Merry Christmas everyone!

We've got the inlaws here and we're listening to a latin-looking guy sing German Christmas carols on the CD player.

My father-in-law celebrated Christmas Eve by fixing a leaky faucet. I got to make the annual Holiday run to Menard's for plumbing parts.

Of course, before that came up, I was festively cleaning cat-boxes and scraping ice and slush off the driveway.

I had to save David's story about modern technology,

and here seemed to be the place. Links below.

On Friday I try to get hold of my future-ex-wife (telephonically that is, the death-grip days are over.) The idea is that I drive over to see the kids, and I want to make sure that they'd be in, because it's over an hour away. Anyway, I call the house phone - no reply. Her mobile - no reply. My daughter's mobile - no reply. My younger son's mobile - no reply. My older son's mobile - I bet you've guessed that one already. No? No reply.

Now in the years B.C. (Before Cellphones) I'd have thought "They must be out. I'll call later." But no, these days I'm used to talking to people when I want to talk to people. I get irritable. I try them all again. No reply. I fly into a rage. I phone them all again leaving increasingly frenzied messages. By the time I get to Matt's voicemail for the third time I'm shrieking "What's the fucking point of having a mobile phone, if you don't take it with you and keep it turned on, you stupid little bastard?! And I'm not your father. And we adopted you! From the leper colony! And you're a crap guitar player! AAAAARRGGH!"

And so on.

Then I calm down.

Then I start to worry. I know that my future-ex-father-in-law is staying with them at the moment, and I know he has heart trouble. The only scenario that makes sense to me by now is that he's had a heart attack and they're all down at Intensive Care with their phones turned off in case they interfere with the equipment. Either that or a plane has crashed on the house and my family's mobiles are ringing plaintively amidst the lifejackets, pieces of people and little tinfoil containers.

I decide to face down my demons and go over there. I'm ready for the worst. Then my phone rings. It's my F.E.W. She and my daughter were at the gym. My younger son's on the way back from Prague (I'd forgotten about that one.) My older son had a real good night out and is still asleep.

I decide I need to change my medication.
David | Homepage | 12.07.05 - 12:31 pm | #

I haven't made a real sales pitch for Robert Ringer.

The article linked above uses his experience at mastering batting in fast-pitch softball to show the value of what he calls "active visualization":

I started practicing in the backyard every evening after I got home from work, but I went way beyond just swinging the bat. To merely swing a bat is the epitome of action without purpose or strategy - action just for the sake of taking action.

Instead, I got down in my batting crouch hundreds of times each evening and, with intense concentration, visualized the pitcher going through his windup and letting go of the ball. Everything I did from that point on was in slow motion for the first half-hour or so of each practice.

As I pictured the windup, I focused on stepping directly toward the pitcher with my left foot. This was an important first step, because psychologically it was a bold statement that I intended to meet the pitch head on. It was the step that set everything else in motion for me.

He's building on an article of his own and an intervening post by Michael Masterson, in Masterson's newsletter Early to Rise, which focuses on using careful, slow repetitions - "Never practice a mistake" - when you're serious about mastering any activity.

Masterson learned it's value from his Jiu Jitsu instructor. I learned some of the same things in football practice... and from my brother's tutoring in the value of proper "form" in football--a little guy will always get killed by a big guy unless the little guys moves are perfect.

Ron's official weight was 163#.

He played defensive end.

I never saw him get burned. Or miss a tackle. Or look like a Viking (c. 2005) when he hit a guy.

When I went to ball-games in those days, I didn't really know anything about football... but I knew my brother, and I knew where the line of scrimmage was. I learned to judge a defender's play by how close to the line of scrimmage (or how far behind it) they tackled the ball-carrier.

At 163, opposing teams generally considered Ron to be the weak link. By the second quarter, they decided Dave Minor was the weak link. Unfortunately for them, Dave was pretty damn good as well.

You can't imagine what I'd give to have Ron's defense replace ours in the 1980 WIAA Championships. (Our "O" was KICKASS. No matter that our QB had an inferiority complex. The blocking was good. That's what really counts.)

WHOOPS!! Got off topic a bit there.

My dumb brother was such a jerk that he made me spend hours in our front yard practicing proper form. We didn't have pads, so everything we did had to be careful and slow, but as such Ron taught me that I had to be aware of the forces that would be involved at full speed. I don't know how, but I got it.

I know that as an offensive lineman I never got beat by anybody but my own mistakes. Tactical mistakes, not technical mistakes. I had technique down cold, but sometimes I'd glitch and act on the wrong set of instructions.

Strategy? That was the coach's problem.

Here's my addition to the discussion: how do you apply brilliance at learning technique to learning tactics and strategy?

What The Hell's Wrong With Globalism?!

I expect to update this more than once, but my emotional reaction right off the bat, upon seeing this Blog Ad is:

[FOOLISHNESS DELETED]

Whoa!! Was I off base!

I finally got around to reading some of their stuff, and I have to say that I disagree with very little of it.

I agree that Big Government, Big Business, Big Labor and anybody else who's to Big for his Britches are too often entwined. I agree that nations should preserve their sovereignty. I don't like the UN, the IMF or the World Bank, but it's mostly because they misallocate capital [forcibly extracted tax money] in directions people would not choose on their own in a free market.

I don't believe in "market failure". In a free market people spend their money and give it away to causes they care about. When people hear about a problem, they try to help; that's why governments, businesses and charities are founded in the first place--I wouldn't even mind if governments were bossy about telling businesses and charities what to do about helping others, if they didn't have a tendency to send the cops and the army out to make it happen. Leaders don't hurt people, enforcers do. (It's been a while since I came up with a bumper sticker slogan.)

It's true that the problem most businesses are founded to solve is "I don't have enough money," but they have to fulfill somebody's desires in order to get that money.

Anyway, I agree that money ought to be gold or gold-backed. I think worries about deflation are overblown (inflated - ha ha) and central banks are unnecessary and somewhat harmful. Simply put, it's important to have money, and it's important that it's value be fairly stable, but it's not so important as to need a controlling authority. I should say "controlling" authority. Their control is weak at best, unless they want bubbles and recessions.

On the other hand, they've been doing a better job of stabilizing the money supply and inflation lately, though there are serious questions about that. The Tech Bubble and subsequent recession and our current housing bubble are the Fed's fault, pretty much, yet if you didn't lose your job life hasn't been all that bad. Of course you could say that about the Great Depression too.

The conspiracy angle? Not much of a secret. Everybody who cares knows about the Trilateral Commission and those other guys. This Bank for International Settlements? Is anybody surprised? They have a charter that says they will have "no oversight or knowledge of operations by any government authority" and a bunch of other things that sound pretty egregious, but even the author of the article says, "Of course, a corporate charter can say anything it wants to say and still be subject to outside authorities." But he continues, "Nevertheless, these were the immunities practiced and enjoyed from 1930 onward." All at the pleasure of the government.

So, who's dying over this? Bernie Sanders, quoted in the article, says Latin Americans are, and I suspect that IMF and World Bank actions there haven't been as helpful as they expected, but then, the governments of Latin America spent the money on liabilities rather than assets. Most people and businesses and governments do that when you hand them a wad of cash.

That's why most people aren't rich.

Here's my rose bush saying "Look at me, Daddy!"

I couldn't bring myself to chop that picture. Here's a closeup (even though the ceap camera refuses to focus on the flower):



I figure they'll be gone by tomorrow afternoon. It barely hit 50 degrees today. I figure we'll get a frost tonight and that'll be it for flowers.

Niina likes to turn around (spin would be too strong a term)

in circles and try to sing "Ring Around the Rosie." You can recognize the words she's trying to say, but, except for "Rosie" and "ALL FALL DOWN!" (her favorite part) it's not really English yet. "Pocket" comes out as "potuct" and the rest is pretty garbled. But it's all very cute.

Oh! Man! (Warning: delicate medical talk ahead.)

I picked up Aliina the other day, while I was sitting in an easy chair. And she did a dance in my lap and absolutely drilled me in the bladder (I needed to "go" at the time, naturally--no, I didn't do it on the spot). I felt ok, more or less, at the time, but apparently it's bruised.

No blood and no fever (yet), so I don't think I need to see a doctor, but I've been rather protective of it for the last couple days. I'm walking a little slower and not taking the long walks. I'm saving my energy for the healing process. Rather than the usual "I need to see a man about a horse" feeling, I get a nauseous, kicked-in-the-groin sensation.

I was feeling better tonight until I picked her up to put her to bed and she started playfully swinging her feet around and nailed me again! Not anywhere near as hard as the first time, but it doesn't take much to cause even more pain now. When I flinched she got me in the you-know-whats.
....
I didn't drop her. I'm proud of that.
....
Children are a wonderful, unqualified blessing, aren't they?

Because I actually trust Blogger more than I trust HaloScan

I feel the need to place this discussion into what I consider to be a more permanent form. This is from an Old Whig post:

Argh, how the heck did I get the wrong link in there! That is my very old blog that is now taken over by some spammer. Good grief.

Oh, by the way, I wouldn't really call myself an anarcho-capitalist, although I do like the elegance of the theory. If you're interested in what Rational Anarchy is (it's a personal political ideology, rather than a group ideology), check out
Eric | Homepage | 08.25.05 - 1:00 am | #

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

Eric, and Al, thanks. Once I read the quote about six times, translated all the labels, rewrote it on a scrap of paper, meditated on it for 20 minutes in the khazi, what I came down to is this -

"The ACLU is wrong, not because it is not right but because it is left. They are fighting for the rights of the individual in pursuit of the benefit of the whole of society, not just me. Other people's rights are their priviledges. My rights are RIGHTS".

I like to use driving on the road as an example.

I have the right to drive on the road.

I have the right to travel safely on the road.

Now that also creates a responsibility -

I have to drive in a manner that will not injure other people - that will work to ensure their safety.

Now I know for a fact, indisputable fact, that my idea of "safe" driving will differ considerably from others. As f'rinstances; the guy who believes he can drive safely at 140kph - provided he can use both sides of the road, the guy who can help his mates down a 40oz of rum then drive home, the guy with one eye who can see me but not judge how far away I am, all of those would NOT fall within my idea of safe driving.

I like to put it in this form -

I drive in accordance with the rules (the law) in place.

I comply with those rules because I believe they contribute to the safety of others as well as to my own.

I take responsibility for my own actions if I fail to observe those rules.

I have a reasonable expectation that other users of the road will be driving in accordance with the same set of rules.

And at that point we suddenly have a problem. That problem is a stricture on the rights of others. They believe, for example, that it is their RIGHT to drive as fast as they wish (the "My rights are RIGHTS" argument). That ignores completely any consideration for my "right" to safely travel on the road.

Who wins?

Remember, I give this as an example of how there is conflict between the rights of individuals, even neighbours. It is a matter of perception and belief.

I think we have been through this before, and the response I got then was "But we are not doing away with ALL laws, just..." (usually the ones that relate to the paying of taxes).

OK, so how much would YOU contribute to your government to pay for the war in Iraq? If I were a US taxpayer and able to make that choice....

Oh! You are saying there would be some things where there would be NO choice?

This is not about RIGHTS...

This is about nothing more than self-interest and greed. There is no real concern for MY rights, only the rights that YOU see as being RIGHT.
probligo | Homepage | 08.25.05 - 1:12 am | #

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

Horse dung Probligo. You and I both have the same rights, to life, liberty and property. I will stand up for those rights for you all day long. I will not stand up for moving target privileges and try to enshrine them as rights. Bottom line, if you protect inherent rights then privileges that you and the ACLU call rights will be protected. If you don't protect those inherent rights then the stuff you and the ACLU go on about are subject to the whim of the majority, or the legislature, or the court. I cannot understand why this is so hard to grasp.

As usual, you attack someone who believes in inherent rights as being all about self-interest and greed, yet you offer no reason for why that is so. And you offer no reason why it's a bad thing. it just is, in your world. This is getting pointless.
Eric | Homepage | 08.25.05 - 3:28 am | #

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

Uhhhh, and what's with all this jumping to taxes and wars stuff? As usual, you are off on a tangent. I said not a word about getting rid of laws or taxes. What I did say is that there is a difference between privileges and rights.
Eric | Homepage | 08.25.05 - 3:31 am | #

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

Probligo,

So you think that one's rights are whatever he 'feels' they are, that just anything that anyone claims is is right has to be, or else the very idea of rights is flawed.

Rights are those conditions that are necessary to life *as a human being* - and that means life as a rational being. Irrational whims are never rights, but whims are exactly the invented rights that the ACLU so often supports. Many of the 'rights' the ACLU fights for are no more rational than the man who insists he has the right to use both sides of the road.

One rule of thumb about rights is that valid rights *can't* conflict. If what I am claiming as a right conflicts with a right you are claiming, then one or both of the claims are not actually rights. Figuring out which is not realy that difficult to people willing to look at it honestly.

The ACLU is like a stopped clock. A stopped clock is right twice a day, but you have no way of knowing *when* it is right without looking at another clock. The ACLU has no rational standard for their positions, so even though they are cocasionally right, there is no way to tell when they are right without reference to some other standard.
Kyle Bennett | Homepage | 08.25.05 - 11:07 am | #

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

OK, Eric, could you please translate all of the long and obscure words and assorted verbiage from your initial piece into English that ordinary mortals such as myself can understand.

It would help even more if you were to do this in the context of the original comment.

Without some clarity of purpose and meaning, all that your original quote does (in light of the comments coming through now) is to create the impression of a manic computer nerd crouched over a keyboard, Roget in one hand and the latest right-wing political tract in the other.
probligo | Homepage | 08.25.05 - 4:34 pm | #

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

FWIW, I do not believe that the rights of the individual can exist neither in isolation from, nor in ascendancy over, the "rights" of society as a whole.

I confess that, in the absence of getting back to the context of my comment I confused the debate with the "tax debate" in Libertopia. My error, I apologise.

For that reason, and from this distance, I see ACLU as well meaning and sincere, but unable to make the distinction between "right and wrong" causes. To that extent, they do give a somewhat quixotic appearance.

So, Eric, I missed your comment in its original context.

The last sentence of my last comment is ABOTT perhaps, but it is pertinant.

Please, I am a simple man. I try to use plain English. You might try the same...
probligo | Homepage | 08.25.05 - 4:50 pm | #

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

Rewrite first sentence...

FWIW, I do believe that the rights of the individual can not exist in isolation from the rights of society as a whole. The rights of an individual can not be greater than the rights of society as a whole.

Time to work...
probligo | Homepage | 08.25.05 - 4:53 pm | #

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

That is merely another way of saying the individual has no rights.
Ken Hall | Homepage | 08.25.05 - 9:29 pm | #

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

"The reality is that if you fully defend every individual's rights to life, liberty and property then things like free speech, religion, privacy are taken care of, because those are privileges constructed from those inherent rights.

OK, some real life examples -

I have the right to build a two story house on my section, which I do to maximise the view that I have over the bay. I can now see into my neighbours back yard. He objects because he and his wife enjoy sunbathing on their patio. So they erect a fence that blocks my view of their back yard, and the bay. Who is right?

I buy an apartment with sea views. It costs me $100,000. Two years later the property next door starts building a block of apartments which results in my 7th floor apartment looking at a blank concrete wall. The new block is completely legal. Who is right?

I am sorry, the example of the "bomb-making neighbour" has already been taken, but my question there has not been answered (but acknowledged as "good") either.

The point is that very often one person's "right" can be quite legal, but can also have the effect of causing harm to another person with "rights" that are equally as valid.

The VERY difficult path through this, and the objection that I raise to your otherwise very worthy objectives, requires that common ground between equally valid rights has to be IMPOSED. .
probligo | Homepage | 08.25.05 - 10:44 pm | #

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

The right to use your own property as you see fit, as best you can, exists to promote social peace. The "harm" to people whose view is blocked by their neighbors is insufficient to override my right to build as I see fit.

The difference between those two cases and the bomber next door is that he is endangering my life and health in a very real way.

From the back of my Libertarian Party card: "Ststement of Principles: We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose."

I don't think you'll catch a lot of grass-roots Republicans buying into that completely.


And here's John Galt's Oath: "I swear by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask him to live for mine."
Old Whig | Homepage | 08.25.05 - 11:17 pm | #

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

So, in your system, if I spend $500k on a piece of land, build a $1mil house on it and you come and park a skyscraper next door blocking my view...

I have every right to get the TNT out and lay a few charges under the corners of the skyscraper?

I very much doubt that you would have as "reasonable" attitude were it you and yours whose view had been blocked.

What about a heliport being built next door? You happy with that? I sure would not. Then, I am also happy and objective enough to admit it.
probligo | Homepage | 08.26.05 - 1:17 am | #

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

Probligo,

You say: "
The point is that very often one person's "right" can be quite legal, but can also have the effect of causing harm to another person with "rights" that are equally as valid."

The rights are not equally valid. Your claimed right to see the bay is not and could not ever be a legitimate right. Your right to see the bay providing that nothing else outside your property happens to be blocking the light from reaching your property is a valid right. There is no conflict between that right and the right of your neighbors to erect a fence. Until you own all the property between your house and the bay, you have no right to a view of the bay.

If you live on a hill a mile from the bay, would you also deny everyone between it and you the right to build anything that might mar your view? Is your house visible from the houses behind you? Should you have to tear it down if they complain? What if they like views of pistine hillsides, or open meadows, instead of your preference for water views? Aren't their preferences equally valid? Or does being there first give you "dibs" on all the proeperty visible from your house?

My advice would have been to negotiate with those neighbors prior to building your two story add-on, in order to secure some actual rights to a path for the light from the bay to reach your windows. They probably would have readily agreed in exchange for some cash and provisions to block the view into their yard.

Your problem is that you value that view, but you want it for free. Why is it that collectivists always think that the more valuable something is, the less they should have to give up to get it, and the more other people should have to give up so they can have it?

And individual rights do not take ascendancy over the rights of "society as a whole" because there are no such rights. In fact, there is no such thing as "society as a whole", let along some kind of thing that could have rights. All rights are individual rights, individuals are the only entities capable of having rights.
Kyle Bennett | Homepage | 08.26.05 - 1:22 am | #

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

Kyle, it happens that the example of the apartment and the next door block actually happened in Auckland last year. There was much raruraru about it, and I do not think that it is over yet.

The example of the blocked view came up this year when the neighbour applied for a permit to erect a 3.5m high fence and it was not approved by the Council. So he brought in an earthmover and put up a "hill" inside the boundary, calling it "landscaping".

In both instances the rule that you outline has been the eventual outcome (thus far).

It is not a case of "wanting the view for free". In both instances it was a selling / buying point in the properties concerned. The incoming buyers really should have checked out "what is likely to happen next door.

BUT...

Is it fair?

As for the "rights of society", would you argue that you do NOT have the right to use the highway with the expectation of reasonable safety?. I am driving 300km tomorrow morning and I expect to so do safely. What protection should I expect from the law from the eejit coming round the corner with his RV on the wrong side of the road at 160kph (100mph)?

If there is no law then he has that right. What right do I have? As I posted in response to the "bomb-maker next door" example...

Who, and in which Court, will I be permitted to sue if he survives and I am dead? If he has the right to accidentally kill me, what right do I have to life? He can argue that "it was an unfortunate accident, the probligo was in the wrong place wrong time" or that it was "an act of God, because the probligo was a confessed atheist".

If we are both killed, who and in which Court can I sue if he is Christian and I am atheist?

If there is law which determines rights and responsibilities on the road, then it encroaches on "everyone's" right to drive where and how they wish... if you are a Libertarian Christian.

If there is law determining behaviour and safe practice on the road then (in my book) that represents the "rights" of society at large. They may be seen by individuals as rights and as responsibilities and as restrictions... BUT THEY APPLY TO ALL.

Therefore, the ONLY RIGHTS that an individual can have are those that his society is prepared to allow to all of its individual members. In deciding WHAT RIGHTS to allow, society brings to bear the potential for harm to others that those rights might bring.

Now I do not have the wit nor ability to fully argue that line through all possible circumstances; it is the best that I can do. So rather than criticise the specific example (this to all, not just Kyle) how about some thought on the principle?

In the meantime, I will be in Opononi enjoying the magnificent view from my dacha on the side of the hill overlooking the bay, a glass or three in the local (smokeless) bar (also with a great view of the bay) and a good meal in the restaurant (also smokeless and w
probligo | Homepage | 08.26.05 - 5:40 am | #

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

Cont'd

In the meantime, I will be in Opononi enjoying the magnificent view from my dacha on the side of the hill overlooking the bay, a glass or three in the local (smokeless) bar (also with a great view of the bay) and a good meal and wine in the restaurant (also smokeless and with a great view) on Saturday night followed by watching on tv NZ beating South Africa in the rugby match.

Luck to all...
probligo | Homepage | 08.26.05 - 5:41 am | #

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

"Therefore, the ONLY RIGHTS that an individual can have are those that his society is prepared to allow to all of its individual members. In deciding WHAT RIGHTS to allow, society brings to bear the potential for harm to others that those rights might bring."

I begin to understand you now, the probligo, but allow me to respond with a question: Does the individual petition society for a given set of rights? More to the point, what is society? Society is made up of individuals, at least in Western cultures.

"If there is law which determines rights and responsibilities on the road, then it encroaches on "everyone's" right to drive where and how they wish... if you are a Libertarian Christian.

"If there is law determining behaviour and safe practice on the road then (in my book) that represents the "rights" of society at large. They may be seen by individuals as rights and as responsibilities and as restrictions... BUT THEY APPLY TO ALL."

You may, of course, use the semantic construction you choose, so long as you recognize and acknowledge the implications of your words. For example: another way to look at it is that "law determining behavior and safe practice on the road" is intended to protect the rights of individuals to safely use the road without infringement by other individuals.

Of course they apply to all: they'd durn well better.

Is the individual subordinate to society, or is the individual sovereign and possessed of inalienable natural rights (i.e., rights conferred by "Nature and Nature's God," as we say in the States)? If the latter, the individual consents to delegate certain powers, mostly regarding the initiation of force, to an agent in the form of the State, in return for enjoying the benefits of society. A single individual in the state of nature need concede nothing to anyone; this is why natural rights are so extensive as to be unenumerable.

However, we recognize that individual humans do not exist in the state of nature. What we call "society" is merely the spectrum of human interaction.

(Part II follows)
Ken | Homepage | 08.26.05 - 10:56 am | #

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

Part II

"They believe, for example, that it is their RIGHT to drive as fast as they wish (the "My rights are RIGHTS" argument). That ignores completely any consideration for my "right" to safely travel on the road."

"They" are simply wrong. They do not have--no one has--the right to act in a manner likely to endanger the natural rights (among them life, liberty, and property) of others...unless the war of all against all is the society you're proposing. The probligo is clearly not doing that, so we're back to the conjoined questions of "who is this 'society'?" and "by what criteria do we determine what rights the individual within society enjoys?"

Which, I believe, has been rendered a settled question by a proper expression (there are many who are better at it than I) and understanding of natural rights. Rights existed before society; rights exist independent of society. I believe that where we differ, if we do, is upon the how many natural rights the individual should expect to surrender to society.
Ken | Homepage | 08.26.05 - 10:57 am | #

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

I got about 2 cent for the ACLU and 98% of it is not complimentary unless you consider dung complimentary.
ron | Homepage | 08.27.05 - 3:16 pm | #

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

Ken, actually, you are fooling yourself. Probligo believes the exact opposite of what you and I believe. He believes that society grants the individuals within it "rights", although how he can have the temerity to call such things rights is beyond me.

Probligo, I'm sorry if you don't like complex thoughts and sentence structure, or words of more than two syllables, but I have no intention of changing how I write, the words I use, or the things I say just because they aren't simple enough.

For those reading this who are interested in a better understanding of this, see the debate over societal morals on my blog, which Probligo participated in. Note that he actually said that something is moral if the majority vote for it.
Eric | Homepage | 08.27.05 - 7:41 pm | #

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

Oh yeah, Probligo, you still refuse to answer my questions, why is that?

- Why do you always automatically resort to charging those who wish to reduce government and increase personal freedom with being greedy and selfish and self-centered?

- Why are those bad things?

- Why do you always change the issue at hand and then act as if we attacked you about that issue, when we actually did not? For example, your car on the road example is pretty silly, as is your "libertarian christian" bit ...... since, and I can't speak for the others, I am actually neither of those things. Your car example has no bearing on the discussion, but you act as if you were personally attacked. Your home and property and views example is somewhat better, but only barely, because you are still demanding that one individual can dictate what another will do with his property, or that society can. I'll tell you what you do. My father-in-law's house has a beautiful view over an agricultural valley (he lives on top of a hill). It was possible to block his view by building a house on the next plot of land down the hill. So, he bought it. Now, no one can build there, his view can't be blocked, he's happy. You have to decide if it is worth it to you, or not. If it isn't, then whining to society to fix it for you for free is just that, whining.
Eric | Homepage | 08.27.05 - 7:46 pm | #

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

Eric, I was trying to be charitable, in the Augustinian sense of the term.
Ken Hall | Homepage | 08.27.05 - 11:25 pm | #

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

I can't understand how Probligo got the idea that I said it's okay to blow up my neighbor's building, when I clearly said it's not okay for my neighbor to endanger my life, health or property by building a bomb in his own basement.

I consider my principles to be facets of an organic whole. I even gave you the bases of my political and moral beliefs, the rest of which can be deduced in hierarchical order (in order according to their universal or specific applicability).

Unlike socialists, libertarians don't believe in starting absolutely from scratch. Not even arch-anarcho-capitalists like Murray Rothbard. Nor the founder of Objectivism, Ayn Rand.

Humans have discovered tons of information about the way people respond to stimuli, and I believe that Rothbard's and Rand's theories describe the proper course best.

I'm not the one to deal with on the issue of their differences. I don't have time to become a true philosopher, but I have to admit that I'm inclined to go with the orthodox Randians when I see a conflict. Though I think their outright rejection of anarcho-capitalism is premature.

Neither theory requires you to passively accept a real threat from your neighbor, nor do they allow you to INITIATE such a threat against him.

Eric, your father-in-law's example is the one I insist everyone follow.
Old Whig | Homepage | 08.27.05 - 11:50 pm | #

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

This is long, and I make no apologies...

"Why do you always automatically resort to charging those who wish to reduce government and increase personal freedom with being greedy and selfish and self-centered? "

Because I have become accustomed to hearing those promoting "less government and greater freedom" using the "less taxes and greater charity" as justification.

What "greater freedoms and rights" are you asking for this week? In Roberts case it was so he could pay less taxes. As my comment in the original post came from that debate I (perhaps mistakenly) thought that it was pertinent to the issue at hand.

Does that answer the question for you?

"Does the individual petition society for a given set of rights? More to the point, what is society? Society is made up of individuals, at least in Western cultures."

Yes, that is one route.

The most effective route is by voting for the people who are going to bring those greater "rights" and "freedoms".

Yes, we agree on one thing - society is made up of individuals. But if you want the rights and freedoms of one individual to be changed, then that change must apply to all.

NO?

Of course they apply to all: they'd durn well better.

So, the imposition of a speed limit and rules of the road is not an infringement of your rights? It is not "too much government"?

Rights existed before society; rights exist independent of society. I believe that where we differ, if we do, is upon the how many natural rights the individual should expect to surrender to society.

In the early days of our civilisation it was one of the rights of the local laird to go out and de-flower the girls of his fiefdom. Remember that part early in Braveheart? Quite factual. It happened like that. If that is a "natural right", is it right? It existed before our society, so it must be.

So we get to the heart of the problem, for example the "right to property".

I used the traffic "law of the road" to illustrate that there is a need for laws and rights to be imposed by society with the intent that no one person should have "greater rights" than another.

On that basis I dispute that an individual can claim to have rights which impact upon the property of others and the enjoyment of that property.

Another example if I may.

I buy a 10 acre property with a view of the Rockies. My next door neighbour builds his house directly between my house and the view. As my house is a "little further up the hill than his" I divert my sewerage outfall so that it drains directly opposite his back door.

In NZ, that would be illegal. Do you see it as a result of the "greater rights and freedoms" of property that you seek? I ask the question, because like all of my examples they are two way streets.

The continual thread behind my whole argument is that where ever you go, whatever you do, there will
probligo | Homepage | 08.28.05 - 2:51 am | #

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

Cont'd

The continual thread behind my whole argument is that where ever you go, whatever you do, there will always be some impact upon others around you unless of course you can find an uninhabited tropical island somewhere...

THEREFORE -

Society as a whole has the right to govern the rights and the freedoms that you seek. And there I use the magic word - "govern" implying of course "government".

So, here we go again -

What greater freedoms and rights do you seek - that can be applied to the whole of society?

Freedom from having your city take land for a private development?

That is not freedom and rights. THAT IS BAD LAW. Get the law changed.

What greater freedoms and rights do you seek - that can be applied to the whole of society?
probligo | Homepage | 08.28.05 - 2:53 am | #

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

May I invite all you guys to come to Singapore and have a go at our wonderful legal system? Our judges will tell you who is right. We don't rely on no juries and trust me - our judges are good! So no need to argue. Come here and hire our best lawyers (known as senior counsels) and let them fight your cases.
Teflon Man | Homepage | 08.28.05 - 3:09 am | #

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

Oh yes, so long as you leave graffiti only on Al's comments pages and not on our walls, we'll not whip you on your @$$#$.
Teflon Man | Homepage | 08.28.05 - 3:10 am | #

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

the probligo: What "greater freedoms and rights" are you asking for this week? In Roberts case it was so he could pay less taxes.

Judging by those two sentences alone, it seems that you still—after much back and forth—fail to get the point. Firstly, inherent rights are a constant, which means that they do not change from week to week or from one majority to the next. Every individual (American, New Zealander, et al) is possessed of the right to life, liberty and property. Therefore, it is flatly immoral for a state, community or even a local mob to impinge upon those rights…regardless of whether or not ‘duly elected’ officials pass laws to that end. Furthermore, your ‘state solution’ for land use is misguided. Can you not appreciate the distinction between actual harm and perceived harm? Simply having your view obstructed is hardly an actionable offense.

With respect to taxation, my view is not overly complex. Since I don’t advocate for the immediate abolition of the state (although I do advocate for an irreducibly minimal state), I realize that some limited tax is necessary to fund the ‘essentials’ of government. Needless to say, the level of taxation that you seek is not at all essential. In other words, inordinately high taxation, progressive tax schemes and the like are invariably designed to achieve some degree of ‘social justice’ (extortion for redistribution), which is far from just in my view.
Robert | Homepage | 08.28.05 - 2:16 pm | #

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

"possessed of the right to life, liberty and property. "

That, Robert, is not at dispute.

The point which you and others are either too stubborn or too blind to debate rationally is this -

In the realms of "personal eminent domain" do you honestly think that there should be no bounds to those rights.

I keep throwing examples, I know. I am trying to spur some logical and meaningful debate into the boundaries of your envisaged property rights and no one has yet taken up the challenge.

Another -

Your next door neighbour sets up a toxic waste dump on his property. He is storing, processing and burning heavy metals including lead, cadmium and mercury, and is burning off production waste from a herbicide plant. Do you have any rights?

Another -

Your next door neighbour starts up a panel beating shop. He is an industrious person and works a six day week, fourteen hours a day. Do you have any rights?

Why the examples? Because I am not worried about your right to do whatever you want on your property.

My concern is just where do you see my rights in relation to "doing harm" to me or to my property
probligo | Homepage | 08.28.05 - 5:11 pm | #

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

Probligo, Robert gave you an answer. The answer is that my rights stop a centimeter from your nose. I may behave as I choose until such time as I harm someone else's life, liberty or property. We have said this to you numerous times, but you don't, apparently, like this answer. You keep pushing at it, trying, I think, to get us to say that we would somehow agree with you. That we would be willing to foreswear our principles for our convenience.

Now, as to your two examples given this time. In the first example, it is quite similar to the "storing explosives" example that has been bandied about. In fact, it's actually worse. Unless my neighbor has invested heavily in appropriate systems to contain the toxic waste, the likelihood of damage to my property or injury to my person is about 100%. His ability to do as he wishes with his property has to be curtailed when it infringes on my rights. I, of course, have rights, the right to my life, liberty and property. And I have an expectation, in a limited constitutional republic, that my government will act to protect those rights. In the process curtailing my neighbor's rights because of the exceptionally high potential of harm to others.

In your second example there just isn't enough information to decide. Has he damaged my property values? Is this area one with businesses in it, or is it all residential? Of course I have my rights, as always, to life, liberty and property.

Do I, in either of these cases, have a "right" to force my neighbor to stop doing whatever they are doing? No. I have an expectation that they will not infringe on my rights and if they do, that I can use the collective force of government to prevent them from infringing on my rights.
Eric | Homepage | 08.28.05 - 7:06 pm | #

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

Probligo said:

Because I have become accustomed to hearing those promoting "less government and greater freedom" using the "less taxes and greater charity" as justification.

Ask, and ye shall, etc....

GLENVIEW, Il. -- Estimated charitable giving reached $248.52 billion for 2004, a new record for philanthropic giving in the United States, the Giving USA Foundation announced today. The new Giving USA report released today is the 50th anniversary edition of the yearbook of philanthropy. Giving USA is published by the Giving USA Foundation and researched and written at the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University.

Contributions made in 2004 for relief after the December 26 tsunami that devastated the regions surrounding the Indian Ocean are a very small portion of the estimated total, less than one-half of 1 percent. Much of the tsunami relief giving will appear in 2005, and, at between $1.5 billion and $2.5 billion, tsunami relief contributions likely will be a low percentage of the total estimated charitable contributions for that year.

Source: http://www.pgdc.com/usa/print_it.../? itemID=282680

Nations all over the world provided over USD 3 billion in aid for damaged regions, with the Australian Government pledging USD 819.9 million (including a USD 760.6 million aid package for Indonesia[62]), the German Government offering USD 660 million, the Japanese Government offering USD 500 million, the Canadian Government offering CAD 425 million, the U.S. Government offering USD 350 million, and the World Bank offering USD 250 million. Officials estimate that billions of dollars will be needed. In mid-March, the Asian Development Bank reported that over USD 4 billion in aid promised by government was behind schedule. Sri Lanka reported that it had received no foreign government aid, while foreign individuals had been generous

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ 200...cean_earthquake

That $250 billion, by the way, is rather more than the $76 billion and change that would be raised by having the UN (ha) collect its 0.7% of GDP global tax, although I grant you it probably lacks the entertainment value that "sticking it to the Americans" would give some people.

More...
Ken Hall | Homepage | 08.28.05 - 8:25 pm | #

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

Having got the fox to break cover, let's go back to the "society" question.

Therefore, the ONLY RIGHTS that an individual can have are those that his society is prepared to allow to all of its individual members. In deciding WHAT RIGHTS to allow, society brings to bear the potential for harm to others that those rights might bring.

Now I do not have the wit nor ability to fully argue that line through all possible circumstances; it is the best that I can do. So rather than criticise the specific example (this to all, not just Kyle) how about some thought on the principle?

Again I ask, who is this "society?" You appear to treat it as something separate from--perhaps imposed upon, perhaps set in authority over--the individual. The way the probligo uses the term leads one to believe that he has in mind a privileged frame of reference, some group better qualified to judge what rights individuals ought to possess than the individuals in question themselves.

That being the case, the question remains: who are these people, and by what right do they get to judge which of our natural rights with which we can be trusted? Is it something other than a presumptive monopoly on the initiation of force?

If there is something else that privileges "society" and its frame of reference, then probligo is obliged to tell us what it is. If it is merely the monopoly on the initiation of force, will the probligo then propose that society take away the self-defense rights of the individual, so that society can work its will and its project unimpededed? Is there a name for that other than tyranny?
Ken Hall | Homepage | 08.28.05 - 8:56 pm | #

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

"...until such time as I harm someone else's life, liberty or property."

So, is sticking a building to block my view damage to my property? According to previous answers, no it is not.

But if it has the effect of halving or more the value of my property, does that constitute damage? According to your answer, that might be...

"I can use the collective force of government to prevent them from infringing on my rights.

Ah, but isn't "less government" and "no government restriction of MY rights" the goals that you seek?

Eric, now we are getting to the point I have been trying to make. I know that it has taken a while, and perhaps some ill feeling.

I don't think that in reality there is all that much difference between what we are saying.

In NZ we have what is known as the RMA - Resource Management Act. "Resource" in this context has the widest possible interpretation that you could possibly put on it. As a control on development and the effective use of resources it is full of good intentions and way OTT on process and control.

So, for example we have at the moment people lodging or seeking the right to lodge objections against a "wind turbine farm" which will be one of the largest in the southern hemisphere. Because it is on a prominent ridgeline the turbines will be visible for some distance.

At the same time, there is an urgent need to build a new high tension power link from the centre of the North Island to Auckland. The proposal is 600kv lines on 45m pylons. The current supply is 400kv on 20m pylons. Those whose properties lie on the proposed path of this new supply do have the right of objection, and compensation. There might be 1200 properties directly affected, say perhaps 5,000 people. Potentially they can delay the project to the point where power supply to 1.5 million people is placed in jeopardy.

In both cases, the law is an ass. In the latter case, I have some sympathy with the people affected.

How do I change it? Not by endless howling in the wind about "natural rights" or anything of that nature.

I change it by finding out what policy the various contenders for government have for changing the RMA. I take that into consideration when casting my vote. So, the Greens are way out of the picture on this issue because they want to make the RMA worse than it already is... (and on a lot of other matters as well).

So, when we come back to it, in some small way (I hope) the eventual shape of the Administration of NZ will reflect either my feelings on what should be done by government. Faint chance I know, but that is the theory...
probligo | Homepage | 08.28.05 - 9:03 pm | #

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

Again I ask, who is this "society?"

Ken, in very simple terms so that you can understand...

The society I speak of is the total of all of the individuals that live in the same neighbourhood, the same city or county, the same nation. The only thing changing in that is scale. In every case we are just simply taking individuals as a group instead of individually.

Is that simple enough?

a privileged frame of reference, some group better qualified to judge what rights individuals ought to possess than the individuals in question themselves.

Umm, put that to G.W. Bush and he would probably agree with the definition of a politician.

That being the case, the question remains: who are these people, and by what right do they get to judge which of our natural rights with which we can be trusted? Is it something other than a presumptive monopoly on [sic] the initiation of force? I take it that should be "or"..

And here was me under the mistaken impression that you might know something about democratically elected governments and democratic process. Silly me.

Oh, and Ken, I do not for a moment dispute the generosity of the American people in the instances that you provide. I never have so done.

The question I ask is "How much of the tax relief you seek is going to be given to charity?"

The next question is "How much would you pay to support the unemployed, or the family of the gambling addict, or the daughter of the drug addict prostitute?

Another question that comes to mind - "How would you make sure that the money you donate goes to the causes you want to support?"

Those are questions directed to the readers personally. Because I want to find out how far their generosity really extends...
probligo | Homepage | 08.28.05 - 9:22 pm | #

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

No, we're far off from each other Probligo, although you may not agree. The previous conversations on my own blog and this conversation indicate just how far off. Building a new whatever, on your own property, that blocks my view of the sea is not damage to my right to property. If I wanted to make sure that view was not obstructed, I had tools to prevent it. Putting a bomb factory in your house is damaging my right to property. Government's are constituted among men (at least in the Anglo Enlightenment philosophy) to protect the individual's rights. Since you believe that "society" has rights, that "society" may determine what my rights are, and that the vote of the majority determines morality, we are far apart, both in theory and in practice.
Eric | Homepage | 08.28.05 - 9:23 pm | #

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

The phrase stands as written: monopoly on the initiation of force, as in "only the state is permitted to initiate force."

Simple terms that I can understand? Pot, Kettle is in reception and copies five by five.

The question I ask is "How much of the tax relief you seek is going to be given to charity?"

You're laboring under the assumption that I owe you an explanation. Perhaps you're society or something.

The next question is "How much would you pay to support the unemployed, or the family of the gambling addict, or the daughter of the drug addict prostitute?

You're laboring under the assumption that I owe you an explanation. Perhaps you're society or something.

Another question that comes to mind - "How would you make sure that the money you donate goes to the causes you want to support?"

Perhaps by giving directly to the charity addressing the issue in question, as opposed to, say, Kofi Annan.

If the Green view wins the day on RMA, what will you do then? To how much rule by others do you consent? Those of us who "howl in the wind about natural rights" have a saying: soap box, ballot box, jury box, cartridge box.
Ken | Homepage | 08.28.05 - 9:59 pm | #

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

Hmm. HaloScan blew me out when I accurately described my relationship with the worst SOB I ever knew. (In another context, and it wasn't pretty.)

I grant that Democracy is an important principle for human flourishing. Democracy, of course assumes that Those Opposed are willing to accept the verdict of Those In Favor.

We who live by The Cowboy Way are rather disinclined to include voters who don't have a "dog in the hunt." I'm sure you've found yourself frozen out of conversations when you voiced your opinion to a group and everybody looked at you as if you were some kind of bug, then went on as if you had been swatted.

Probligo, you continue to argue as if you were trying to shame the purist anarchists into coming over to your side. If you're interested in merely winning your points, with yourself as the line judge as well as a competitor, I guess your method works for you. But if you're interested in converting us to your philosophy, you need to understand us and not take the most bizarre interpretation of our viewpoint as representing what we're looking for.

You appear to be looking for a divide-and-conquer victory here, rather than a rational victory--a win for the most honest understanding of the evidence.
Old Whig | Homepage | 08.28.05 - 11:41 pm | #

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

Al, I intended not adding anything further to this but you got me.

I have already confessed that I have not wit nor ability to argue fine lines on matters such as these.

I do not wish to convert anyone to "my philosophy". That is mine and you and others will develop your own. It does not make me like what I hear being touted.

Yes, perhaps taking "bizarre interpretations" might seem to be counter-productive but - apart from yourself Al - the reasonable gets ignored or dismissed out of hand. IF the contention on "property rights" is correct, then surely MY rights should be equal with those of my neighbour.

If something that you do on your property affects me then I should have some course for redress. Similarly if something I do affects your property then you should have that same right.

NOWHERE in this debate or in others have I seen that acknowledged.

The way that property rights are discussed here and elsewhere that mirror of rights will not exist.

"I have my natural rights of property. I can do whatever you danged well like. If you don't like it - stiff."

Perhaps Ken is getting there slowly with cryptic comments like this one -

"If I wanted to make sure that view was not obstructed, I had tools to prevent it."

An example please Ken?

And so that Ken does not accuse me again of not answering questions -

"If the Green view wins the day on RMA, what will you do then? To how much rule by others do you consent?"

Very simple Ken, they will not. They have only 5% of the vote at present.

There are proposals to amend (extensively) the RMA. Some of the proposals being touted at the other end of the scale are equally as extreme. When the Government amendments (or complete rewrite) are released I shall read and consider, then I may make submissions to the Select Committee considering the changes as part of a group or as an individual. I can write to my Representative, the other Members of Parliament (for what good that might do). If the outcome is bad enough then I might shift to Vanuatu or even (hackbarfcough) to Australia.

But essentially, that is how law is made in this country. Everyone with the right to vote has the right to be heard on any legislation before the House with only very few exceptions - taxation and declaring war being two.

The Labour Party should (if there is any justice in the democratic system) learn from these elections that they had stopped listening to the people who matter. That should, if there is any justice, be their deathknell.
probligo | Homepage | 08.29.05 - 2:18 am | #

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

I think wires are crossing, Probligo. I didn't make the "tools" statement, and it wasn't me who accused you of not answering questions (for clarity's sake). Forgive my being a stickler.

Back to the RMA: the Greens have only 5% of the vote at present. What about the future? Perhaps their share of the vote is unlikely to grow, but does that assure you that some future (perhaps even near-future) government who really needs that 5% to stay in power won't horse-trade a Green RMA to get them?

The point of this tirade? Tyranny of the majority is no less tyranny than any other form. The solution is a government of carefully limited and enumerated powers. It will never be perfect, because we are a fallen race and perfection is impossible, but all the other forms are worse. History is littered with the evidence, in the form of mountains upon mountains of skulls.

There are proposals to amend (extensively) the RMA. Some of the proposals being touted at the other end of the scale are equally as extreme. When the Government amendments (or complete rewrite) are released I shall read and consider, then I may make submissions to the Select Committee considering the changes as part of a group or as an individual. I can write to my Representative, the other Members of Parliament (for what good that might do). If the outcome is bad enough then I might shift to Vanuatu or even (hackbarfcough) to Australia.

But essentially, that is how law is made in this country. Everyone with the right to vote has the right to be heard on any legislation before the House with only very few exceptions - taxation and declaring war being two.

The Labour Party should (if there is any justice in the democratic system) learn from these elections that they had stopped listening to the people who matter. That should, if there is any justice, be their deathknell.

In all seriousness, if it comes to that you ought to come to the United States instead.

Putting that aside, your problem with the Labour Party suggests that possibly, at bottom, your politicians are used to dealing with subjects, not citizens. You might enjoy teaching them the difference. It certainly should be their death knell, but making it so is up to you.

Here in the States, we can't realistically consider folding tents and going elsewhere in response to liberties lost. Where would we go--Switzerland?

Continued...
Ken | Homepage | 08.29.05 - 8:49 am | #

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

Now to your examples: You're talking about offloaded negative externalities. The bomb factory and the toxic waste dump certainly offer harm to your property, by limiting the economic uses to which your property may be put.

Blocking the view? A bit harder to sustain, even if your economic use involves an inn, part of the selling point of which is the view. You have readily available alternative economic uses. In any case, someone blocking one's view is one thing. If something else spoils the view--say, something that makes less attractive whatever one is viewing--would one have recourse? Not likely.

We can't cover all the cases, not least because you cannot possibly legislate every possible instance of mischief to which human nature may sink. That has always been true, and governments without limits on their powers have been no more useful at preventing it than limited governments--and the other consequences of unlimited government are far worse.

This has been quite an exercise. Thank you for staying in the game, Probligo, the more so because you are nearly alone in arguing your position here. That takes sand, and I respect it. I would, however, take the opportunity to point out that the best place to be a minority is among libertarians--because we recognize that each of us is inevitably a minority of one, sooner or later.
Ken | Homepage | 08.29.05 - 8:55 am | #

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

I'm from Singapore. Rights is a concept that is foreign to many Singaporeans. We don't have overt freedoms - you have yours provided for by your Constitution. But despite these, it does not make me ignorant of this discussion.

I think what everyone else is trying to tell someone is that with rights come responsibilities.

You have the right to do whatever you want, but you are also responsible for any fall out arising from your actions.

Your founding fathers had shown this - George Washington had the right to pick up an ax to chop down an apple (or was it cherry) tree. But he had the moral responsiblity to own up to his act when asked.

Aren't many of you asking for some kind of accountablity from President George Bush for his Ops Iraq Freedom now?
Teflon Man | Homepage | 08.29.05 - 9:12 am | #

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

Teflon Man, those rights belong to you and your countrymen as well. It's just that your government has a vested interest in preserving the fiction that government is the source of rights.

As I understand it, Singapore has already made progress in the last decade. Keep the feet of your putative masters to the fire!

The Constitution doesn't provide us with our rights, God Almighty (substitute Nature and Nature's God or whatever makes you more comfortable, if necessary) does; He did the same for you. It's up to you, though, to secure them. As the Russian proverb supposedly goes, "Pray to God...but row for shore."
Ken | Homepage | 08.29.05 - 1:53 pm | #

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

Ken, it's interesting how you see "rights". Actually, our rights are there, as you've rightly pointed out. But the space to exercise the rights is limited - this is inevitable in a nascent nation striving to have western modernity and overall prosperity WITHOUT compromising on our traditionalist asian/oriental confucianst roots.

By and large, any law-abiding, sensible person in Singapore will have no problems with this "limited creative space". You should come here and see for yourself. And yes, too, we are learning to loosen up. :D

As for who actually gave us those rights, I'm not going to comment because we each hold different views. Just to say that I'm largely, if not fully, in agreement with most of your statements. I only thought that the idea of responsibilities coming with rights was somewhat missing (or not overtly stated).
Teflon Man | Homepage | 08.30.05 - 6:24 am | #

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

Ken, thanks for the invite which I will decline at this time. I have no intention of spoiling my current 30 plus years record as resident political cynic.

Mind you, I could still be tempted but it would take a few fundamental changes in outlook.

For a start, one does not win support for your cause by telling those who disagree with you that they are "wrong" or "collectivists".
probligo | Homepage | 08.30.05 - 4:36 pm | #

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

Sorry Ken, the last sentence was not aimed specifically at you but at some of the well meaning and sincere people who support the libertarian cause.

They will know who they are...
probligo | Homepage | 08.30.05 - 5:09 pm | #

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

Thanks, guys, for holding up the blog while I tried to catch up with the lawn, the emails, some computer problems, homework...

And, of course family time, which is asserting itself right now.

Morality and responsibility--same thing in my book. Inefficacious behavior is often, at least, also immoral.

I guess I'll have to just let that awful sentence ride.

Hopefully, I can get a new post up later tonight.
Old Whig | Homepage | 08.30.05 - 9:17 pm | #

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

Teflon: "I only thought that the idea of responsibilities coming with rights was somewhat missing (or not overtly stated)."

I think it is primarily not overtly stated. For many of us, we live in a 300 year Anglo-American tradition where rights and responsibilities are assumed to go hand in hand. If you the right to liberty means you can do as you please so long as you don't infringe on another's rights, then the responsibility to not infringe on another's rights is implied, yes? Just as an example. Another one. If, as part of your right to life you have the right to own weapons to defend your life, then you have an implied responsibility to be accountable for your use of those weapons.

Probligo, when you express something that sounds collectivist, what do you expect me to do? Just go along and say "gee, that's nice, we'll just stretch the definition of individualism to cover that"? This is the sort of thing that has led us to where we are today. Not all of it, naturally, but a big portion. I can be politically correct, but we won't get anywhere.
Eric | Homepage | 09.06.05 - 5:07 pm | #

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

My training in rhetoric and marketing suggests that the old saw "you can't catch flies with vinegar" might be useful here. Eric speaks a language I'm well familiar with, so let me take a step toward Probligo.

Brother Probligo would like us to consider the view from his angle. Aristotle would consider that a very reasonable request; he ran through all the strongest arguments of his predecessors, and carefully refuted them, before presenting his own.

My rhetoric instructor insisted that it was important that we expect our opponent to be a person of good will. There errors must be errors of logic, not attempts at deception. It is up to us to point out the errors and correct them.

Of course, it is possible that some of our opponents are well aware of all the rhetorical tricks and want to confuse logical arguers long enough for the rabble to kill us...

So... God has left us on our own.

How does The Truth win?
Old Whig | Homepage | 09.07.05 - 11:30 pm | #

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

I mentioned on my other blog that I've been checking out books on getting rich.

Michael Masterson seems to have the most practical advice in his books Confessions of a Self-Made Millionaire, which is a compilation of articles from his Early To Rise Newsletter (only available through them, apparently, but you can read about it here), and Automatic Wealth: The 6 Steps to Financial Indpendence. There's an article using the latter as a take off point by Hal Cranmer at LewRockwell.com. Here's the first paragraph:

This is not a book review. Michael Masterson's new book, Automatic Wealth: The Six Steps to Financial Independence inspired me to write an article because it illustrates the tremendous potential and performance of the free market economy. With a title such as Automatic Wealth, one would expect the book to describe how to swell your bank account, and it does not disappoint. Mr. Masterson's techniques for becoming financially independent seem very sound to me (who is not, currently, financially independent) and I am already starting to follow his advice. Yet the highlight of the book for me was the non-monetary aspects of wealth. He shows how wealth can take many forms, and it is up to the individual to achieve his own brand of wealth.

I'm also still reading Napoleon Hill's Think and Grow Rich (sign up there for a free ebook copy--don't worry, they're not evil spammers) and Wallace Wattles' The Science of Growing Rich (same deal). Science was a more elastic term a hundred years ago, but beyond that both books provide good inspiration for creating a plan and sticking to it. But Masterson puts the most meat on the bones of the plan. And shows that you don't have to have your mind, soul and/or spirit perfectly aligned to achieve financial independence.

I've profited in my intellectual, spiritual* and otherwise personal development from reading all three writers. Hopefully soon we'll start seeing some additions to the bottom line.

*I couldn't stop thinking of Omni as I was reading Wattles. He dwells intensively on the spiritual side of wealth creation.

I'm such a nerd!

I love these damn quizzes:

I am 33% Hippie.

I need to step away from the tie-dye. I smell too good to be a hippie and my dad is probably a cop. Being a hippie is not a fashion craze, man. It was a way of life, in the 60’s, man.

Take the
Hippie Test
@ FualiDotCom

Ayn Rand called Libertarians "Hippies of the Right." It'd be nice if old hippies would eschew the initiation of violence - including destruction of property - to the extent that Libertarians do.

Well, cripes! It's about time I said something over here, eh?

Since the great Anti-Steve Confab 2005 in Danbury, perhaps I should mention where other rendezvouse will be this year. (Thus notifying the local criminal element when they can feel free to loot our home. I'll just catalog the available pillage in a footnote.) Let's see:

Danbury's done. I think that was the only 'shooting event' we'd registered for.

The White Oak Rendezvous in Deer River, MN - 10 miles west of Grand Rapids - is in two weeks.

Grand Portage, which promises to be a much cooler event - it's up by the Canadian Border on Lake Superior (my favorite event, so far) - is one week after that.

And in September is Pine City's Fall Gathering. That one is actually about the same distance from Baraboo and Janesville as Forts Folle Avoine. It's even closer to most parts of Iowa.

If any of the Burri family show up in Voyageur gear (which is all the entry fee they require - $8.00 otherwise, though "Flatlanders" don't get to compete) to challenge me in the stone-throw, I'll have to unleash my full shot-putting form. I've seen that physique now. You'll get no mercy from me.

Jureks need to take notice as well. I don't know how those boys got so darned big. Their parents are tiny. I don't mind their girls winning all the skill contests, 'cause their all so darned cute, but what's up with all these super-jock guys springing from their...uh, progeny?

And for Portage, I need to start working on my fire-starting skills. And gunk-drinking. ...And bearded-gal-kissing. (The latter, I can work on in the mirror.)

I've made it a rule to make one out of c. 3.5 posts over here.

So here I am, trying to think "nouveau riche" thoughts...scratching my belly (mosquito bite)... that sort of thing.

I notice somebody did a special search for a particular picture of my daughter. I'll have a couple of pictures for you, when I get new batteries for my camera. You might want to explain yourself, but don't do it in person. If I see you, I'll... Well, the authorities would take a dim view of it.

My physique is on display on the web. I ran two and a half miles this morning. The picture will be of me curling my 60 pound dumbells.

Oh, and I joined the Gunowners of America because I think the NRA are wimps.

Fair Market Value

That's the price that money-grubbing, envy-consumed, A-hole of a neighbor can be bought for. That wasn't his dream home after all. He wasn't born and raised there. It's just a flop-house. An investment. A starter home.

I just wanna fix this up enough to make a down payment on someplace decent.

Can a Bourgeois Philistine blame a guy for such a motivation? Hell no! But I've already mentioned two other motives for buying a house. I think it's rather strange that the "liberal" members of the US Supreme Court - the defenders of the "little guy" - refuse to take non-monetary considerations - passions! - into consideration.

Let me, right here, right now, coin the term "micro-culture" in defense of little urban neighborhoods that are destroyed by local governments in the name of progress. Every neighborhood has its own culture...its own traditions...the older the neighborhood, the better developed are its traditions.

If all cultures and traditions are to be respected by Multiculturalists... What the hell are they asking for?! That they be preserved in museum?! A zoo?!

"Micro-culture" is a palm leaf I'm offering. A compromise... I'm willing to accept the standards of the community, radical individualist that I am. In my college Cultural Anthropology class, the professor said that it's almost impossible to know more than 125 people on a personal basis. How many Cultural Anthropologists vote Republican or Libertarian?

"It takes a village to raise a child." How many villages contain 1500 people, let alone 10, 100, 1,000 or 10,000 times that? A village is a small community whose members all know each other. They love each other. Or, at least, they respect each other well enough not to steal or destroy each others' property.

If your neighbor cares about something, do you smash it? Do you expect them to love it when you build a beautiful monument (to something else) in its place? If you do, you don't care about your neighbor at all; their life or death is no concern of yours. Their dreams and ambitions and passions are as nothing to you!

You don't care about the little dreams of the little guy.

How can you call yourself a Liberal?

Hey, Omni!

Guys pursue women by proving they can bring home the bacon (literally). Most of the moves required for that don't translate to the stripper pole. The Elmer Fudd costume should never be peeled in public.

I had no idea Mark Cuban was blogging.

Excellently written too. (Think he has an editor?)

If you want to know what a billionaire thinks about, check it out. Especially the April posts. I don't download music and I don't watch basketball, so his May posts were a little less interesting. I think I'll be studying that one.

Disney

Home video became available at the end of the Seventies, so I grew up at a time when you had one shot to see a great movie, and then, if you were lucky it'd be shown on ABC, NBC, CBS or PBS at some indeterminate time after that: at least a year or two.

The good news was that there was "The Wonderful World of Disney" on ABC on Sunday nights. Of course, that only worked until we got into fundamentalist Christianity BIG TIME and our Sunday evenings were booked up.

We were Wesleyans, which I happened to be proud of (though not proud enough to actually proselytize for). Wesleyans are an offshoot of Methodists who broke away because we couldn't abide the thought of slavery. We were abolitionists, whereas those who continued under the name of Methodist were content to await some sort of accommodation via the government. Those who weren't finding rationalizations for slavery in the Bible, that is.

I'm a Lutheran now, but I wouldn't be, if I could convince my wife to go to the local Wesleyan Church in Fridley, MN. (Just south of I-694, between Central Ave. and University Ave.) I wouldn't accept Lutheran teaching if I found it incompatible with the way I was raised, but the fact is... It's good. I've enjoyed all the sermons of all three of our pastors (so far), especially the new guy! I really like the way he sticks to the Biblical text, only diverging into personal tales about their application in his own life.

Whoa!! That should have been a separate post. The only reason I don't do it now is because I doubt that I'll get this material into a post later.

I was talking about Disney movies. Was Winnie the Pooh a Disney movie? I could find it here - I've probably stomped on it 10 times in the past month - but it's not worth it to look for it now. That was the first movie I remember seeing. And, I'm told, I spent half the movie crying in the lobby. I suspect "half" was an exaggeration, because, when we bought the Video, I remembered almost all of it.

But, alas, Winnie the Pooh was pretty much the last of Walt's efforts. I remember people bitching about what he did to weaken the morals of "Little Red Riding Hood" and others of the Grimms' Fairy Tales, which were all about avoiding wild animals, perverts, rapists and mass murderers (especially if they lived under bridges). But what Disney produced in the Seventies would have driven Walt to homicide himself. Look at Rescuers: the art is almost as bad as Hanna-Barbara. The actors who played the voices are fine: Bob Newhart, Zsa Zsa Gabor, a bunch of people I would have recognized at first utterance in 1976, but have completely forgotten now (except that I know I knew them then), et al.

I mean, For God's Sake! How in the Hell did anyone think that this movie belonged in the same genre as "Sleeping Beauty?"! I mean, it's not completely awful, like, say, "Morons from Outer Space," but it's nowhere near the quality of a "Pocahantas."

The advent of "Star Wars" was very much welcome after all that dreck, and I still feel enough gratitude that I will see the last prequel of that series, with the memories of the "heroes" and anti-heroes of early- and mid-Seventies movies and TV as my comparisons.

Steppenwolf? F*** me to tears!! I'll take Luke Skywalker any day!

Yeah, that's why I don't need Sartre.

Or Heideggar or Kierkegaard.

You scored as Existentialist. Existentialism emphasizes human capability. There is no greater power interfering with life and thus it is up to us to make things happen. Sometimes considered a negative and depressing world view, your optimism towards human accomplishment is immense. Mankind is condemned to be free and must accept the responsibility. Existentialist 81% Cultural Creative 63% Materialist 50% Postmodernist 44% Modernist 38% Fundamentalist 38% Idealist 31% Romanticist 25% What is Your World View? (corrected...again) created with QuizFarm.com

I don't consider it a condemnation that we're free, I consider it a blessing, as is the responsibility that comes with it to make a good thing of yourself. Rather than a bad thing... or a dead thing.

Yeah, Baby!! We are on the way!!

The competition for space tourists is heating up.

This is the way progress works: first, the people with plenty of money and leisure time buy the cool stuff (and take all the safety, financial and social risks), then the products and services are refined, costs are reduced, competition reduces prices and the rest of us get our shot at it.

Be patient: if you don't get to take a turn, be joyful that your descendants will.

I WIN!!!

I was afraid I was gonna be Princess Leia (I wanna sleep with her, not dress like her) or R2D2. At least I came off manly enough to be Luke.

This character is definitely bourgeois,

Clarence Cochran is a shopkeeper, after all. I wonder what his artistic preferences are.

David Carson, 20, of West Memphis fired four shots at Cochran with a. 45-caliber pistol, police said. One bullet struck Cochran in the left chest area, tearing through his diaphragm and liver before passing out his lower back. [ed. note: Ow! Ow-ow-ow-ow! Ow!] Cochran fired back with his. 38-caliber revolver. One shot struck Carson in the head, killing him.

A second assailant, whom police have named on an arrest warrant as Antonio Bass, 21, fled after he was shot in the shoulder by Cochran. He is still at large.

Within a day of the shootout, Crittenden County sheriff's investigator Ed Laxton assured Cochran's family that he wouldn’t face criminal charges.

I also wonder why this article says that Antonio Bass was captured upon seeking treatment, while this recent article I've quoted says he's still at large.

Philistia goes down 10-zip to the Long Hairs

I got a pack of 10 Classical Music CDs at Sam's Club about a month ago, for about 20 bucks, and it's fantastic. I've discovered that there are five guys who put out stuff that you like right off the bat: Mozart, Vivaldi, Handel, Bach and Beethoven. Make it six; Tchaikovsky belongs there too.

Unfortunately the version of Pachelbel's Canon on the set is played too fast. It certainly shows off the skill of the musicians, and no doubt helps them stay awake after their ten-thousandth performance of it, but it loses its beauty.

The good news for bored musicians is that we have machines to do that now.

[A too-little, too-late, late-inning solo homer for the Philistines.]

AAGH! They booted Scotty!!

That dude sang On Broadway as well as it's ever been done! After last night's performance, Anthony deserved the boot.

I think all of 'em deserve a professional career like the one Constantine got [he was as good as Vonzell, at least, and better than either Scott or Anthony]. Kerry and Bo are the top two, and Bo is really the best.

But, I might seriously consider paying to see any of them, with a good band and arrangements.

I was going to say that NASA's getting on the stick

but it's another group, the B612 Foundation: they had a guy testifying to the Senate that we need to start moving asteroids around now, before they start moving us around.

Geez, that was a year ago. I wondering if anything's going on.

More Beautiful Sunday news.

Hopefully I'll come up with more to say than photo-chronologizing [that's not a word, sorry - your teacher will call it 'non-standard']



What the heck is wrong with my hydrangeas?



Bad soil?

Anyway, it was cold - low 50s - but very pretty. We played outside for about 3 hours. Rosie has a rock collection in her "tree-house," so we examined that quite a bit. I'm only good enough to classify rocks as igneous, metamorphic and/or sedimentary. And I can recognize quartz and calcium.

A bourgeois Sunday afternoon.

Sunday morning the youth group put on a musical in place of the service. We've got a girl in our church that needs to be on American Idol. She can belt out a jazz tune as well as I've ever heard - absolutely relaxed, smiling.

You'll see her name in public soon, but I don't feel the right to publish it.

The rest of the kids are all very good, and several may go into music and/or drama for a living. They had to memorize a lot of the gospel to do that play. The central character has a beautiful voice as well, and I was sad that we didn't hear more of it.

Well, I'd like to go into more detail, for my own benefit if nothing else, but it's Rosie's turn to play on the computer.

Since there are no pictures here, I'll do a pic-post of my beautiful Sunday.

Well, first we raced around like maniacs, getting ready for church. Laurie had to teach Sunday school, so I had the baby to myself and she's getting both rammier and more obedient. I should call her a toddler now, since she's been toddling for a while.

I call this "That's my baby...and her mess." Just try to kick back and relax after church on Sunday, and this is what you get.



Kneeling to beg my forgiveness.

I tend to just revel in watching my babies grow, and don't think of sharing that news. Rosie's a good reader and speller, too. She was rereading All Because of Winn-Dixie today.

Finally we decided she needed to get out of the house:



See the bubble? Aliina did:



The day closed with this vision:



This picture isn't mine, but I know who it belongs to, and I know the kid. But it deserves iconic status. I didn't experience this emotion today. It's called Bunny Frustrated:



Thanks to ImageShack for [URL=http://www.imageshack.us]Free Image Hosting[/URL]

Well, here we go!

A simple quiz for everyone. I am

46 years 9 months younger than Walter Cronkite, age 88
42 years 1 month younger than Nancy Reagan, age 83
39 years 2 months younger than George Herbert Bush, age 80
31 years 11 months younger than Barbara Walters, age 73
29 years 9 months younger than Larry King, age 71
23 years 6 months younger than Ted Koppel, age 65
20 years 1 month younger than Geraldo Rivera, age 61
17 years 1 month younger than George W. Bush, age 58
12 years 1 month younger than Jesse Ventura, age 53
7 years 10 months younger than Bill Gates, age 49
3 years 0 months younger than Cal Ripken Jr., age 44
2 years 11 months older than Mike Tyson, age 38
6 years 11 months older than Jennifer Lopez, age 34
12 years 5 months older than Tiger Woods, age 29
18 years 10 months older than Prince William, age 22



and that you were:
38 years old at the time of the 9-11 attack on America
36 years old on the first day of Y2K
34 years old when Princess Diana was killed in a car crash
31 years old at the time of Oklahoma City bombing
30 years old when O. J. Simpson was charged with murder
29 years old at the time of the 93 bombing of the World Trade Center
27 years old when Operation Desert Storm began
26 years old during the fall of the Berlin Wall
22 years old when the space shuttle Challenger exploded
20 years old when Apple introduced the Macintosh
19 years old during Sally Ride's travel in space
17 years old when Pres. Reagan was shot by John Hinckley, Jr.
16 years old at the time the Iran hostage crisis began
12 years old on the U.S.'s bicentennial Fourth of July
10 years old when President Nixon left office
8 years old when Alabama Gov. George C. Wallace was shot
5 years old at the time the first man stepped on the moon
4 years old when Martin Luther King Jr was assassinated
a 1 year old during the Watts riot
not yet 1 year old at the time President Kennedy was assassinated

I'm most disturbed to find that I'm

9 years 4 months older than Alyssa Milano, age 32
20 years 0 months older than Mila Kunis, age 21

I've been hot for both of them since I first saw them.

I might be a philistine, but I wouldn't go this far

I mean, liking the best stuff from the 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th centuries is hardly anti-bourgeois, and can in no wise be taken as avant garde.

Watch your asses, now!

An incident from Two Years Before the Mast that I had forgotten:

The night after this event, when I went to the galley to get a light, I found the cook inclined to be talkative, so I sat down on the spars, and gave him an opportunity to hold a yarn. I was the more inclined to do so, as I found that he was full of the superstitions once more common among seamen, and which the recent death had waked up in his mind. He talked about George’s having spoken of his friends, and said he believed few men died without having a warning of it, which he supported by a great many stories of dreams, and the unusual behavior of men before death. From this he went on to other superstitions, the Flying Dutchman, etc., and talked rather mysteriously, having something evidently on his mind. At length he put his head out of the galley and looked carefully about to see if any one was within hearing, and being satisfied on that point, asked me in a low tone- 8
"I say! you know what countryman 'e carpenter be?" 9
"Yes," said I, "he's a German." 10
"What kind of a German?" said the cook. 11
"He belongs to Bremen," said I. 12
"Are you sure o' dat?" said he. 13
I satisfied him on that point by saying that he could speak no language but the German and English. 14
"I'm plaguy glad o' dat," said the cook. "I was mighty 'fraid he was a Fin. I tell you what, I been plaguy civil to that man all the voyage. 15
I asked him the reason of this, and found that he was fully possessed with the notion that Fins are wizards, and especially have power over winds and storms. I tried to reason with him about it, but he had the best of all arguments, that from experience, at hand, and was not to be moved. He had been in a vessel to the Sandwich Islands, in which the sail-maker was a Fin, and could do anything he was of a mind to. This sail-maker kept a junk bottle in his berth, which was always just half full of rum, though he got drunk upon it nearly every day. He had seen him sit for hours together, talking to this bottle, which he stood up before him on the table. The same man cut his throat in his berth, and everybody said he was possessed. 16
He had heard of ships, too, beating up the gulf of Finland against a head wind and having a ship heave in sight astern, overhaul and pass them, with as fair a wind as could blow, and all studding-sails out, and find she was from Finland. 17
"Oh, no!" said he; "I’ve seen too much of them men to want to see 'board a ship. If they can't have their own way, they'll play the d--l with you." 18
As I still doubted, he said he would leave it to John, who was the oldest seaman aboard, and would know, if anybody did. John, to be sure, was the oldest, and at the same time the most ignorant, man in the ship; but I consented to have him called. The cook stated the matter to him, and John, as I anticipated, sided with the cook, and said that he himself had been in a ship where they had a head wind for a fortnight, and the captain found out at last that one of the men, whom he had had some hard words with a short time before, was a Fin, and immediately told him if he didn’t stop the head wind he would shut him down in the fore peak. The Fin would not give in, and the captain shut him down in the fore peak, and would not give him anything to eat. The Fin held out for a day and a half, when he could not stand it any longer, and did something or other which brought the wind round again, and they let him up. 19
"There," said the cook, "what you think o' dat?" 20
I told him I had no doubt it was true, and that it would have been odd if the wind had not changed in fifteen days, Fin or no Fin. 21
"Oh," says he, "go 'way! You think, 'cause you been to college, you know better than anybody. You know better than them as has seen it with their own eyes. You wait till you've been to sea as long as I have, and you'll know."