Quasi una fantasia (Mac's Blog)

An interesting way to think about ideological groups is: what is their stance on human sacrifice? Specifically, who do they want to sacrifice, and to whom? The following list is unordered. I’d welcome suggestions for making the list more comprehensive.

Socialists: The upper and middle classes to the lower class.

Fascists: All non-ruling members of society to the “State”.

Neoconservatives: U.S. soldiers and money to foreign countries.

Religious conservatives: Everybody, to “God”.

Mainstream Democrats/American Liberals: The less-needy to the more-needy.

“Pragmatic”  Democrats (e.g. Obama, Carter): Domestically, the less-needy to the more-needy. Abroad, America to third-world dictators and terrorists.

Progressives: Everybody, to the good of “society.” (e.g. no smoking, because that makes “society” less healthy)

Communists: Everyone, just because (nihilism).

Nazis: Fascism, plus all non-Germans to Germans, plus the good of those living now to the “good” of future generations.

Intellectual Environmentalists/Greens: Everyone, to “Mother Earth” and/or just because (nihilism).

Mainstream Environmentalists: The good of those living now to the good of future generations. (These people are hoodwinked by the Intellectual Environmentalists/Greens into believing that this is what they’re really working for.)

PETA: Human beings to animals.

Anarchists: Everyone, to everyone (nihilism).

Libertarians: No moral stance on human sacrifice. Domestically, agree with Objectivists/Founding Fathers on most political issues, but not all (e.g. inconsistent on abortion). Abroad, tend to support the “kneejerk opposite” of neoconservatives (almost no foreign involvement), rather than the rational alternative to both: proactively defending America from legitimate foreign threats, rather than sacrificing America to those threats in one way or another.

Objectivists, Founding Fathers: Human sacrifice is an abomination. Rather, ethical egoism—the pursuit of life—is the proper standard of morality. Individual rights are the political instantiation of this moral principle. The purpose of government is to protect individual rights. As a sidenote, it is the fact that America (uniquely) was founded on this idea—and put it into practice, to a greater or lesser extent, for so long—and still retains this characteristic to some degree—that causes me to love it so much. Such a nation is the only kind in which citizens could have a decidedly happy, innocent, independent sense of life. You can still hear this in some music, especially older American music.

I think it would be pretty cool to expand on these a lot (e.g. give a lot of examples and further description for each entry) and put this up as a website.

ESR writes:

Those of us who have been saying for a decade that the IPCC Assessment Reports were corrupt piles of political flimflam, and that AGW alarmism was built on criminal data fraud, and that its proponents are personally corrupt and complicit in the fraud, were right.

Wow. Let that sink in.

Let that sink in, global warming alarmists. Let that sink in, educated “elite” who just couldn’t image how someone could be so ignorant as to question global warming theory.

In casual debates, I remember being reminded that “thousands” of scientists had signed onto the IPCC reports. (I don’t know what the true figure is.) Such scientists should be publicly shamed for signing onto something they did not know to be true.

I have a feeling ESR’s concluding remarks will prove “prophetic”:

Of course, the mainstream media has learned its lesson and will now treat AGW claims with rational skepticism. And, chastened, it will apply more stringent standards of evidence to future environmental panics. And love is a thing that can never go wrong, and I am Marie of Romania.

Is it either moral or practical* to force members of society to act altruistically?

If the answer to this question is “no,” the healthcare bill cannot be justified.

I would challenge those who support the bill to attempt to answer this question in a way that is rational or formal, as opposed to emotional or based on faith.

And my first question to anyone who claims that the answer is “yes” is, to what end? More specifically: if it is moral, under what standard of ethics is it moral? If it is practical, what end does it help achieve, and is that end justified? Is that end moral and practical?

I’m not interested in getting really lengthy comments on this. My basic point is to challenge people to question whether they can really give a justification for the bill that doesn’t just rely on other assumed (and not validated) premises.

* What is moral and what is practical are one in the same; the folk premise that theory and practice are not in sync is mistaken. Still, I wanted to emphasize both aspects of the question.

—————————————————————-

On a parallel train of thought:

People always say, “If you didn’t vote, don’t complain about Obama; just shut up.” I did vote (and I even voted for Obama!–the lesser of two bad choices, in my opinion); but even if I hadn’t, that’s irrelevant, because I did not sign a waiver that said, “the majority can trample all over my rights.”

Now I want to say, “If you can’t really justify your support for the bill, please shut up be quiet about the topic!” (I try to call bullshit when I see it, but I am as irked by outright rudeness as I am by the dishonest “didn’t vote, don’t speak” argument.)

I’m really excited by the recently-proposed (though it’s not really a new concept) idea of “charter cities”. There’s a short, good NYT article about the idea here. The idea was presented in this TED talk and there is a website about the idea here.

Basically, the idea is that lots of bad laws and established practices (to me, this largely translates as “high taxes” and “too much regulation”) prevent cities from really being what they could be. The idea is for governments in bad places to create what is basically a city-sized free zone (like Hong Kong); the rights of people in the city would be guaranteed (more or less) by a more established nation (like Britain) partnering with the less-established nation (like China). Of course, that example is anachronistic; a more modern proposal by idea’s creator is a free city in Cuba that is basically administrated by Canada and under Canadian law.

If enough of these super-prosperous cities are created around the world, you could imagine the political situation shifting. Maybe everyone would flock to the cities that are the most free, and cities (rather than nation-states) could become power hubs, more like it was back in the Greek days. To me, that is really exciting to think about. I think it would be almost impossible to impose 50% taxes on your citizens (as modern first-world countries do) if they can just move to another super-city or city-state. The freest cities would “win”, and it would be a clear victory for capitalism.

Past experience in places like Hong Kong and Singapore suggest that this probably would work, if executed properly. (Not to mention established political and philosophical knowledge that most people overlook ).

This reminds me of a great essay by Paul Graham about the character of cities.

Time Warner Cable incorrectly buried a cable in our yard (re: did not bury it, but left it sticking up in long grass), causing it to be cut by the lawnmower.

My housemate attempted to contact them to rectify the problem. Here is an excert of his summary of the experience:

So I tried calling their customer service department and it didn’t connect to anything but an automated message that said to press star to accept a text. They sent me a text message asking me to accept support for $9.99 a month plus texting fees and I was like fuck that.

No kidding! (We did eventually find a free way to alert them to the problem, though.)

I don’t believe that there is such a thing as a “natural monopoly” (such as over telecommunications infrastructure) or a monopoly that comes about through ethical and properly legal business practices (such as the alleged Microsoft monopoly). The only kind of monopoly there is is a government-granted one. But this blog is not the proper medium for communicating the full philosophical justification of this stance.

I’ve had tons and tons of trouble with Time Warner Cable, and their one competitor (AT&T) isn’t a viable option because until very lately, they didn’t seem to sell a package that didn’t include lots of stuff we don’t need (for extra price). The local government (not sure if it’s a Chapel Hill thing or an Orange County thing or a North Carolina thing) should revoke the cable monopoly so that other companies can provide cable TV/Internet service to the area. This would delight local residents.

One LA congresswoman thinks so.

What’s wrong with this?

First, the Cuban revolution violated the fundamental human right to one’s own life. In a nutshell: the right to be one’s own master and no-one’s slave.

Second, the Cuban revolution ended the potential for serious innovation in medical practices and technology within Cuba.

Of course, they can slowly borrow from US innovation, where there is an incentive for them to do so. But such a revolution in the US, even if restricted to the sphere of healthcare, would deal a death blow to medical innovation on a global scale.

(Of course, the notion that totally governmentalizing only the healthcare sector of the economy, in isolation, is an impossible fantasy.)

The congresswoman points out that Fidel Castro was very smart. Well, so were Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and practically every other communist tyrant. Being smart does not mean you’re right (in any sense of the word). Also, it’s factually untrue that the people of Cuba “found” Fidel Castro. He sailed over on his boat and took over.

Because I am my own master.