought-provoking conversation is about Trump himself. Still, if he accomplishes nothing else this election season, I will always be grateful for the impetus he provided for me to discover the mind of Scott Adams, and for these two intellectual titans to get together for this entertaining debate. Read the rest of this entry »
Recently on the “Eliminating Authority” discussion thread, Chris offered an enigma:
Just to throw out a bit of a muse that I can’t quite figure out yet. In this day and age anybody can carry in their pocket the wisdom and knowledge of all recorded human history and every technology known. All the great philosophers, leaders, and critical minds works are at our finger tips. Yet we remain so stupid.
…that deserves its own topic for discussion. First, I would suggest that information ≠ education. All the information in the world, is useless to anyone not willing or able, to access and learn it. It is certainly not PC to say so; but there are a significant percentage of people in the world, for which what we might consider as ‘educated,’ is simply beyond their ken. Ever meet someone with an IQ of 100? Now, ponder the unavoidable fact that fully half the world’s population, are dumber still! Read the rest of this entry »
In the previous thread “Globalists vs Americans,” while replying to Chris’ comment, I mentioned:
Of course, from my own perspective, the real dichotomy is the Collectivists vs Individualists, which basically eliminates all the statist Incumbrepublocrat politicians, including Trump. This explains why as a sovereign individualist, my only viable option is to vote ‘None of the Above,’ by the simple expedient of not voting at all.
As is her wont, CT then asked a question that requires a thoughtful answer:
Dave as a sovereign individualist, do you live happily in the framework of what is today?
This deserves more than a quick reply; hence the new post. First, a few clarifications, regarding the natural rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, as well as Individual Sovereignty.
For me, the entire purpose of life is the pursuit of happiness. Thus, if I chose not to allow myself to be happy, there would be little point in doing the things I do for my health, to perpetuate my life beyond my 70+ years.
Liberty, I define as the opportunity to live my life as I choose to live it, as long as I do not forcefully interfere in the rights of others, to live their own lives as they choose. Read the rest of this entry »
I have watched as much of the RNC as my stomach can take without my dinner coming back up and I have little doubt that what we are watching is actually the Republican National Collapse.
Not that I would be sad to see either of the major duopoly parties go away but I can’t help but wonder if 4 to 8 years of president Hillary Clinton is not too steep a price to pay.
Several years ago, before Obama’s reelection, the great thinker Thomas Sowell opined that our Republic could not survive another Obama term. It seems we may have, although by the slightest of margins. (I am among those who think the ultimate reality of a given administration’s policies does not fully appear until several years after the fact.)
Having said that, I am fairly certain that there is no way our Republic can possibly survive even one Hillary term. Would there still be an entity known as the United States of America post Hillary? No doubt. Would it have any similarity to the Republic described in our Founding documents? Again, no doubt there would be none.
Aside from getting us into more unnecessary wars, as Hillary is bound to do, she will get to oversee the entire makeover of the Supreme Court – an action that will cause problems for generations. I have no doubt that the kind of people Hillary will appoint to the Court will quickly destroy what little is left of our Constitution. Hillary’s election will also prove that a person can violate any and all of our laws and still be awarded the best prize we, as a people, have to offer. That alone is cause enough to condemn our Republic. Read the rest of this entry »
Scott Adams has done it again. He has provided something worth seriously pondering: “The FBI, Credibility, and Government“:
The primary goal of government is its own credibility.
That notion needs some explaining.
Governments do many things, including building roads, providing social services, defending the homeland, and more. But no matter what the government is trying to accomplish, its macro-responsibility is to maintain its own credibility. Governments without credibility devolve into chaos. Credibility has to be job one.
That is profound! I had never considered it this way before; but upon reflection, he is absolutely right. I would say that this is particularly important in a state like the USA, which claims to be a self-governing, Constitutionally limited, representative republic, where citizens voluntarily accept the rule of law, within the concept of a participatory democracy.
Whether any of that is in fact true, is somewhat beside the point, as long as the sheeple believe enough of it, to accept the legitimacy of the state to rule over their lives. Somehow over the years, the American sheeple have been brainwashed, Read the rest of this entry »
In all I read today about the FBI refusing to prosecute Hillary, I thought Karl Denninger said it best:
The Rule of Law was officially burned and buried today on live television by the Director of the FBI.
You therefore no longer have any moral requirement to adhere to same; your entire analysis must now rest on whether you are sufficiently afraid of being shot — and nothing more.
America, as envisioned and fought for by the founders, died today at 11:00 AM ET, 7/5/2016.
240 years and one day from birth to death.
Or, as Trump tweeted: #riggedsystem. I have argued that this was obvious ten years ago. So did the immortal George Carlin:
…who continues to make more and more sense, the older I get. There is simply no way in hell to restore this country, by voting for the lesser of two evils offered up by the oligarch’s Incumbrepublocrat duopoly. ◄Dave►
Before I get into the main theme of this screed, a random question… How can it be that an American citizen who tells less than the whole truth to an agent of the U.S. Government (say, for instance, Martha Stewart) can be imprisoned while an agent of the U.S. Government (say the head of the FBI) can lie to American citizens with total immunity from prosecution?
So, on with the screed.
Mrs Hillary Rodham Clinton, then acting in the role of Secretary of State in the U.S. Government, finds a compelling need to have an electronic communication system that is totally under her own control rather than that of said U.S. Government – and proceeds accordingly.
Later, some agents of the U.S. Government, pretending to be shocked at such activity, demand an investigation. Said investigation is placed under the FBI and off we go. Surely truth and justice will prevail? Oddly, no sane person in the nation really thinks so.
Now, were I to be leading such an investigation, my first question would be “WHY”. What advantage/benefit/etc. can Mrs Clinton derive from having this “private” system? The obvious answer, as noted above, is “CONTROL”. That is to say, control over what might be seen by whom and under what circumstances.
My next question would then be, what might she need to hide. Oddly, the FBI asked, instead, asked “was there any intentional mishandling of classified information”. Asking such a question is a technique known as dragging a red herring across a trail – with the intent of sending the tracking dogs off on a useless tangent.
I could never be fairly accused of being a racist. I have comfortably lived among natives in Europe, Asia, Africa, Oceania, and all regions of North America. I couldn’t care less about skin pigmentation or facial features, when evaluating the worth of another human being. Yet, like it or not; PC or not; it is impossible not to at least notice such obvious variations in humanity.
While the police can be ordered not to ‘profile’ subjects based on physical appearance, there is no way for the rulers to ever prevent the rest of us from doing so. As an example, when I lived peacefully as a decidedly minority Caucasian, among the predominant Asians and Pacific Islanders in Hawaii, even the bankers wore Aloha shirts as daily business attire. Anyone seen wearing a necktie in Honolulu’s balmy climate, was immediately considered suspect, by me and most everyone else, because they were undoubtedly either a lawyer, a politician, or a salesman from the mainland.
Were we ‘profiling’ and making perhaps inaccurate, or even unfair judgements based on physical appearance? You bet. Was that a form of prejudicial bigotry? Yes, of course. Was it irrational or wrong to do so? Not at all. The same Progressive snowflakes, who get their knickers in a twist over the very mention of profiling, get the vapors over the mere sight of bikers, armed citizens, KKK or Neo-Nazis protesters, Trump hats, and even riot police.
Prejudging others can be a rather significant survival skill, no matter how often we are exhorted not to be prejudiced. The police can be well-paid to risk not profiling for PC reasons; but the rest of us are not. Since doing so frequently elicits bogus charges of ‘racism,’ even when race itself is not even a factor (e.g. Jihadists), it is worth sorting out what it is that we really are all bigoted about. I submit that the common denominator of prejudice, intolerance, bigotry, tribalism, xenophobia, etc. is culture, not race. Read the rest of this entry »