…and this is a 
Ah, poor Wisconsin…our neighboring state to the east, where the people are frail and frightened, and unable to cope with the rigors of reality. (That ought to get a few of them fired up, don't you think?)
There is a little dustup going on in the town of West Bend, Wisconsin. The local bluenoses noticed that there are books that discuss human sexuality in the library — and some of them are even written for teenagers! Teenagers, of course, never think about sex and have no interest in the subject unless some vile prurient publication stirs them up, so the crusaders for purity are stridently demanding that these books be removed from view.
One particular target of their fury is a book by Francesca Lia Block, Baby Be-Bop, which commits the sin of writing positively about young gay men and negatively about gay bashing. A group called the Christian Civil Liberties Union has filed suit over the book, since it exists at the library, and they don't like it.
The plaintiffs, all of whom are elderly, say their mental and emotional well-being were damaged by the book at the Library, the claim states.
That must be one powerful book. It sits on a shelf balefully, emanating damaging gay-rays that permeate the whole town, and disrupting the sexual health of its inhabitants. Perhaps the elderly are especially fragile and sensitive to its effects. Imagine some tired old codger, exhausted after a lifetime of aggressive heterosexuality, sitting in his easy chair before the TV, and suddenly he starts feeling frisky at the sight of Matlock reruns — it must be distressing. And the fault must lie in some kids' book sitting in a library a few miles away, undermining their ancient manliness.
The prudes have created a blog, and it's clear that it isn't just gay sexuality that terrifies them, it's any sexuality. They link to a couple of pages from books that horrify them: they don't like sex ed with illustrations kids can understand, fiction that talks about high school kids' experiences with sex and drugs, or books about female sexuality.
It's pathetic and sad. I shouldn't laugh at Wisconsin too much, though, since this really is the work of a timid minority — the city had a referendum on whether the library should censor these books, and the majority said no. That has just inflamed them, though, and now the puritans are suing for the right to burn books.
It always gets down to that with the knuckle-draggers, doesn't it?
I offer them a compromise. They already have the right to burn books: all they have to do is buy a copy, take it home, and toss it into the fireplace. That's not at all illegal! Unfortunately, what they want is the right to burn other people's books, and I'm sorry, that would be uncivilized.
Comments
Posted by: Watchman | June 16, 2009 10:01 AM
Off-topic, but worth a read:
The Obama Haters' Silent Enablers
Posted by: druidbros
|
June 16, 2009 10:04 AM
Well, I say we drag the court dates out for a year or two and the problem will all go away....OR... we can petition the Shady Acres rest home to start including more fiber in their meals.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | June 16, 2009 10:04 AM
"Christian Civil Liberties Union"
Heh. Irony is so ironic.
Posted by: Heather | June 16, 2009 10:07 AM
Fear and ignorance always seem to go hand in hand. Why aren't these people fearful of what will happen if they keep their kids ignorant about sexuality and reproduction?
I work with HS students. They're interested in sex, and they often experiment. It would be really nice to teach them how to avoid the bad things while not giving them a blanket statement that sex is bad. As a parent, while I don't want my kids to be sexually active RIGHT NOW (well, they're only 10 and 4, so I'm not too worried yet) I do know that they will be active sometime in the future. I would want them to have some information other than the rumors and ideas picked up from their buddies and the TV.
I've seen what happens when kids are kept ignorant. My husband teaches middle school and he had a student who was already a father at age 12. Maybe a nice book with pictures would have helped to avoid that situation, maybe not. I don't think it could have hurt, though.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 16, 2009 10:09 AM
PZ's last paragraph is spot on. Maybe someone could buy a case of the offending book(s), and give half to be burned, and distribute the other half to any school aged kid who wanted it.
Posted by: Karl Broman | June 16, 2009 10:12 AM
You shouldn't be hard on Wisconsin generally, just because of West Bend.
Posted by: Jeff Eyges | June 16, 2009 10:14 AM
"Christian Civil Liberties Union" - isn't that an oxymoron?
There's a post on their blog with a letter from a former Proctor & Gamble exec who claims he's "scared" of Obama. Among other reasons listed, he doesn't understand how Obama paid for his fancy Ivy League education - 'cause, you know, it's inconceivable that he might have had a scholarship.
What's the deal with the upper Midwest? Crazies migrating from the South? They figure they'll keep better in the cold?
Posted by: stogoe | June 16, 2009 10:15 AM
I'm trying very hard to not lump all old people in the same box as these hateful, wrinkled loons. But they're not making it easy, dammit!
Posted by: Taz | June 16, 2009 10:15 AM
PZ - Offer to burn a copy for them, providing you can put a cracker inside.
Posted by: Virgil | June 16, 2009 10:16 AM
That blog is teh funneh! Their tagline is "A Place Where Wisconsinites Can Come Out to Play". Maybe there's a repressed Wisconsonite behind the whole thing, just waiting to "come out"
The "open letter to Obama" on the front page is a joke! The writer has no idea how he got so rich and can afford such a big house, without any visible means of support. WTF? The guy was a frickin' lawyer! You know, laywers, the ones that earn lots of money and then go on to become politicians? Clearly this person lives on the moon.
Posted by: --E | June 16, 2009 10:16 AM
Alas, Wisconsin is not unique in having this particular form of human virus.
I'll make them a trade. They can burn all my books with sexual content if I can burn all their bibles.
Oh, wait, the bible is full of sexual content, too! Dang, can't get away from it anywhere!
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | June 16, 2009 10:17 AM
is a book about a teen male who thinks he might be gay and is beaten up by a gang of homophobic teens. Sounds like it is trying to deal with the reality of figuring out who one is while under duress. And these jokers are trying to blame violence on the use of a word?
Sorry CCLU but the violence is to be blamed on your clients and on people younger then your clients who feel the need to go after LGBT people instead of threatening violence against books.
Where books are burned, people are soon to be next. Thank you, clients of the CCLU and the CCLU. The only good thing is this, this society is not yet in a position to decend to this act of barbarism.
Posted by: Lauren Ipsum | June 16, 2009 10:17 AM
I should thank them for the links to those three books. From the excerpts they look interesting, informative, frank, and age-appropriate. I've often found Banned Book lists to be good reading guides -- if that many people want to keep me from it, it's probably worth reading.
Posted by: The Science Pundit
|
June 16, 2009 10:19 AM
Do they never learn? (that was rhetorical) Every time they pull this shit and try to get a book banned (or burned in this case), all they do is shine the spotlight on the book and give it--for free--the kind of publicity that the author and publisher can only dream of. This amuses me to no end.
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | June 16, 2009 10:22 AM
The missing words at the beginning of my paragraph is Baby Be Bop.
Posted by: dNorrisM | June 16, 2009 10:22 AM
I wonder if they have deeper pockets than the ACLU?
Posted by: Seokso | June 16, 2009 10:23 AM
Every time I hear stupidity like this, it makes me want to ban the bible. Did you know that they have countless copies of these spread throughout our nations public libraries teaching people to rape, murder and enslave? Not to mention all the sodomy in that book.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 16, 2009 10:23 AM
They must be terrorized by the Bible with all the Plooking going on in there.
Posted by: Eric Houg | June 16, 2009 10:23 AM
OOOOH, I LOVE banned books. They are almost always the best reads. And, the fact that I am pissing of some pompous, pious fraud makes it even that much sweeter. TO AMAZON.COM>>>
Posted by: Matlock Bolton | June 16, 2009 10:24 AM
Well Geeze PZ, didn't you know all sex education outside of the amazingly useful abstinence programs is reserved for marriage. It's to be reserved for two of God's finest to discover themselves. If they can't happen to figure it out on their own then Satan probably made the woman infertile or she sinned some how when she was younger (It couldn't possibly be the mans fault after all, we all know that woman or the bearers of sexual sin).
How dare a book define how sexual behaviour is declared, books explaining how sex works and promoting bad behaviour should be banned. All we need is the Bible.
Now excuse me satire or not I have to go wash my mouth.
Posted by: Paul Lundgren | June 16, 2009 10:29 AM
We need to send that library copies of The New Good Vibrations Guide to Sex(Amazon). Let's show them what good information REALLY looks like.
Posted by: littlejohn | June 16, 2009 10:31 AM
Remember the stoy about (naturally) Sarah Palin? She asked the Wasilla librarian (kind of like being the triangle player for K.C. and the Sunshine Band, I imagine*) if the book, "Pastor, I'm Gay" could be removed?
The librarian, bless her, said no.
But the book then mysteriously disappeared and has not been replaced.
I predict a similar outcome in Wisconsin.
*Joke shamelessly stolen from right-wing tool Dennis Miller, who was referring to Vanna White's workload on Wheel of Fortune.
Posted by: Alyson Miers | June 16, 2009 10:31 AM
CIVIL LIBERTIES
Ur doin it rong.
Posted by: Jonathan | June 16, 2009 10:33 AM
In the last link PZ posted to their site (books about female sexuality) they actually put black censor bars over the genitals of crudely drawn stick figures in various sex positions.
How uptight do you have to be to censor stick figure sex?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 16, 2009 10:37 AM
I don't know, but maybe they should start a career in comedy.
Posted by: DaveL | June 16, 2009 10:37 AM
I think public libraries should have a special shelf clearly marked "Books They Don't Want You To Read" where they put every book someone has specifically tried to ban at that library.
You know, just so the kiddies know to stay away.
Posted by: AwesomeRobot | June 16, 2009 10:38 AM
Well at least we have both of our Senators (ooooh Burn!) One of them is even Russ Feingold.
These people have no chance in hell of even getting a hearing. Any sane judge will throw them out on their ear. They're suing for damages for having read a book! (A book I bet they didn't even actually read, just heard about)
Posted by: Mike in Ontario, NY
|
June 16, 2009 10:41 AM
Dear Christian Civil Liberty Union,
You owe me a new irony meter. I'll be sending you a repair bill from fixing up the smoldering crater in my office where the old meter was when I visited your website.
Might as well send me a new camera while you're at it. And some bacon.
Posted by: Matt M | June 16, 2009 10:42 AM
How fast can we print up some stickers that say, "Banned in West Bend"? Slap them on these books in your local library and book store, and see if readership doesn't increase.
Posted by: damnedyankee | June 16, 2009 10:44 AM
Without even looking at their site (it's a bit early in the day for me to take a megadose of stupid), I'm going to guess that comments aren't enabled.
Posted by: LC | June 16, 2009 10:47 AM
Should just offer these dried up fogies a genine Complete Operational Flaming Fairy Instant Neutralizer device. They just get put inside, shut the lid and they never have to worry about insidious 'gay rays' ever again. With additional benefits of a reduction in health insurance and weight loss.
Interesting though is that they are worried about a single book in a library and yet they have a blog on the internet. Haven't they every heard the song about "The internet is for porn?". Or even just Rule 34?
Posted by: raven | June 16, 2009 10:49 AM
The old xian wackos aren't very smart. There is absolutely nothing stopping them from burning books. They can burn all the books they legally buy and own. Subject to fire season outdoor burning rules in drier parts of the USA.
I'm always amused when xians burn books. Nothing demonstrates their mental and moral bankruptcy better except the terrorism.
They don't do it enough. Last book burnings were Harry Potter books. Bunch of slackers these days.
Posted by: genesgalore | June 16, 2009 10:49 AM
odds are that jesus was more than likely gay than god.
Posted by: Eric Houg | June 16, 2009 10:51 AM
This bit is hilarious:"Excessive use of profanity and vulgarity.
Swirlie, A**holes, F**king, Hell, A**hole, smear the queer, cut and hunky, blow queen, knocked up, J****, b***hy dyke, bulls**t, bulls**t, Jesus, S**t, “I swear to G**, took a dump, blow job, F**k, f**ked-up, J****, F**king, G**, f**king freak, Faggot, G**, Faggot, Bulls**t, G**, F**k, F**k you, F**k you, f**king bastard, Pr**k, Hell, Pu**y, J****, Pu**y, A**hole, G**, Hell "
What is J**** and G**? Also, why is "cut and hunky" considered profanity and/or vulgarity? Also, Knocked up? Seriously?
Posted by: Quiet Desperation | June 16, 2009 10:52 AM
Good cheese, though.
You owe me a new irony meter.
I just unhooked mine long ago. It was an old Zenith model from the 1950s built from vacuum tubes and iron, so it was tough, but the needles kept getting stuck in the redline area. It was originally intended to monitor the evening news, but I adapted it to the Internet in 1990.
Posted by: Watchm,an | June 16, 2009 10:55 AM
MfO:
LOLKWOKZ!
LC: Must we deploy the implied death-wish device against our foes?
Indeed. Nothing evokes or supports the concept of "civil rights" more than a good old-fashioned book-burning!
Posted by: raven | June 16, 2009 10:56 AM
The old xian wackos aren't very smart. There is absolutely nothing stopping them from burning books. They can burn all the books they legally buy and own. Subject to fire season outdoor burning rules in drier parts of the USA.
I'm always amused when xians burn books. Nothing demonstrates their mental and moral bankruptcy better except the terrorism.
They don't do it enough. Last book burnings were Harry Potter books. Bunch of slackers these days.
Posted by: Epikt
|
June 16, 2009 10:58 AM
stogoe:
They're simply objecting to others doing the things they were too timid to do when they still could.
Posted by: Paul Browne | June 16, 2009 10:59 AM
Taz "PZ - Offer to burn a copy for them, providing you can put a cracker inside."
Nice!
The whole thing has a touch of the Bishop and the Nightie about it:-)
Posted by: PMC | June 16, 2009 11:02 AM
I don't really know what to say. It would certainly be a bad thing to ban those books, but I think it could be more appropriate to place them in a "parental approval" section or something.
Posted by: raven | June 16, 2009 11:04 AM
Apparenently, the Death Cult fundies do the same thing at our public library. They had 7 copies of Dawkin's The God Delusion. All of which were checked out at any one time. Then they started disappearing. They are down to one copy. I think if they have a theft problem, eventually they keep the book behind a counter with an "ask for it" notation in the catalogue.
More examples of that mythological "xian morality".
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 16, 2009 11:04 AM
Thus negating the whole purpose of having such books in a public library. Clever idea.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | June 16, 2009 11:09 AM
And, of course, no economically disadvantaged white kid ever attends the Ivy League, right? </snark>
Most (if not all) of the Ivies, and many of their peer institutions, practice "need-blind admissions," which basically means they admit qualified students without reference to their financial resources, calculate what (if anything) the family can afford to pay, and then cover the rest through financial aid (and Harvard and Yale, that I know of, have recently upgraded their financial aid policies so that students need not even take out loans). Academically qualified students can attend Ivy League (and similar) colleges, regardless of how poor they are.
But of course, right-wing nutbags always prefer to see corruption everywhere, even when perfectly reasonable non-corrupt explanations are easily available. It is, I suspect, a projection of their own innate corruption.
Posted by: Brunsell | June 16, 2009 11:11 AM
It doesn't surprise me that a Minnesotan would make such a lame attempt to disparage Wisconsin. You of the "10,000" lakes. WI has more than that!
If you bothered to read the comments on the "WISSUP" blog, you would have realized that Wisconsonites have come out to play...and repeatedly ridicule The West Bend Citizen Activist (Ginny).
I took a look at her profile. She has a nice image of people saying the pledge -- "Under God - Remember, if you don't believe in God you are not a real American." I wonder if she realizes that the Pledge of Allegiance was originally written by Francis Bellamy (an active socialist) and "Under God" was not added until 1954...
Anyway, thanks for the post. I got a big laugh out of her blog. After taking a look at her "Live Traffic Feed," I think a lot of commentors are going to come out to play - at her expense.
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
June 16, 2009 11:12 AM
I've heard of that gay-dar. Sounds risky to me.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
Posted by: Attila | June 16, 2009 11:13 AM
I am thinking can we just get the list of all the men in the CCLU. And send then so good sex guides and Viagra. That should stop them.
Posted by: False Prophet
|
June 16, 2009 11:17 AM
Well, now I feel obligated to report from the trenches of public library collection development.
That blog links to a similar site where I found these winning quotations:
They go on to mention books published in the mid-1970s. Evidently they are ignorant of the fact that a distinct "young adult" classification has only been in usage since the 1970s. So this isn't a "recent" trend--it's typical of the format. Arguably, the earlier works in the genre from the 1970s to the mid-80s, were more direct about addressing controversial adolescent subjects so you could probably make an argument that the recent trend has been for YA fiction to "wuss out" in the face of controversy. [N.b. my professional experience has been adult fiction, adult audio-visual materials, and multilingual materials, and I'm not well-versed enough in YA fiction outside of comics/graphic novels to make a strong case either way.]
There's no real difference between "young adult" and "teen" in the library world--both refer to materials aimed at library users of about high-school age (maybe slightly older or younger depending on the individual). "Young adult" was originally used to avoid language that talked down to adolescents, but it's become technical jargon since most laypeople don't define it the way librarians intend, hence many libraries have started calling it "teen fiction" now.
Next these people link to an article by Naomi Wolf trashing the Gossip Girl series. This is a sentiment I've noted even among my more educated and liberal friends, so I'm not surprised Wolf isn't immune. Adults are apparently free to read, watch or listen to whatever crap of dubious social or cultural value they want, but any media or publication aimed at persons 17 years of age or younger must be educational and of redeemable quality.
There are issues with that stance: Adults can't agree on what is appropriate for teenagers as this case demonstrates--for everyone who holds up the Bible as a source of moral instruction, someone else points out the sections justifying slavery and genocide. You can bet that teens have the same debates about appropriate materials. The book Grand Theft Childhood, summarizing some studies on video-game playing teenagers, has a great section on how many teens already adopt their parents' values: many 14 and 15-year-olds argued they knew M-rated games like Grand Theft Auto were fiction and knew very well you don't go around stealing cars and shooting cops, but they didn't think their younger siblings should play them because of the vulgar language.
#12, @Janine, OMnivore
Ah yes, the old saw that if you describe evil behaviour, even if your intent is clearly to condemn it in the strongest possible terms, you encourage it. These are the kind of people who try to ban The Diary of Anne Frank and Mein Kampf. If they had their way, the Nazis will be remembered only as cartoon badguys from Indiana Jones films. Because pretending evil doesn't exist is such a great way to teach kids how to deal with it in the real world.
Posted by: Walton | June 16, 2009 11:20 AM
I hate to say it, but I can actually see the fundies' point in this case. Notwithstanding the fact that their "morality" is bankrupt and stupid, the fact is that many of these fundies pay taxes, and consequently are being coercively forced to pay for the upkeep of the libraries in question - meaning that they have every right to object to their money being spent on books which they find morally offensive.
The real problem here is perhaps with the concept of tax-funded public libraries.
Posted by: Desert Son, OM
|
June 16, 2009 11:20 AM
Thanks for bringing this up, PZ. Do you know if the gay rays cause tarnish? It'd be a double bummer if the gay rays were inciting individuals to homosexual thoughts and oxidizing the family flatware to boot.
On a serious note, it's classic that they're going for the destruction-of-books thing. Aside from a few isolated events in history (the loss of the library at Alexandria comes to mind), when, in the history of text, has destroying texts actually managed to keep the information from getting out? Maybe the first book these people need to read, before the Bible or similar, is a mythology text containing the story of Pandora's Box.
Yo, cheese-heads (mmmmmm, cheese . . . )! The sex stuff? It's already out there! No foolin'. In fact, it actually makes real sense to leave the sex education stuff on the library shelves for people to, you know, have access to educational material, given that these days there's a significant chance that teens have access to the Intartubes, and it's chock full of stuff that makes the library examples look positively chaste.
So I've heard.
I only read the Internet for the articles. [ahem]
No kings,
Robert
Posted by: Chris | June 16, 2009 11:20 AM
I have a compromise solution:
Keep the books. Those that are offended by them may don tin foil hats and breast plates. You know, to deflect the "damaging gay-rays."
Posted by: LMR
|
June 16, 2009 11:20 AM
I think they were originally the
Christian Literary Information Taskforce.
Things like this just rub them the wrong way and they get all worked up. At some point it all just has to reach a burning climax.
Posted by: Estonian Pumpernickel | June 16, 2009 11:23 AM
"Imagine some tired old codger, exhausted after a lifetime of aggressive heterosexuality, sitting in his easy chair before the TV, and suddenly he starts feeling frisky at the sight of Matlock reruns..."
i lol'd
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | June 16, 2009 11:23 AM
The best way to defeat book banning is to read banned books, and encourage everyone else to do so as well.
One of my favorite coffee mugs is one I bought at the Mark Twain House gift shop that says just that (i.e., Read Banned Books). I was going to post a list, but it's not in their online store catalog; dunno if it's still there in the brick-and-mortar store.
Posted by: Issa | June 16, 2009 11:23 AM
Hey, a little bit of snooping revealed this gem on the same site:
http://www.afa.net/youscareme.asp
Posted by: Chris | June 16, 2009 11:24 AM
#6
"You shouldn't be hard on Wisconsin generally, just because of West Bend."
I agree, Karl. May we be hard on Wisconsin because of Superior?
Posted by: TheLoneIguana
|
June 16, 2009 11:25 AM
I'm surprised they don't want to go all the way, piling up the books around the librarians tied to stakes.
"Those books turned me into a newt!"
Posted by: Qwerty | June 16, 2009 11:27 AM
Perhaps we should take up a collection to send some copies of this book to the people who want to burn it. Include some matches, lighter fluid, and marshmallows to roast.
Posted by: Svetogorsk | June 16, 2009 11:27 AM
My school library had a copy of Boccaccio's Decameron with some of the best censorship I've ever seen: it was unexpurgated - but the rude bits were in French. (Not the original Italian for some reason).
Presumably the publisher's attitude was "well, if the reader knows French we're already talking incurable depravity, so there's no harm done", though it had the very happy side-effect of highlighting the bits we weren't supposed to read AND giving our French a thorough work-out.
So maybe there could be a special edition of these appallingly corrupting and evil books with the offensive material in a language that only teenagers understand, like txtspk, so their elders simply won't notice?
Posted by: Svetogorsk | June 16, 2009 11:27 AM
My school library had a copy of Boccaccio's Decameron with some of the best censorship I've ever seen: it was unexpurgated - but the rude bits were in French. (Not the original Italian for some reason).
Presumably the publisher's attitude was "well, if the reader knows French we're already talking incurable depravity, so there's no harm done", though it had the very happy side-effect of highlighting the bits we weren't supposed to read AND giving our French a thorough work-out.
So maybe there could be a special edition of these appallingly corrupting and evil books with the offensive material in a language that only teenagers understand, like txtspk, so their elders simply won't notice?
Posted by: Richrd Eis | June 16, 2009 11:31 AM
-I hate to say it, but I can actually see the fundies' point in this case.-
Considering the sex, violence and torture inherent in their own holy book, i don't see their point. Well no, i do, it's just so stupid it hurts.
Posted by: AwesomeRobot | June 16, 2009 11:32 AM
#48 "The real problem here is perhaps with the concept of tax-funded public libraries."
Pfft!
Posted by: DaveL | June 16, 2009 11:32 AM
That was my point. I guess the subtext didn't come through too clearly, namely that nothing will get kids reading those books like putting them right out there in the open with a big "Forbidden!" sign on them.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | June 16, 2009 11:34 AM
I wonder if they'd mind a burning bible. "for every book on sexuality you burn, I'll burn 2 bibles."
Posted by: MacT | June 16, 2009 11:36 AM
The WISSUP blog's tagline:
"A Place Where Wisconsinites Can Come Out to Play!"
The said "come out." Heh.
Sure this isn't a parody?
Posted by: Mike in Ontario, NY
|
June 16, 2009 11:38 AM
Walton, what you're proposing would mean the wholesale closure of the majority of libraries, and probably every single rural library. Nice world you envision. I just wish all you neo-libertarians had a chance to live in the world you so ardently wished existed for 1 year, just so you could see what hell it would be. Please think these things through to their logical conclusions! What good would paying less taxes be if there was no infrastructure, libraries, schools, social security (that's a socialist elder poverty protection plan, in case you didn't know that)...need I go on?
Come to think of it, if they're bitching about their taxes paying for books they find objectionable, I should have the right to withhold my taxes that pay their social security benefits because THEY offend ME.
Posted by: Louis | June 16, 2009 11:40 AM
It was a book that turned me gay. Oh no, wait, it wasn't, I'm not gay. It must be a book that turned me into a kinky bastard. Yeah that was it, it's all a books fault. I blame books!
All those years before basic literacy and the wide spread use of books, most people weren't fucking, and even if they did, they weren't enjoying it as is right and proper. Little known fact. Why do you think the population exploded around the time that books were invented? Coincidence? If so, how do you explain PAMPHLETS and DOCUMENTS? HUH.
Damn you atheist pervert evolutionists and your sex making books. DAMN YOU!
{shakes fist}
Louis
Posted by: Svetogorsk | June 16, 2009 11:40 AM
The real problem here is perhaps with the concept of tax-funded public libraries.
The amount of tax I personally contribute to my local library amounts to pennies at most, and I'm more than happy to subsidise all the books I have no intention of ever reading (anything about cricket, for instance) because I still get out considerably more than I put in.
And even if I didn't use it at all, I'd still be happy to donate my pennies, as libraries are so self-evidently a public good. So you'll forgive me for not appreciating the problem, "real" or otherwise.
Posted by: Acronym Jim | June 16, 2009 11:41 AM
Jonathan@24:
And here I thought is was a depiction of the use of marital aides.
Posted by: AZSkeptic | June 16, 2009 11:42 AM
My father-in-law and his wife live in West Bend. He was a councilman or alderman or something like that a few years ago, and lost a run at mayor. I'm sure he's not involved with this, but I'll have to ask him if he knows any of the players.
Good cheese there. And, JEEBUS, do those people know how to drink!!
Posted by: Feynmaniac | June 16, 2009 11:42 AM
Walton,
Really? Having a place where people can educate themselves paying pretty much nothing is a problem? Really?
Posted by: Ledger de Main | June 16, 2009 11:43 AM
"The claim says the words can permeate violence..."
permeate violence?
Posted by: DRobe24 | June 16, 2009 11:45 AM
What does FOX News have to say about this??
http://www.foxnews.com/video/index.html?playerId=videolandingpage&streamingFormat=FLASH&referralObject=6009074&referralPlaylistId=playlist
Posted by: Ranson | June 16, 2009 11:45 AM
My local book shop participates in "Banned Books Week" every year, prominently displaying and actively promoting books that people have tried to ban. They also get a lot of my money. Funny how that works.
Posted by: lordshipmayhem
|
June 16, 2009 11:45 AM
Matlock Bolton #20:
Um, did you mean the Pope and Ted Haggard?
Posted by: Kobra | June 16, 2009 11:45 AM
Wow, and for a second, I thought that episode of Family Guy where Brian was an atheist was satire. Holy fucking shit, a book burning? God damn.
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 16, 2009 11:52 AM
The real problem here is perhaps with the concept of tax-funded public libraries. - Walton
No. The real problem is that you're a fucking moron.
Posted by: Geds | June 16, 2009 11:52 AM
the fact is that many of these fundies pay taxes, and consequently are being coercively forced to pay for the upkeep of the libraries in question - meaning that they have every right to object to their money being spent on books which they find morally offensive.
Are you just being a troll? Or do you really think that it's a problem Christians are supposed to pay taxes to let some books in the library but it's not a problem that my tax money is going to pay for the local library stocking the Bible and the latest insipid Max Lucado bullcrap?
The entire point of public financing of libraries is so that they don't have to keep a patron happy by censoring their content. The library is a repository of culture and knowledge and as soon as the library is required to say that this knowledge isn't good and useful or this aspect of culture isn't acceptable (within limits. An entire section of how-to books on making pipe bombs and coercing underage children to your windowless van is a bad idea), the library starts saying, "These people here are not acceptable. They don't belong in our culture."
And although there are many who want to be able to say exactly that, the entire point of having a free nation with civil liberties is so that we don't marginalize a group of people. The thing is, if the shoe were on the other foot and someone was trying to get the Bible banned from my local library I'd be against that, too.
You can't let one group pick and choose what belongs in a library. It's a collective trust of our knowledge and our culture. If you don't like it, go read something else. And if I don't like the thing that you're reading, that's just fine by me.
Posted by: Dancing Cultist | June 16, 2009 11:54 AM
Apparently, a copy of the Gaynomnicon has been unearthed in Wisconsin; few other books possess such cosmic power. And what if, just if, the stars are also right?!?
Ia ia Cthulhu fhtagayn!
Posted by: Matlock Bolton | June 16, 2009 11:54 AM
lordshipmayhem #74
Maybe, but it doesn't matter for Ted Haggard is above living what he preaches and the pope, well he just scares the bejeebus out of me.
Posted by: Lauren Ipsum | June 16, 2009 11:55 AM
meaning that they [fundies] have every right to object to their money being spent on books which they find morally offensive.
If I can specify that not a single dollar of my tax money is spent on faith-based government programs, vouchers for parochial school tuition, abstinence-only curricula, the Boy Scouts, or to cover tax breaks to houses of worship or clergy, the fundies are free to specify that their tax dollars don't go to buy those naughty books about TEH SEX. Fair?
Posted by: Svetogorsk | June 16, 2009 11:56 AM
I just wish all you neo-libertarians had a chance to live in the world you so ardently wished existed for 1 year, just so you could see what hell it would be. Please think these things through to their logical conclusions!
Russia in the early-to-mid 1990s would seem to be pretty close to the kind of perfect society that Walton envisages, given that law and order was virtually suspended for a time.
But unless he becomes a mafioso or an oligarch (who made their billions by preying on the weak and gullible, and got away with it since there were no laws to protect them), my guess is that he wouldn't last very long.
And if you want one clinching statistic about just how comfortable people felt in that environment, the birthrate plunged from one of the highest rates in an industrialised country in 1988 to one of the lowest just six years later. Which tells you more than any number of quality-of-life surveys.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | June 16, 2009 12:04 PM
Walton:
Implicit in this comment is the assumption that each taxpayer ought to have a personal veto power, in minute detail (and what detail could be more minute than individual books in a library?), over all the acts and instrumentalities of the state. I find that position ludicrously extreme, but if we stipulate it for the sake of argument, it stands as an argument against all public institutions (not excluding national defense or the police power, since the specific exercises of even those most L-word-acceptable state powers are invariably morally objectionable to some taxpayer somewhere)... but it does not legitimate the discrete, preferential banning of specific acts (e.g., the purchase of sex-positive books) or the preferential abolishment of specfic public institutions (e.g., public libraries or public schools).
That is, if you argue for this sort of granularity of public institutions' responsibility to individual conservative moral objections, you must also recognize similar responsbility to everyone else's moral objections... and in a country of 300+ million people, nothing will escape everybody's dislike.
Arguing for strictly individualized social decision making rather than the synthetic decision making embodied in our existing democratic republic amounts to an argument for the total dissolution of the state (are you sure you're not an anarchist?)... but it does not amount to an argument for bias (e.g., in favor of one version of sexual morality in preference to all other versions) in the actions of a state, once you allow that it exists.
Posted by: kamaka | June 16, 2009 12:08 PM
Yup, they did the "permanently checked out" trick with "The God Delusion" at my local library.
I wonder if any of the Baptist cultists read it?
Posted by: Desert Son, OM
|
June 16, 2009 12:10 PM
The example I always heard was present day Somalia. Centralized government controlling the market? Nope. Publicly available support and institutions funded through taxes? No way! Privatized infrastructure? You betcha!
It's a veritable libertarian paradise!
Course, you gotta be a helluva shot with the various Kalashnikov and Kalashnikov-compatible firearms. But just think! If you're man enough, you don't even have to declare allegiance to a warlord! You might even aspire to be one yourself!
One of the biggest issues I have with libertarians is the romantic idea they have about the society they envision.
No kings,
Robert
Posted by: Jim
|
June 16, 2009 12:13 PM
Who showed these damn bluehairs how to use the internet? And how the hell did they manage to navigate past the porn to create a blog?
Posted by: Svetogorsk | June 16, 2009 12:15 PM
Yes, you're absolutely right - Somalia knocks early 90s Russia into a cocked hat.
And even better, that society exists right now for Walton to go and investigate for himself.
I know the media all say it's a hellhole and then some, but that's surely because they're petrified of people finding out the truth about this libertarian paradise.
Posted by: WordSpinner | June 16, 2009 12:15 PM
About putting all the books people attempt to ban on display--my library does that, every once in a while. I think the librarians figure if it gets one teen to read Huck Finn, it was worth it. It always gets me interested.
What I also like to do is look through banned books listings to see if any the books I read in English class are one there. A lot are, and those that aren't probably aren't because the fundies don't know they exist. (Of course, one of the books I read this year had heavily implied incest and a fairly explicit non-incest sex scene at the end so...)
I think banned books are usually a boon to libraries and English classes.
And about them not liking to pay for books with gay sex in them? Well, I don't like the bible or Creationist books, but I don't think they should be removed from the library, and I don't mind paying for them, because I also get the books I like.
Posted by: Dahan | June 16, 2009 12:15 PM
I know it's already been commented on a few times, but "Christian Civil Liberties Union"? WTF?!
We had some record burners (rock and/or roll only) come to the school I attended back in the late 1970's. I was only about 8 or 9 then, but I still remembering how insane those people were.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | June 16, 2009 12:19 PM
No, no, your subtext was fine: My response was friendly agreement, not criticism. Forgive me for any lack of clarity on that point.
Geds:
No, Walton is being consistent with his personal ideology, which he has described here often over many varied conversations. I would dissent (but only slightly) from Knockgoats' assessment: Rather than a "fucking moron," I would describe Walton as a thoughtful, earnest young man who has, for entirely inexplicable reasons, embraced a fucking moronic sociopolitical philosophy. You will note that he's usually greeted here with an odd mixture of exasperation, bewilderment, and compassion.
But it's not fair to call him a troll, in any case.
Posted by: GregB | June 16, 2009 12:20 PM
I think it was "Family Guy" that had an episode where Meg became a Christian. Part of her new life included going to a bood burning where they would burn any book that was deemed to be damaging to the Christian faith.
Among the books tossed on the bon fire were:
Dawkins, The God Delusion.
Darwin, On the origin of species.
and the book "Logic for 3rd graders"
Posted by: Me | June 16, 2009 12:20 PM
These geriatric West Benders are really too loathsome for words to describe. We just celebrated the anniversary of D-Day and victory over Nazi Germany, yet these people want to do this in America claiming it as a civil right and an exercise in liberty. Are these old folks perhaps suffering from undiagnosed senility?
Posted by: Johnny Vector | June 16, 2009 12:21 PM
This really is my favorite part of the suit:
Did they really say that?
"Why are you stoning him?"
"He said 'faggot'"
"Ooh, now you said it!"
"Said what?"
"'faggot'"
"No I didn't!"
"Stop saying 'faggot'! Oh, now I'm saying it!"
[Enormous rock crushes them all.]
Also, permeate? Dictionary much?
Posted by: Dan | June 16, 2009 12:27 PM
If dawn and drew are in south bend it can't be that bad. Wouldn't surprise me if they were putting the books there.
Posted by: Walton | June 16, 2009 12:28 PM
No, that's equally as much a problem. That's my point, in fact.
I am 100% anti-censorship. If you want to purchase and read any book whatsoever in the privacy of your own home - whether it be the Bible, hardcore scat porn or The God Delusion - then as far as I'm concerned, you should have the absolute freedom to do so. The fact that other people might be offended by your choice of reading material is neither here nor there.
But what you ought not to have, IMO, is the right to force other people to pay for your preferred cultural experience. You would rightly be angry if Christians were able to tax you in order to fund the upkeep of churches. Why, then, do you assert the right to tax them in order to fund the purchasing of books about sex?
Bill Dauphin: Yes, I realise that this is an argument against any and all kinds of government action, even the necessary ones. (Are we justified in forcing pacifists to pay for the upkeep of the military, for instance?) Hence it can only be a prima facie argument, not a conclusive one, against government activity. But the difference between libraries and national defence is that libraries can conceivably and practicably be provided by the private sector, and it is not essential for government to provide them.
Posted by: Miguel | June 16, 2009 12:30 PM
I agree -- they are mentally and emotionally damaged, but I suspect the conditions were pre-existing.
Posted by: Pareidolius | June 16, 2009 12:33 PM
Mmmmmmmmmaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaatloooooooooooooooooooooooock! Oh good lord . . . Edna, I need a towel.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 16, 2009 12:37 PM
Because having teenagers and young adults is of demonstrable benefit to society.
Posted by: Paul | June 16, 2009 12:39 PM
It is if you do not want the rich to be able to dictate what information the poor can access. The private sector isn't magical fairy dust, no matter how much you want it to be.
Posted by: Natalie | June 16, 2009 12:40 PM
The purpose of libraries isn't "the purchasing of books about sex". It's the purchasing of a variety of books of interest to the library's community.* As others have said, if the fundies have books depicting sex removed from the public library, what's to stop someone else from removing books depicting religion, or black people, or dogs, or marriage, or ____, or ____, or ____?
*This, incidentally, is the purpose of all libraries, whether or not they are a public library. It just happens that the public library's community is the whole country.
Support your implication that national defense can't be provided by the private sector. Argument by assertion is a non-starter.Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 16, 2009 12:41 PM
Should read:
Because having teenagers and young adults well educated about sex is of demonstrable benefit to society.
Posted by: E.V. | June 16, 2009 12:42 PM
The old codgers just needed a project to distract them until they can go be with Jesus. This censorship project will give them righteous Brownie points they need so they can sit closer to their Lord at the celestial Captain's table. "Please pass the saltpetre, St. Peter, I'm gettin' a chubby."
Posted by: JeffXL | June 16, 2009 12:44 PM
I'm a librarian, and we've had surprisingly few challenges (the most recent being about 2 months ago). They train us in how deal with these in library school.
I've been hearing more whack jobs say that someone else's rights infringe on their own. WTF?
BTW, it is very very rare that items are removed after a challenge.
Posted by: West Bend Citizen Advocate | June 16, 2009 12:50 PM
Just to clarify...
We do not align ourselves with the CCLU and have stated such on our blog.
The aforementioned blog does not belong to CCLU.
No burning or banning of books is desired by West Bend Citizens for Safe Libraries. We do not believe in nor condone such actions.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | June 16, 2009 12:51 PM
Walton:
Paul (@98) has already expressed the doubts he and I share about the private sector's ability to fulfill the function of public libraries, but let's stipulate your point for a moment: It still doesn't amount to an argument that public libraries, as long as they exist, should be placing the objections of individual taxpayers ahead of the consensus views of the communities that fund them.
Posted by: Moggie
|
June 16, 2009 12:54 PM
#92:
Dear me, no, you can't expect them to do that! Have you read the dictionary? Filthy, filthy book, absolutely promulgated with wicked words!
Posted by: Ranson | June 16, 2009 12:56 PM
Actually, they do tax me for that, inasmuch as they do not pay their fair share of the tax burden, thus increasing mine.
Posted by: JeffXL | June 16, 2009 1:01 PM
I'm a librarian, and we've had surprisingly few challenges (the most recent being about 2 months ago). They train us in how deal with these in library school.
I've been hearing more whack jobs say that someone else's rights infringe on their own. WTF?
BTW, it is very very rare that items are removed after a challenge.
Posted by: Joe Bleau | June 16, 2009 1:09 PM
Son, we live in a world that teenagers who are inclined to do all sorts of icky stuff that makes me uncomfortable, and those teenagers have to be guarded by septuagenarian cowards with lawyers. Whose gonna do it? You? You, God/Jesus/Holy Ghost? I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for reason and the dissemination of knowledge, and you curse the CCLU. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That promulgating ignorance, while tragic, probably saves lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves souls. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like homo, pee-pee, Jeezy-Peezy. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very ignorance that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said Praise Jeebus!, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a zippo, and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to.
Posted by: Alyson Miers | June 16, 2009 1:11 PM
I would really like to know why national defense can't be funded by the private sector. Is it not in the rich and powerful's interest to keep our country safe, just as much as everyone else's interest? Heck, I think the folks at the top have a lot MORE interest in a secure homeland, as they have so much more to lose. So, why can the private sector foot the bill for a library system, but not for defense?
Posted by: xebecs | June 16, 2009 1:15 PM
They meant "permute". Lots of mathematicians in West Bend. They're just mad because they couldn't get their book of Escher-porn published by the university press.
Posted by: Dragonfly310
|
June 16, 2009 1:18 PM
There is only one copy of God is NOT Great and The God Delusion in my regional library system (at least 6 libraries in the county). But, I guess I should consider myself lucky that they're available to be checked out, considering I live in the most religious state (and also the poorest) in the nation. Oh, you should've seen the looks on the check out clerk's face when I came to pick up my requested hold. LOL
Posted by: raven | June 16, 2009 1:18 PM
Bunch of wimps. Real Xian Terrorists would burn the books in a pile. With a librarian or two on top tied to a stake.
And then go out and hunt some witches down. Also Democrats, gays, commies, MDs, biologists, and Unitarians. I guess when you get old, you get slow.
Posted by: Sandi Fraction
|
June 16, 2009 1:21 PM
Walton, Christian churches are exempt from most taxation, specifically property taxes. Therefore my property taxes are subsidizing them quite directly. Just saying.
There are lots of books in the local libraries that do not interest me, and even repel me, including all sorts of spiritual self-help books and endless medical woo. I simply don't check them out. If I were convinced that the purchase of those books was preventing the purchase of books that interest me, I would be unhappy, but that is not particularly the case.
Fact is, not everyone has the funds to purchase lots of books, and without libraries, the alternative is not reading. I don't want the right to read books tied to income. Ignorance combined with poverty is the quickest formula for unrest that I can imagine.
Posted by: Zar | June 16, 2009 1:21 PM
Walton---
Chances are, everybody is offended by at least one of the books in the library. Many libraries also keep "Mein Kampf" and "the Satanic Verses" and "the Taming of the Shrew" and "the Fountainhead" and whatnot. To make a library inoffensive, we'd have to reduce it to about three books, one of which is an instruction manual for an 8-track stereo.
Libraries are all about making information available to everyone, for free. Doesn't matter what your opinion is on the material; it's about information, not propaganda, not indoctrination. It's a wonderful, noble institution and all thinking people should have immense respect for librarians who protect free and open exchange of ideas. Mass literacy and the widespread availability of books are pretty recent phenomena that we are incredibly lucky to have.
Posted by: Garulon | June 16, 2009 1:22 PM
http://www.myppmc.com/Books%20-%20Pornogrphic%20Sch.%20Library%20Pictures.htm is hosted by HostNut.com. Sweet, delicious irony.
Posted by: Notagod | June 16, 2009 1:24 PM
I like burning christian bibles, christians should too, the burning releases the holy spirit from the pages that bind it.
Posted by: dNorrisM | June 16, 2009 1:31 PM
Another gratituous Simpsons reference:
"Lisa, would you like to suggest some books for the Church Bookmobile?"
Season 10, Episode 22
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 16, 2009 1:31 PM
It is if you [Walton] do not want the rich to be able to dictate what information the poor can access. - Paul
But that's exactly what Walton does want.
Posted by: JeffXL | June 16, 2009 1:35 PM
I'm a librarian, and we've had surprisingly few challenges (the most recent being about 2 months ago). They train us in how deal with these in library school.
I've been hearing more whack jobs say that someone else's rights infringe on their own. WTF?
BTW, it is very very rare that items are removed after a challenge.
Posted by: SteveM
|
June 16, 2009 1:39 PM
re 108:
While costing countless more.
Posted by: Notagod | June 16, 2009 1:40 PM
I am offended by the instruction manual for an 8-track stereo because it displaced the 4-track stereo which was more focused and aligned with the number of choices christians are capable of considering, hell idea or heaven idea. The choice of neither cannot be considered because it is higher than christian capability.
Posted by: Agoraphobic Kleptomanaic | June 16, 2009 1:47 PM
My grandmother was killed by an 8-track stereo, you offensive Clod!
Posted by: FlameDuck | June 16, 2009 1:51 PM
I love this book! No hairy palms, no blindness, just wanker's cramp and trouble walking. That's telling it like it is.I mean seriously, you'd think a town with a name like "West Bend" would be a little more open to sexual experimentation, or maybe I'm reading too much into it. In either case, the 16th century just called, they want their opinions back.
Posted by: Gilian | June 16, 2009 1:53 PM
@94
. You would rightly be angry if Christians were able to tax you in order to fund the upkeep of churches. .
Like you mean, they have been doing since the creation of churches ?
In the past Christians actively taxed us, in the present they avoid taxes the rest of us have to pay.
A politician in my country said something in the news about property-tax, and bang poof, next week the ambassador from the Vatican made an appearance wanting to know WTF he thought he was doing.
So yeah, I'm quite rightfully angry.
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 16, 2009 1:57 PM
No, Walton is being consistent with his personal ideology, which he has described here often over many varied conversations. - Bill Dauphin
I have to disagree, because Walton is not consistent. There are, after all, people (pacifists, Islamist jihadis, those in the pay of foreign governments, consistent "libertarians") who do not regard state-run "national defence" as a benefit at all. There are plenty of others (me included) who do not regard spending money on maintaining the UK's nuclear weapons as a benefit. Similarly with regard to the police and judicial system. Yet Walton is prepared for tax to be levied to pay for these. He has, indeed, made various other exceptions. Again, he claims to want a weak state "that you could drown in a bathtub", yet wants this state to have an army and police force - the very things that make the greatest contribution to the strength of the modern state. I short, he's either too stupid to see these inconsistencies (i.e., he's a moron), or he's a hypocrite. The only consistent "libertarian" position is one where everything, armed forces included, is privatised. However, few "libertarians" have the guts for this, as it becomes too obvious that what they are really advocating is the unfettered power of the rich, and that the result would be hellish for everyone else.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
June 16, 2009 2:03 PM
1)Private libraries would result in the poor having even less chance to educate themselves (if you can't afford food, you sure as fuck can't afford a private library membership); it would not let kids learn things their parents refuse to let them learn (because such parents control their children's expenditures); it would limit students learning experience to school-approved text books; it would dramatically curtail readership of books in general, and rare/expensive/non-profitable books in particular. Basically, private libraries are completely fucking useless
2)Blackwater would like to disagree with you on the impossibility of privatized defense.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
June 16, 2009 2:11 PM
not to mention that replacing public libraries with private ones would pretty much shove us right back into pre-general-literacy times.
but maybe Walton is on the same page as Pilty on this subject, and thinks education of any sort should be a calling, not wantonly tossed to the hoi polloi
Posted by: Laura | June 16, 2009 2:19 PM
To the poster above who name-checked Dawn and Drew (I can't find your post now, but I know you are there):
Nicely done! I used to work with them, years ago. Seriously awesome folks. Every day in the office started with me laughing my ass off at some goofy thing Drew had done, and Dawn's succinct eyebrow-raise of a response.
Posted by: kamaka | June 16, 2009 2:24 PM
West Bend Citizen Advocate @ 103
So you're reading this, huh? Does your mother know you read this blog?
A question for you. Where do you get off deciding what is or isn't appropriate reading material for MY minor?
Posted by: Raiko | June 16, 2009 2:28 PM
Why is it always that these Christian-OHMYJESUS-OFFENDED-BY-LIFE-people are completely unable to make a decent-looking website? I mean, there's FREEWARE for that, for crying out loud! Or they could at least get a stupid myspace.
It seems Christian-OHMYJESUS-OFFENDED-BY-LIFE sites always have to kill some brain cells of people whose life requires any form of good public presentation.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 16, 2009 2:28 PM
Public libraries are one of the wonders of civilisation.
We build these buildings and fill them with the sum of knowledge humans have accumulated over the millenia, and we allow anyone to access that knowledge free of charge. To aid this libaries will arrange to get books they do not hold themselves, even getting it from other countries if needed, and in the UK as least ordering a book costs less than £1, no matter the lengths the library has to goto to get hold of it.
We can justly point to public libraries as a triumph of our civilisation.
I feel sorry for Walton that he cannot, or will not, see this.
Posted by: flea | June 16, 2009 2:32 PM
You would rightly be angry if Christians were able to tax you in order to fund the upkeep of churches.
The fuck? That's got to be a joke.
Posted by: Jim | June 16, 2009 2:37 PM
@108 - You can't handle the truth!
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 16, 2009 2:42 PM
Someone told me a defintition of a libertiarian the other day.
A libertiarian, he said, is a person who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.
Walton, stand up so we can see you.
Posted by: Foggg | June 16, 2009 2:43 PM
Ha.
Does Wisconsin have a governor, like Minnesota, advocating teaching ID in public schools?
Is Wisconsin's 5 dwarfed by Minnesota's 9 colleges that teach creationism?
Does Wisconsin have the single craziest federal office holder, aka Michelle Bachmann?
Does Wisconsin's GOP platform, like Minnesota's, endorse creationism?
Does Wisconsin have any creationism organizations, as Minnesota does, sophisticated enough to have an 800 phone number and xian radio personalities?
Does Wisconsin host the 6th most-read wingnut blog, Minnesota's Powerline, which for example agrees Obama's a secret Muslim?
Did Wisconsin ever have a creationist State Ed. Superintendent, like Madame Yecke?
Lutefisk-on-a-stick?
Posted by: Walton | June 16, 2009 2:46 PM
Re privatised national defence: I didn't say that defence services can't be provided by private contractors (such as Blackwater). But they do have to be funded by the state - for the simple reason that defence is a non-excludable public good. If we made it optional to pay for the military, then everyone in the country would still inevitably receive the same level of military protection whether they paid for it or not - meaning that there would be no incentive to pay for it, and so most people wouldn't.
This isn't the case with libraries. It's perfectly possible to exclude those who can't pay from a library, and so it is possible to run libraries at a profit. Whether this is a good idea is another question, but it's clearly not in the same category as defence.
And do you think this is right? My guess would be no.
Some people find churches appealing. Other people find libraries appealing. Other people find nightclubs appealing. It's a matter of personal preference - and we shouldn't subsidise anyone's personal preference using coercively-extracted taxpayer funds, IMO.
Posted by: MaxH
|
June 16, 2009 2:46 PM
“As good almost kill a man as kill a good book: who kills a man kills a reasonable creature, God's image; but he who destroys a good book, kills reason itself."
- John Milton
"God" aside, it's still a damn good and appropriate quote.
Posted by: Joe Bleau | June 16, 2009 2:58 PM
I've heard that definition attached to the word 'critic', but darn if it doesn't apply nicely to glibertarians as well.
Here's the way I described it to my kid when she asked me the difference between a liberal and a libertarian -
Liberal response to witnessing a condemned man heading to the gallows: "There but for the Grace of God go I".
Libertarian: "Better him then me"
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
June 16, 2009 2:59 PM
right. no one ever benefits from general literacy, while we all benefit from some random war in a country that has shit-all to do with this country.
Posted by: Jim | June 16, 2009 3:00 PM
We already have those. They're called bookstores.Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | June 16, 2009 3:04 PM
KG:
Never fear: I wasn't defending Walton's position as consistent (FSM forfend!!); only saying that it's what we consistently hear from him, as opposed to the opportunistic trollery Geds seemed to think it was.
Your takedown of the internal inconsistencies of L-word-arianism is (you should pardon the expression) consistent with my own original critique of his position! ;^)
Posted by: Helene | June 16, 2009 3:05 PM
OK. I don't get it. If the elderly plaintiffs find the book(s) disturbing, why in the hell are they looking at the ‘darn’ thing? To get their BP going or what? Sorry, but I am sick of other people attempting to push their values (and I use that word loosely here) on me & my family. As a parent of teenage girls, I would want these books to remain in the library. The more good, solid scientific information (which I am assuming it is) they have at their fingertips the better. As a teacher who has worked with at risk youth - many of them young, pregnant girls – I can tell you that it IS NOT the availability of this type of information that encourages them to have sex, or do drugs, or even (gasp) play loud music.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 16, 2009 3:14 PM
"This isn't the case with libraries. It's perfectly possible to exclude those who can't pay from a library, and so it is possible to run libraries at a profit. Whether this is a good idea is another question, but it's clearly not in the same category as defence."
You are right, it is not in the same category. Public libraries, and the commitment to universal access to knowledge they represent, are one of things that make a country worth defending. Public libraries are more important than an army.
Posted by: dean | June 16, 2009 3:47 PM
1) How long until walton totally derails these posts with long, rambling, poorly thought out screeds that contradict each other, with points retracted by "well, I need to think that through further."?
2) I think #108 is a hoax
Posted by: SteveM
|
June 16, 2009 3:52 PM
If there was ever a place you did not want to confuse "then" and "than", this would be it.
Posted by: tsg | June 16, 2009 4:06 PM
#108 is a parody of Col. Jessup's courtroom speech from "A Few Good Men".
Posted by: Watchman | June 16, 2009 4:14 PM
For-profit libraries are called "bookstores". They often resemble the local cinema multiplex. Need I elaborate?
Posted by: Joe Bleau | June 16, 2009 4:22 PM
{facepalm} How embarrasking.
Although the typo kinda also makes sense, after a fashion, insofar as glibertarianism in practice pretty much inevitably would devolve into a kleptocracy, which usually doesn't end all that well for the kleptos in question. So maybe the (intellectually honest) libertarian response would be something like "First him, then (eventually) me"...
Not a hoax.
Posted by: CanadaGoose | June 16, 2009 4:23 PM
>> books that discuss human sexuality in the library
Well, I understand completely. I don't think sexuality in the library is a good idea. You should at least wait until you leave the building.
Posted by: CanadaGoose | June 16, 2009 4:25 PM
>> books that discuss human sexuality in the library
Well, I understand completely. I don't think sexuality in the library is a good idea. You should at least wait until you leave the building.
Posted by: CanadaGoose | June 16, 2009 4:29 PM
>> books that discuss human sexuality in the library
Well, I understand completely. I don't think sexuality in the library is a good idea. You should at least wait until you leave the building.
Posted by: tsg | June 16, 2009 4:39 PM
No way. Library sex is totally hot!
Posted by: Jim Ramsey | June 16, 2009 4:51 PM
There is nothing new under the sun.
It's in Iowa not Wisconsin, but consider the plot of "The Music Man".
Posted by: JohnnieCanuck
|
June 16, 2009 4:53 PM
The trouble with Canadian Geese is that they do everything in flocks. That includes pooping all over the place.
––
Probably not a day goes by that somebody doesn't have sex in any given University's library stacks.
Posted by: Notagod | June 16, 2009 5:04 PM
That's what you get for offending Flying Spaghetti Monster by invoking a god idea as if it existed.
Posted by: Skeptic Coach | June 16, 2009 5:17 PM
I grew up in West Bend and fled after high school with just a few tattered shreds of my sanity left, so I can't say this surprises me. We are, after all, talking about the area that elected the toxic wingnut Glen Grothman as a state senator.
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 16, 2009 5:23 PM
for the simple reason that defence is a non-excludable public good. If we made it optional to pay for the military, then everyone in the country would still inevitably receive the same level of military protection whether they paid for it or not - meaning that there would be no incentive to pay for it, and so most people wouldn't. - Walton
But that's exactly what some people want: no military protection. How dare you coerce them into paying for something they don't regard as a "good", and indeed positivley object to, you hypocrite?
With the police, you clearly don't even have the feeble argument of non-excludability. So, Walton, do you favour privatising the police? You only get police protection if you pay for it?
Posted by: dean | June 16, 2009 5:23 PM
To Joe and tsg: thanks - guess I've shown my lack of knowledge of popular culture and movies.
Posted by: Paul | June 16, 2009 5:27 PM
Knockgoats,
The charitable rich will of course provide protection for the poor. After all, I gave 5 dollars to a bum the other day. People are generally good, and just want to take care of each other.
Posted by: Walton | June 16, 2009 5:27 PM
Knockgoats: Military and police protection are essential to a free society because there can be no freedom without property rights. The anarchocapitalists are wrong to think that property rights are somehow "natural" and would continue to exist without the state; in reality, property rights are creations of the state and are defined and maintained by it. Thus, since property rights are essential to freedom, and the existence of a state (with the ability to use coercive force) is essential to maintain property rights, the existence of a state is essential to freedom.
Posted by: Paul | June 16, 2009 5:33 PM
So the state should provide mall security to protect the property right of store owners? They should pay for bank guards to secure a bank's holdings? I don't get your derivation of the state being necessary to protect property. The only thing that having state run protection of property rights grants you is a neutral arbiter I suppose, but even that is not guaranteed.
Posted by: Inky | June 16, 2009 5:34 PM
http://www.afa.net/youscareme.asp
Ugh, I checked out that prude blog out of curiosity, and came across Lou Pritchett's "Obama You Scare Me" letter.
Talk about spewing forth all the Republican Talking Points for the Stupid Masses (tm).
Lou Pritchett scares me.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
June 16, 2009 5:35 PM
literacy and education even more so.
besides, for someone who seriously believes that there's no obligation to obey laws that you disagree with, your argument for police and military are contradictory at best. you make the very same assumptions that people would treat each other nicely and in a civilized manner if we didn't have mandatory laws that you claim are absurd when they come from people you disagree with.
also, as every gun-loving American militia member will gladly explain to you, every man can be fully capable of defending himself and his stuff; as long as his gun is bigger than his opponent's.
Posted by: Notagod | June 16, 2009 5:41 PM
Paul,
So lets formalize that by providing the basics at minimal cost by not imposing a profit into the cost. Also, when you give a bum 5 dollars it is likely to be spent on alcohol or drugs, if the community provides a minimal but nutritious food service then you can simply direct the bum to the food center.
Posted by: Walton | June 16, 2009 5:47 PM
Yes, but in such a scenario who defines what is "his", and what is not? In such a situation, the strong would own anything they desired and the weak would own nothing - meaning that profit would not correlate with productivity. Hence there would be no incentive for an able worker to produce, knowing that what he produced could be taken from him by people with bigger guns.
Posted by: maureen Brian
|
June 16, 2009 5:58 PM
Walton,
You're arguing against yourself now.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
June 16, 2009 6:02 PM
no shit smartass. and protecting property rights and nothing but property rights solves this problem....how? you'd still have accumulation of power, you still have the stronger taking away from the weaker, you still have a disillusioned, uneducated, suppressed majority.
what you just wrote is a problem with laisses-faire capitalism as a whole, not just the anarcho-capitalist version of it. either you can finally admit that investment in social progress and stability at the cost of individual freedom is acceptable, or you have to find a REALLY good reason why in this one case you're willing to infringe on people's right to not have police enforce laws they don't agree with, when they believe they're fully capable of doing the defending themselves, either individually or as part of a neighborhood watch, or as part of a state-wide militia.
Posted by: Paul | June 16, 2009 6:25 PM
@Notagod
That was tongue in cheek. I was paraphrasing past statements of Walton's I've seen about how charitable donations can sustain the poor.
@Walton
I must admit I am absolutely shocked to hear that explanation. After all, you talk a lot about how the state cannot be trusted to acting your best interests. It's why the state must be weak enough to drown in the tub. So how can you trust the state with something so fundamental as your property rights? And why do you say it is the only entity capable of doing so? Defining property rights as something created by the state is just a dodge. All that changes when you abrogate the defense of property rights to the state is...well, nothing. In the end it is still the "people with bigger guns" calling the shots.
Posted by: Agi Hammerthief
|
June 16, 2009 6:53 PM
the library should be required to place stickies on the spines of its books to warn about the content, that would prevent people from accedently picking up books with sexual contents.
Plus they'd be easier to find for people who want to read them.
Posted by: Rob | June 16, 2009 7:19 PM
Anyone from a state that elects Michele Bachmann has no business criticizing a state that elects Russ Feingold.
Posted by: Azkyroth | June 16, 2009 7:27 PM
Moron.
Posted by: Callif | June 16, 2009 7:41 PM
*sigh* I'm ashamed to live in Wisconsin...
Or the U.S. for that matter.
Posted by: Paul Brown | June 16, 2009 7:51 PM
Walton,
re: private military not being feasible; look up "feudalism". Private militaries worked quite well for a long time, but only those rich enough to afford protection benefitted from them and those on the bottom got a fairly raw deal. Libertarianism might sound good in theory, but then so did communism and that didn't turn out so well in practice either. The fact is that any real world system has to pick and choose what works; no "pure" ideaology functions once you put real, fickle, easily led, greedy, selfish, altruistic, like-minded, selfless, individualistic, divisive, patriotic humans into the mix. As a species, we're just too damned awkward.
Posted by: dude | June 16, 2009 8:02 PM
clearly that book is the work of santa.
ps. I lolled so hard when I reached "gay-rays" that I think my spleen is resting next to my vocal chords now. oh god. that was AWESOME.
Posted by: Jimi | June 16, 2009 8:59 PM
Before we give Wisconsin too hard a time we should recall that they passed the very first legislation in the nation barring discrimination against gays for jobs and housing under my grandfather's administration .
Posted by: Jimi | June 16, 2009 9:01 PM
Before we give Wisconsin too hard a time we should recall that they passed the very first legislation in the nation barring discrimination against gays for jobs and housing under my grandfather's administration .
Posted by: tus | June 17, 2009 1:13 AM
christian civil liberties union, now there is a misnomer if ever i heard one.
and of course what is one of the cases they work on to promote civil liberties...of course...removing and/or burning books. basically promoting the complete opposite of their name, removing other peoples cival liberties to write books and others to be allowed to read them.
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 17, 2009 3:05 AM
The anarchocapitalists are wrong to think that property rights are somehow "natural" and would continue to exist without the state; in reality, property rights are creations of the state and are defined and maintained by it. Thus, since property rights are essential to freedom... - Walton
As others have pointed out, this makes your claim that you want a weak state ridiculous - you want these allegedly essential rights protected by something weak enough to drown in a bathtub? The state as guard-kitten? In fact, of course, non-state systems with property rights have existed and in some places still do (add learning a bit of anthropology to all your history, politics, psychology and sociology homework) - such rights are socially defined and maintained, but not necessarily state defined and maintained.
However, you admit that property rights are not natural, but are social constructions; and since you claim that property rights are essential to freedom, freedom is also socially constructed. Your deontological claims for the basis of "libertarianism" thus collapse, and we have to consider likely consequences. So who is to decide what property rights there should be? I know you think the answer is "Walton", but I think it should be done democratically.
Posted by: Svetogorsk | June 17, 2009 4:44 AM
Well, Walton is at least tacitly answering the point about why Somalia wouldn't represent his ideal libertarian state, despite the fact that its government is effectively nonexistent and its people are free to do whatever they like without fear of censure.
Clearly, the problem with Somalia from Walton's perspective is that the state doesn't guarantee property rights, which is why your ability to aim a Kalashnikov is rather more important than anything more usefully productive - but I'm at a loss to understand how the state can guarantee and especially enforce property rights in the face of a philosophy that bludgeoningly insists that the will of the individual is paramount. Surely this runs entirely counter to Walton's basic philosophy, and he should find such a notion as repulsive as... oh, I don't know, community funding for public libraries?
But then again, if the state doesn't guarantee property rights, I can't see how a truly libertarian state could avoid ending up like Somalia, so I suspect this is an inconsistency that will have to be swallowed, however much it taints the purity of the ideology.
Posted by: Citizen of the Cosmos
|
June 17, 2009 7:20 AM
Why would they want to remove sources of knowledge that are very much relevant for teenagers? Sounds like an amazingly stupid thing to do.
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 17, 2009 7:31 AM
Why would they want to remove sources of knowledge that are very much relevant for teenagers? Sounds like an amazingly stupid thing to do. - Citizen of the Cosmos
I think you answered your own question there, Citizen!
Posted by: Walton | June 17, 2009 7:52 AM
Yes, but it would be very difficult, in a modern complex commercial society, to sustain a working system of property rights without any kind of universally accepted system of arbitration. As H.L.A. Hart highlighted, there are many advantages to having a system of rights based on law rather than on mere social convention. In particular, the latter suffers from an inevitable lack of certainty and agreement, and therefore risks descending into chaos.
This is why I think a state is needed. However, I am also an individualist. I support the existence of a state because I think a system based on clearly-defined private property rights is the best way of giving individuals the chance to control their own lives and make their own choices without being coerced by others. In my view, the existence of a (minimal) state facilitates this goal. If the state were simply abolished and not replaced with any alternative arrangement, government coercion would simply be replaced with private coercion, and some sort of quasi-feudal society would eventually develop in which the strong controlled the weak through force of arms.
At the same time - keeping in mind that my goal is to give individuals as much control as possible over their own lives - a state which does more than the minimum, and which takes substantial control over the economy, inevitably takes more control over individuals' lives and therefore reduces individual freedom. As Friedman highlights in Capitalism and Freedom, it is very difficult to sustain effective political opposition to the government in a society where most wealth is controlled by agents of the government.
Hence why I support a minimal state, but not the total abolition of the state.
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 17, 2009 8:05 AM
Walton,
Your argument that without the state, government coercion would be replaced by private coercion, applies in a parallel way to economic rather than military power. This is not guesswork, but plainly observable from history. As it's been pointed out to you numerous times and you have never, IIRC, even tried to refute it, I renew my charge of hypocrisy. Strengthened by the fact that you quote that evil scumbag Friedman, supported and enabler of the torturer, mass-murderer and dictator Pinochet, as if he had some concern for freedom.
Moreover, it is plainly possible for the state to take action that enhances individual freedom - such as supporting public libraries. The only freedom you really care about is the freedom of the rich to exploit the poor.
Posted by: Walton | June 17, 2009 8:33 AM
Depends on what you mean by "coercion". Pointing a gun to someone's head and ordering them to comply is unquestionably a coercive act. By contrast, it is debatable whether offering someone a job, in the knowledge that s/he must take that job in order to avoid starving to death, constitutes "coercing" him or her into taking that job.
There is a meaningful distinction. In the former case, I actively reduce someone's freedom by pointing a gun at his or her head. S/he has less freedom as a result of my act. By contrast, in the latter case, I have enhanced that person's freedom by offering him or her a job; I have increased his or her range of options. This applies even if the job in question is poorly-paid and involves working in bad conditions; it's still better than starving to death. I have therefore done nothing wrong in the latter case, whereas I have in the former case. And if I am stopped (by worker protection laws, etc) from offering the person a job, then that person's range of options is thereby constricted.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 17, 2009 8:46 AM
Walton, You really do not understand why we have laws and regulations protecting workers do you ?
I imagine to you Victorian Britain was a veritable Eden. Never mind the workers sent to early graves because employers felt profits were more important than providing safe work conditions, the important thing was that they were free of Government regulation.
Posted by: Svetogorsk | June 17, 2009 8:50 AM
And if I am stopped (by worker protection laws, etc) from offering the person a job, then that person's range of options is thereby constricted.
So you'd rather live in a society where people take unbelievably scummy, poorly-paid, dead-end jobs out of a basic necessity to survive than one in which that survival is cushioned by a modicum of state protection funded by those higher up the social hierarchy, purely in the name of a largely illusory (because hopelessly compromised) promise of "freedom"?
I just can't see how your notion of a perfect libertarian paradise would be anything other than a barely imaginable hellhole for the overwhelming majority of people. Has there ever been a real-life example to the contrary throughout human history? Or do you cleave to the Communist mantra that perfection is still attainable, but no-one's really tried it properly yet?
Posted by: Svetogorsk | June 17, 2009 8:59 AM
I imagine to you Victorian Britain was a veritable Eden.
Victorian Britain? Didn't they pretty much invent free museums and public libraries? We all know what Walton thinks about those!
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 17, 2009 9:06 AM
Fair point. I should have said from the beginning of the Industrial Revolution to the Early Victorian period. They still had shitty working conditions, and no museums or libraries.
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 17, 2009 9:10 AM
By contrast, it is debatable whether offering someone a job, in the knowledge that s/he must take that job in order to avoid starving to death, constitutes "coercing" him or her into taking that job... This applies even if the job in question is poorly-paid and involves working in bad conditions Walton
This is "debateable" only to a shit like you. Wait until you've been in that position, then tell us about it. Or at least until you've read some history of employment legislation.
And if I am stopped (by worker protection laws, etc) from offering the person a job, then that person's range of options is thereby constricted.
That would only be the case if the job would disappear (usually it won't, because the employer will be relying on there being a surplus of available labour to set wages and conditions low and maximise profit), and if no alternative were provided. Providing alternatives (public sector jobs, small-scale credit, land reform) of course is likely to involve the state trespassing on those sacred property rights of the rich, if only by requiring taxation, but clearly increases options for the poor. Who you couldn't really give a flying fuck about.
Besides all this, as has been pointed out to you numerous times, the rich use the power their relative wealth gives them to entrench and increase that power, and in particular to gain political influence. Without state intervention or some other form of collective action to prevent it, economic and hence power inequality tends to increase without limit. That, of course, is exactly what you and your fellow "libertarians" - those who aren't simply stupid - really want.
And you still haven't satisfactorily answered my question: how dare you coerce people into paying taxes for military and police they don't want? If, as appears to be the case, you're saying "doing so would have bad consequences", then you can get off your moral high horse about being coerced into paying taxes for things which the majority of people think should be provided out of taxation but you don't. Either coercing people into paying taxes set by a democratically elected government is wrong, or it isn't. Stop your hypocrisy.
Posted by: KI | June 17, 2009 9:15 AM
Walton, being English perhaps you are unaware that one of the greatest American proponents of public libraries was Benjamin Franklin, founding father, etc. We had a revolution to get your monarchy and its rules out of our hair. The public library is the greatest invention of a civilized people. Knowledge should be available for free to all who want it.
I feel a libertarian is one who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. I don't know where I paraphrased that from, I hope I don't owe anybody royalties.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 17, 2009 9:19 AM
Well I said it up thread, but it did not originate with me, nor with the friend who told it to me.
Posted by: Walton | June 17, 2009 11:17 AM
Because, as I have demonstrated above in rational argument (and you haven't successfully challenged it), state provision of these things is essential to individual freedom.
Fundamentally, I don't believe in authority. I don't believe that anyone - whether it be a monarch, a cabal of self-appointed experts, or the majority of voters of a democratic nation - has any moral right to tell others what to do. Each person should, on a day-to-day basis, decide for him- or herself what the right course of action is, and should take that course of action, regardless of what others think.
Sometimes, of course, the morally right course of action is to obey the law, because the law happens to prescribe actions that are morally right; this is the case, for instance, with prohibitions against rape and murder, or (returning to the main topic at hand) with taxation to pay for police, courts and national defence. When the law is right, then it should be obeyed - not because it is the law, nor because it is democratically approved, but because it is substantively right, and can be justified as such in rational argument.
Yet this does not involve a concession that the democratic majority has any inherent moral authority. It doesn't. If the democratic majority enacts laws which are morally iniquitous, then the correct course of action may be to disobey them (depending on how immoral these laws are, and whether the negative moral consequences of disobedience are outweighed by those of obedience). A rule does not have any special moral authority because it is law, nor because a majority of people approve of it (since, as we have seen time and time again, the majority is capable of being disastrously wrong).
Accordingly, I believe that I have the right to coerce others into paying for military, police and courts because, as per my arguments above, I believe that state provision of these things is the only morally acceptable option, as it is the only way to secure individual freedom.
This does not mean that I am imposing my own preferences on others. I like the music of J.S. Bach, for instance; yet I strongly object to government subsidies for Bach concerts (or for any other form of cultural or artistic expression), because I have no more right to force others to pay for my preferred music than they do to force me to pay for theirs. Similarly, I think it's clear that homeopathic "remedies" are a load of bullshit, and I strongly object to them being provided on the NHS. Yet I recognise that it is perfectly legitimate for supporters of homeopathy to spend their own money on these treatments; and just as they shouldn't force me to pay for homeopathic treatments, so too I have no moral right to force them to pay for conventional treatments.
This is qualitatively different from the matter of state provision of military/police services; for these things, unlike Bach concerts or medical treatment, lose their positive character unless they are provided equally to everyone at public expense.
Posted by: marilove | June 17, 2009 11:39 AM
No, Walton, you just think libraries, which are essential to a free nation, should be private, so that only the rich can afford them. Yay! Once again you've shown your colors: You don't care about the poor, or normal folk. Only folk with money.
Posted by: Svetogorsk | June 17, 2009 11:46 AM
Each person should, on a day-to-day basis, decide for him- or herself what the right course of action is, and should take that course of action, regardless of what others think.
And that's why your warped notion of the perfect society would be great for that tiny fraction of a percentage that is in a position to lord it over everyone else, and a horrendous nightmare for the rest.
Man is a naturally selfish animal, so surely it's fundamentally wrongheaded to encourage a system of societal organisation that not only encourages such selfishness but makes it a basic prerequisite if you're to have even the faintest hope of living an existence better than subsistence level?
When the law is right, then it should be obeyed - not because it is the law, nor because it is democratically approved, but because it is substantively right, and can be justified as such in rational argument.
But supposing the person you're arguing with is bigger than you, or wealthier, or more influential? They couldn't give two hoots about rational argument, because they know perfectly well that they're going to win regardless - after all, how do you propose to stop them?
So you end up in a situation where the law is effectively laid down by a tiny handful of unelected, unrepresentative oligarchs - which is pretty much what happened in Russia in the 1990s, and the problem was only resolved by a strong shift to a more authoritarian system. Which was welcomed by the masses with open arms (Vladimir Putin has a far bigger democratic mandate than Barack Obama, and there's little doubt that it's genuine), because they were far more clear-sighted about the logical consequences of your philosophy than you appear to be.
Posted by: Paul | June 17, 2009 11:46 AM
As you've defined it.Public welfare spending and unemployment programs bring more freedom to people on a day to day basis than the military or the police force. But you've got yours, so who cares about government spending other than what you consider yourself needing?
Posted by: Walton | June 17, 2009 12:06 PM
Yes, I do care about the poor. And I know that the greatest boon for the poor in all of world history - the reason we are not all now living in mud hovels - is consumer capitalism. Free trade has lifted millions out of poverty, and is in the process of lifting billions more.
Welfare schemes help some of the poor, and they have a legitimate place in helping those thrown out of work due to illness, economic recession, or other vicissitudes of life. But if they are made too generous, they end up hurting everyone in the long run, because they discourage enterprise and harm the economy, and become unsustainably expensive.
Posted by: maddyhatter
|
June 17, 2009 12:18 PM
I've read that book, sadly there's no gay sex in it. It's much tamer than the usual YA books. Kids beat him up and use the F word and a kid's father calls Jimi Hendrix (who the boys idolize) the N word. These are considered bad things.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
June 17, 2009 12:43 PM
speaking of clearsightedness, I've just finished reading an article about the problems in South Africa since the institution of the Glorious Capitalist Democracy(TM). And strangely enough, many people weren't happy with it! one man actually said: "My life was better during apartheid. Freedom turned out to be just a word. Real freedom, real power, that comes from money -- and I haven't got any money."
this is incidentally the same sentiment a lot of East Germans and Poles express when you ask them. They never wanted capitalism, they wanted democracy.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
June 17, 2009 12:50 PM
whatever drug you're on, I want some. Free trade is about to drive us straight of the resource-shortage cliff: growth economics, increased production, increased consumption, profit over sustainability, externalization of most costs, etc. If all that doesn't end soon, there won't be much of a civilization left in a century; just a bunch of starving people warring with each other over the last remaining resources, in a world with a completely destabilized climate.
your capitalism will be the death of all of us.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | June 17, 2009 1:04 PM
Walton:
Since you're touting the historical success of moderated, mixed-economy capitalism — and while there are millions of people around who would quibble with you about that if they weren't so busy trying to stay alive, I think there is some broad truth in this point — I can't help wondering why you seem so eager to replace it with an ahistorical, unproven, extreme version of capitalism.
As with medicine, it does not necessarily follow that if a little capitalism is a good thing, a whole lot more capitalism will be even better.
While we're at it, I think it's amusing that you claim to oppose authority, yet continue to promote a social system (or, more correctly, the lack of same) that couldn't fail to devolve into a new feudalism. No authoritarianism in that, right?
Posted by: Walton | June 17, 2009 1:18 PM
Only lemonade, I'm afraid... since waking up to the hangover from hell yesterday, I've been staying off the stronger stuff for a couple of days.
Why do you consider "social system" to be synonymous with state control? Social institutions can, and frequently do, exist and flourish in the absence of coercive government intervention.
This is true; yet introducing capitalism into areas of the economy which were previously state-controlled has seen, almost invariably, massive success. (School vouchers, for instance.) And those countries which previously had highly socialised economies have, in the last few decades, shifted back towards a capitalist economy.
Europe is a good indicator of this. The French economy is going to hell in a handbasket, partly because of their over-mighty trade unions and stubborn refusal to deregulate the labour market. The Scandinavian countries are gradually having to reduce their bloated government infrastructures (except Norway, which is wealthy because of its North Sea oil reserves); indeed, school vouchers are a Swedish invention, and remain hugely popular in that country.
I don't advocate the abolition of all government infrastructure. Government should provide policing, courts, emergency services, road maintenance, environmental protection, basic welfare support, and educational funding for poor children. But it should do so, as far as possible, via market mechanisms rather than direct state provision, and should seek to maximise individual consumer choice and competition.
Posted by: Paul | June 17, 2009 1:18 PM
@Bill Dauphin
It's not authoritarianism if the elites are in charge. They are in charge because they have proven themselves more capable by reaching a position where they could be in charge. It is not their fault the lesser peoples failed to reach the same position due to their insufficiency. As long as this "state" construct isn't the one enshrining said elites at the top, all is right with the world.
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 17, 2009 1:20 PM
Accordingly, I believe that I have the right to coerce others into paying for military, police and courts because, as per my arguments above, I believe that state provision of these things is the only morally acceptable option, as it is the only way to secure individual freedom. - Walton
It is of course quite clear that most if not all of the UK's military could be disbanded without the slightest danger of invasion. Similarly, much of the resources of the police is wasted (as I believe you agree) on victimless crime. So much of this spending is not a "good" at all. Why should I pay for it with my taxes?
It's exactly as I said: you think that what it is permissible to coerce people into paying taxes for should be decided by... Walton. Your egoism really does know no bounds, as you demonstrate here regularly in other ways than the "libertarianism" you espouse.
And you don't give a shit about the poor. If you did, you'd actually bother to learn some of the history that shows the need for public provision, regulation and ownership, to limit the increase of inequality and the environmental destruction that unfettered private property rights produce.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 17, 2009 1:39 PM
I see Walton is again showing why his libertarian philosophy is a morally bankrupt. The moral bankruptcy, enshrined in the lack of common good by government, is why most intelligent people avoid that philosophy.
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 17, 2009 1:42 PM
Incidentally Walton, you display your lamentable ignorance when you equate "consumer capitalism" with "free trade". Capitalism has never come anywhere close to free trade. No country has ever industrialised except behind tariff barriers. None. Ever. Always, the rich and powerful - the capitalist elite - have sought, and very often obtained, monopolies or oligopolies; have subjected others to state power while evading and/or capturing it for themselves; and have used outright theft and murder when this is possible and most profitable. As you yourself recently pointed out, agribusinesses in rich countries have used those countries' power to force poor ones to remove their tariff barriers while refusing to remove their own. This isn't some anomaly - it is the very core of capitalism. This is the system under which wealth - along with inequality and environmental destruction - has grown over the past few centuries - not your mythical free trade. Removing the state from economic matters does not give power to individuals, except for the very rich, but to corporations. Learn some history, Walton.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | June 17, 2009 1:57 PM
Walton:
Sure they can. I don't dispute that.
I said you advocated the lack of any social system, because your "every man for himself" approach falls parsecs short of my standard definitions of both social and system... but I did not say the ultimate result would be the lack of "social institutions." Indeed, I think humans naturally create social structures no matter how desperately people like you try to avoid it.
You say...
...yet you affirm the absolute right of each individual to make every decision — including which of the few laws you admit might might be legitimate to actually follow — entirely for him/herself. Effectively, that is advocating the abolition of all government infrastructure, whether that's your intent or not. Of course, I don't believe it's constitutionally possible for any significant group of humans to strictly apply that principle. In practice, any attempt to so thoroughly institute individual sovereignty in the absence of formal social structures would lead to the most powerful individuals (which is to say, those most favored, in one way or another, by the circumstances of their birth) gathering less powerful individuals into their private spheres of authority (i.e., fiefdoms), and then using their "inferiors'" abilities and resources to defend their spheres against other powerful individuals.
That is, feudalism. Sound like fun to you? Not me. Perhaps you think you're naturally destined to be a feudal lord, and not a vassal or serf, but I'm not so confident that I, or my loved ones, would fare so well.
BTW...
In what alternate universe have school vouchers been a "massive success"? And what standard are you applying for "success"? In the U.S., AFAIK vouchers have (thank FSM) never been tried on any sufficiently large scale to determine their "success," but in any case, what voucher advocates would count as success — significant shifts of the student population from public to private schools, if not the eventual dissolution of the public schools altogether — would be the polar opposite of a Good Thing™ from my POV, since I think the single most important aspect of public schools is that they are public, and hence responsible to the public.
Of course, I can see where, as someone who doesn't believe the public even exists, you might scratch your head at my position. But apparently success = conformance to Walton's personal ideology.
I've been trying to resist joining Knockgoats in calling you, personally, an egoist, but it's increasingly difficult to avoid that conclusion.
Posted by: BK | June 17, 2009 2:03 PM
That's a bit embarrassing (ex-Wisconsinite). I was always very proud of Wisconsin being less likely than other states when it comes to banning books, movies, music, etc. This is very sad. Can't we ship those folks to Florida with all the other elderly or some other bible-belt state? Besides, what are the elderly doing reading books on sexuality? Have they not figured it out yet by then? I would think by that age one would just give up if they didn't know anything yet. Or maybe, they're just a bunch of pervs that get off on reading books on sexuality that are geared towards educating a younger crowd?
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 17, 2009 2:11 PM
And those countries which previously had highly socialised economies have, in the last few decades, shifted back towards a capitalist economy. -Walton
With the result of reduced growth rates, higher unemployment, and much greater inequality. The period 1945-75 showed both the longest sustained period of rapid growth in history, and the highest level of state intervention in the economy. Of course the rich have done very well out of the subsequent privatisation, which is all you really care about.
The French economy is going to hell in a handbasket
No it isn't: http://www.economist.com/countries/France/profile.cfm?folder=Profile-Economic%20Data. Like most economies it is under strain because of the deregulation-caused financial crisis, but the European countries in real trouble include Ireland, Latvia and others which followed your "free-market", noninterventionist, low-tax nostrums. The Scandinavian countries remain both the most egalitarian and among the richest, and the "reforms" of the current centre-right coalitions in Denmark and Sweden have not protected them from the downturn.
Posted by: Walton | June 17, 2009 2:46 PM
You're conflating two separate issues here - which is my fault, as I didn't express myself very clearly.
I am not contending that a person should never obey the law or co-operate with others. A person certainly should do this, where, in his or her own judgment, it is the morally right course of action to take. In some cases, an action may be morally good precisely because it is a widely-observed law or custom. For example, it is morally right to drive on the left-hand side of the road in the UK (or the right-hand side in the US) not because the action has any inherent moral significance, but because a society in which everyone drives on the same side of the road is likely to have fewer traffic accidents, and the reduction of traffic accidents is a morally worthy goal. So I am not contending that one should never, in practice, obey the commands of others.
Rather, I'm denying the notion that a law, qua law, has special moral authority simply because it is supported by a democratic majority. If a majority of people oppose gay marriage, then this does not make gay marriage any less morally right. If a majority of people support randomly invading France, then this does not mean that randomly invading France is the right thing to do, nor does it mean that a moral person ought (even if conscripted) to fight in said war against France.
Likewise, if a majority of people believe that I should pay 50% of my income in tax but I believe I should only pay 10%, then the fact that a majority of people disagree with me doesn't make them right, nor does it mean that I should necessarily obey them - and if I can avoid the higher rate of tax by moving my money into tax havens or exploiting loopholes, then I am completely morally justified in doing so. (This, of course, only applies if I sincerely believe the higher rate of tax to be immoral; I can't rely on this argument if I believe that the higher tax rate is morally acceptable, but simply don't want to pay it for selfish reasons.)
Posted by: Svetogorsk | June 17, 2009 2:46 PM
but the European countries in real trouble include Ireland, Latvia and others which followed your "free-market", noninterventionist, low-tax nostrums.
Damn, you beat me to it!
And of course Hungary, which is a very interesting case study indeed, as it would seem to be an exemplary example of a state adopting pretty unrestrained turbo-capitalist policies and suffering the consequences.
I'd be genuinely interested to hear Walton's take on Hungary's economic history over the last two decades, and specifically where he thinks it went wrong - as few would dispute that it's now an absolute basket case, and far worse off than many of its more regulation-inclined neighbours.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
June 17, 2009 2:50 PM
let's not forget Iceland, which bankrupted itself with it's obsession with the free market
Posted by: Walton | June 17, 2009 2:52 PM
Of course it did - because most European economies were devastated by the Second World War, and recovered rapidly due to loans from the US. Those were exceptional circumstances.
Tell me, why do you think Thatcher came to power with a large majority in 1979? Or Reagan in 1980? The economic policies pursued in Western countries in the 1970s led to catastrophic failures. If you deny this, then why were the people ready for a change? Do you seriously suggest that Britain and America were in a better economic state in the 1970s than in the 1990s?
Posted by: Svetogorsk | June 17, 2009 3:03 PM
Tell me, why do you think Thatcher came to power with a large majority in 1979? Or Reagan in 1980?
And why in turn do you think that the majority of central and eastern European countries couldn't wait to join the EU after experiencing a decade and a half of accelerated turbo-capitalism?
The pendulum swings both ways, which is why adopting an extreme position on either side is foolish at best and devastating at worst ("at worst" being a situation where you have the opportunity to put your disastrously wrongheaded ideology into practice).
Incidentally, Thatcher didn't have "a large majority" in 1979 - she merely had the largest share of the vote. Which wasn't even a majority of votes cast (it was about 43%, if I remember rightly), let alone a majority of the adult population in toto. She didn't even have a particularly large majority of parliamentary seats - it's smaller than the one that Gordon Brown now enjoys, for instance.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
June 17, 2009 3:12 PM
in 1970's, the average U.S. family managed to save 9% of their income. in 1990's, it was half that, and just before the crisis it was actually negative.
while in evil socialist countries like france and germany, the savings rate is still 10-13 percent.
hm...... seems like people in evil socialist countries where the government takes all their money away are left with more money that in good capitalist countries.
Posted by: Walton | June 17, 2009 3:29 PM
Vouchers have allowed poor kids, who would otherwise have been stuck in failing sink schools, to get a good education and fulfil their potential. I call that "success". What do you call it?
Posted by: Paul | June 17, 2009 3:58 PM
Failure to properly fund public schools.
The best of the poor kids will be allowed to get out of underfunded public schools and into the private schools that now get government money to take them, while the developmentally delayed or those with issues that the private schools monitor to disqualify them will still be stuck in the now even worse funded "sink" schools.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
June 17, 2009 4:07 PM
but paul, don't you know that's those kids own fault for not being good enough for private schools to want them?
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 17, 2009 4:08 PM
How many fee paying schools do not have some kind of selection criteria ?
Posted by: Svetogorsk | June 17, 2009 4:13 PM
The best of the poor kids will be allowed to get out of underfunded public schools and into the private schools that now get government money to take them, while the developmentally delayed or those with issues that the private schools monitor to disqualify them will still be stuck in the now even worse funded "sink" schools.
Indeed - thus providing further evidence (if any were needed) that Walton's philosophy will in practice come down firmly on the side of a small elite minority while everyone else just exists as drones to be callously exploited by people who know that they can get away with it because the system is so grotesquely slanted in their favour.
It's a curious notion of "freedom" when it results in the vast majority of people becoming far less free, but that's what happens if you deliberately remove the safeguards that most societies have erected in order to give its more vulnerable members a safety net. It's certainly what happened in central and eastern Europe since 1989 - which is not to say that the pre-1989 system was exactly wonderful, but the sudden switch into artificially accelerated, restraint-free capitalism was a calamitous disaster for a great many people.
Would I be right in assuming that Walton is either financially independent or has had very little experience of the real world outside his ivory tower? I'm certainly guessing that he's pretty young and naïve - or at least I hope that's the case.
Posted by: Alyson Miers | June 17, 2009 4:14 PM
@#218: Pretty much...none of them. They get funded on a per-student basis, they get to decide which services to provide or not, AND they get to decide which students with all their emotional and behavioral and academic issues to take on or not...but the onus is on public schools to "compete" with them.
There goes my lunch again.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
June 17, 2009 4:18 PM
incidentally, I'm all for special programs for highly gifted students, because they tend to do shitty in regular school-curriculums. but you can only be both fair AND supporting of excellence when you build the special programs on top of a good general basic education, not instead of it.
Posted by: Paul | June 17, 2009 4:29 PM
I would love for Walton to admit that is a consequence of his pet voucher idea. I've seen him play blame the victim for adults, but I don't recall it happening for kids yet. But that is the logical conclusion for voucher programs. They suck government money away from helping any but those who are "good enough" for the private schools, good enough meaning the ones that will take the least amount of money to educate while keeping up the school's pristine image.
Wholeheartedly agree. But you cannot hold up the existence and/or prevalence of "gifted and talented" programs to show the success of a given approach to educating the general public. Which is the issue when you mention vouchers as a success because they let in poor kids (what happens to the kids they don't let in? Oh, they're still at the sink schools that now have even less government money).
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
June 17, 2009 4:29 PM
how exactly is this argument different from AfricanGenesis' suggestion to you to get yourself a Thai mail-order-bride? after all, you wouldn't be coercing her to anything and thus reducing her freedom; on the contrary, you'd be enhancing her freedom by offering her a
jobmarriage; you'd have increased her range of options!Posted by: Walton | June 17, 2009 4:33 PM
In Britain, we've poured tons of money into the state education system (and into the NHS, and into most other state services) over the last ten years. Have we seen a substantial improvement? No.
The UK Libertarian Party has actually pointed out that, if we returned to the pre-2000 level of government spending in the UK, we would actually be able to abolish income tax. While I don't necessarily advocate this, it illustrates beautifully that more spending is NOT the solution. Spending more money on government services just means that more money gets wasted on pointless bureaucracy. Competitive market mechanisms, by contrast, have a demonstrated ability to improve the quality and value of service provision.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
June 17, 2009 4:34 PM
agreed.
Posted by: Walton | June 17, 2009 4:38 PM
True; and I certainly wouldn't suggest that the practice of marrying "mail-order brides" should be illegal. If both parties consent to it, then it's no different to any other voluntary contractual relationship.
I wouldn't personally enter into such an arrangement for the reasons which I explained on the other thread: namely, (like most people), I want the emotional experience and confidence boost which comes with being in a relationship with someone who likes me for who I am, not for what I can provide. But different people want different things out of life; and if someone else wants to marry a "mail-order bride" (or groom, for that matter), then it's up to him (or her).
Posted by: Svetogorsk | June 17, 2009 4:43 PM
But you cannot hold up the existence and/or prevalence of "gifted and talented" programs to show the success of a given approach to educating the general public.
Absolutely not - I too am all for offering opportunities based on ability and merit, but there are a great many different kinds of abilities that also need to be taken into account.
My son, for instance, is autistic, and is benefiting enormously from a local authority that's enlightened enough to subsidise one-to-one teaching support (which is currently essential: he's very bright when motivated, but loses interest rapidly). I'm sure this is costing them a fortune and I couldn't possibly afford to pay it myself - but the improvements he's been making since he began this regime are quite phenomenal (relatives who only see him every few months barely recognise him), and it's now looking very likely that he'll manage to overcome many of his more severe difficulties, or at least develop compensating mechanisms to disguise them.
But he's exactly the kind of bright but behaviourally "difficult" child who's likely to be penalised by a voucher system - the only reason he's in a mainstream school rather than the local sink school for developmentally disabled kids who have essentially been written off is because of a taxpayer-funded system that essentially forces them to take him. And, for obvious reasons, I'm all for it.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
June 17, 2009 4:47 PM
i give up. someone needs to transplant walton's brain into the body of an actual, poor, disadvantaged person, because it seems there's no other way to teach him what kind of heartless cruel world he's supporting
Posted by: Walton | June 17, 2009 4:47 PM
And how, exactly, would this be worse than the existing situation?
I know it sounds callous. But the reality is that there will always be winners and losers. We cannot provide a great education to everyone, just as we cannot provide a great standard of living to everyone. Government, then, has two choices. It can provide all poor kids with the same crappy education (while those lucky enough to have wealthy parents will go to private schools, or move into areas with better local schools). Or it can accept that there will always be inequality in education, and spend money on ensuring that the gifted children are those who receive the best education.
Basically - as Rand so beautifully points out - people are not equal. Some people will succeed in life and others will fail. And this is a good thing; because it is the bright, successful people who drive our society forward, innovate, and create a better standard of living for everyone. All government should do is provide mechanisms to give the gifted a chance to succeed, and accept that some will succeed and others will fail.
(Before you ask: no, I don't really account myself one of the gifted. I have a fairly good brain and can write quite well, but I don't have any exceptional practical talents, I'm not very mentally or emotionally stable, and I'm certainly not a natural entrepreneur or innovator. I don't expect to become fantastically wealthy - whereas some of my peers will. And that's the way it should be; because those with more talent and ability than me ought to have more success.)
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
June 17, 2009 4:51 PM
spoken like a true privileged spoiled brat
Posted by: Walton | June 17, 2009 4:55 PM
I care a lot about the poor and disadvantaged. I do what I can with my slender student means; I give money to homeless people and to charity. When (or maybe if, given the current economic climate) I'm earning a salary, I fully intend to set up a regular charity donation. I might well take a year out after my degree and do some volunteer work. I do care, very deeply, and I have every intention of doing more on a personal level.
But what we can't afford as a society is to coercively confiscate money from the successful and productive, and give it to the poor and disadvantaged. As much as our natural sympathy with them might make us wish to distribute wealth from the wealthy to the poor, the fact is that, by doing so, we will destroy the engine of capitalism which drives virtually all human progress.
In the end, my philosophy (influenced by Rand and many others) is not that we should hate the poor (we certainly shouldn't), but rather that it's OK to be successful, and to enjoy the fruits of one's success. I fully intend to do what I can with my own mind and resources to create a better world for the poor and disadvantaged; because I want to do so. But I have no right - and nor do you - to coerce other people into living for others, rather than for themselves.
Posted by: Paul | June 17, 2009 4:56 PM
Which is why private health insurance companies maximize quality of care instead of trying to keep the number of claims they pay out to the minimum possible amount, amirite? I'll grant value. Market mechanisms are great at maximizing value for stockholders. They have no interest in quality, only efficiency in how much return a given investment will make. So at best, a competitive market will get us the absolute worst possible system they can still get people to pay for (and many people will not even get that choice, since they are excluded because it is impossible to offer them a plan that offers them a product at a price they can pay, like health insurance for people with pre-existing conditions or education for autistic kids). I can hardly contain my enthusiasm.
Posted by: Walton | June 17, 2009 5:00 PM
I realise that I'm very privileged, yes, and that in my early life I've enjoyed a standard of living which is vastly higher than that of the overwhelming majority of people in human history. I've done nothing to earn this, and I realise that I'm very lucky.
But the point I'm making is that, in a (relatively) meritocratic society, my early privilege won't necessarily translate into massive success later in life. There are people from substantially poorer backgrounds than me who will end up being substantially wealthier than me - as they should, because they are more talented than me.
Posted by: maureen Brian
|
June 17, 2009 5:02 PM
We cannot provide a great education to everyone ...
Why not? We are a wealthy country, even in the present global economic shambles, and we have any amount of proof that raising the level of education benefits both the economy and the individuals within it.
Remember, Walton, it costs a damn sight less to educate people than to keep them in jail for even a couple of years. If you took up criminology along with all that history you'd already know that those whose schools failed them are heavily over-represented in the prison population. Or are you up for building ever more and more expensive detention facilities now that we can no longer export such people to Australia?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 17, 2009 5:04 PM
And that is the selfish morally bankrupt attitude of the libertarians. That is exactly what is wrong with your philosophy. Get off your self and look at society as a whole. Humans are social animals. That is called being mature and moral.Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
June 17, 2009 5:05 PM
and what? you think your petty little charity donations will make a difference? unless you become bill gates, it won't make ANY difference at all, no matter what.
you should really learn about how charities and even international aid doesn't actually help anyone with anything. you're not fixing the systemic problems that create the situations you're trying to ameliorate; worse, you're perpetuating them by
a)making yourself feel less guilty, thus removing any impulse for actual change (basically, you're the equivalent of a Prius driver claiming they're doing their best to alleviate environmental damage)
b)making it look superficially like the problem can be fixed without actually requiring to change the system that's causing it (anologously, no amount of patching will make Windows a good OS; but it sure keeps people from ditching it)
P.S.: obviously SIWOTI is keeping me from doing the right thing and ending this sisyphean task of trying to get any knowledge past your thick skull. Morton's demon is strong in you.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 17, 2009 5:07 PM
For Walton a society is to be judged by the how the most succesful are treated.
For the humane and civilised amongst us a society is to be judged on how the most disadvantaged are treated.
Posted by: Paul | June 17, 2009 5:09 PM
[Citation Needed]Nice screed on how because not everyone will take advantage of academic opportunity equally, there is no reason to offer them equal access to academic opportunity. You're disgusting.
It would be great to see your work, Walton. We've been "coercively" taxing for the entire length of recorded history. What makes you think your dream world where we don't tax would work better? Must be all that data the Cato Institute is hiding from the unenlightened. Taxation has been present for the entire lifespan of capitalism, and the engine has not stopped. Why the fearmongering and bald, factually untrue assertions?
Well, I should say you want a world where we only tax to support the causes that YOU think it is worth taxing to support. Not where we don't tax. You're not even consistent there. Your non-excludable argument about law enforcement doesn't hold water, either, but you've been shown that in the past and continue to persist in that line of argument.
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 17, 2009 5:09 PM
In Britain, we've poured tons of money into the state education system (and into the NHS, and into most other state services) over the last ten years. Have we seen a substantial improvement? No. - Walton
Well, yes, actually - you're just spewing Tory propaganda, Walton. For the NHS, hospital waiting times and GP services have considerably improved for example. Surveys indicate that most people are satisfied with their experience of the NHS, but many think it's getting worse because that's what much of the press says. Much money has of course been wasted by the erection of artificial markets, the siphoning off of profitable operations to private companies at inflated prices, and the PFI rip-off (also a factor in school building). In education, greatly increased nursery provision, more teachers and hence reduced class sizes, greatly increased participation in further and higher education, rising numbers and grades in exam passes.
Anecdotally, the NHS has recently saved my brother's life (a cancer that would probably have killed him ten years earlier - yes he could have got the same treatment under a private system, if he was insured, but as he'd already had an earlier bout of cancer, this would have been at exorbitant cost if available at all), and my son is flourishing in state education.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
June 17, 2009 5:10 PM
actually yes, yes it will. and that you can't and won't see that is what makes you a privilege-blind brat capable of spewing this bs about a meritocracy even being possible in a libertarian society.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
June 17, 2009 5:13 PM
fuck... I can't remember where the discussion about the imperialistic "we" went... but in any case, that's a pretty good example of it i think...Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 17, 2009 5:14 PM
The surveys also show that those who have either accessed NHS care recenty, or have a close relative who has, consistantly show more satisfaction than those who have not.
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 17, 2009 5:16 PM
It's worth knowing that the Swedish voucher system is neither as private, nor as wonderful, as Walton thinks. Private schools are still exclusively state-funded - they are not allowed to charge parents fees. Just over 10% of children now go to them - meaning nearly 90% don't. Many of the private schools are religious, in some cases fundamentalist, and this has increased racial and religious segregation.
Posted by: Svetogorsk | June 17, 2009 5:17 PM
But what we can't afford as a society is to coercively confiscate money from the successful and productive, and give it to the poor and disadvantaged. As much as our natural sympathy with them might make us wish to distribute wealth from the wealthy to the poor, the fact is that, by doing so, we will destroy the engine of capitalism which drives virtually all human progress.
Only if you adopt a polarised either/or approach - a libertarian one where the government gives nothing to the poor, or a socialist one that tries to equalise everything. I think both philosophies are utterly misguided, and that it's far more sensible to strike a pragmatic balance, whereby we tax people at a relatively painless level (and Britain and the US have markedly lower tax rates than in many countries in, say, western Europe) and use that levy to provide a safety net for the disadvantaged.
I've been paying income tax for half my life: it's deducted at source, and it's never bothered me one iota, because there's still more than enough left over for me to enjoy a very comfortable lifestyle - and I don't earn much more than the national average. And I'm perfectly happy to let specialised agencies decide how best to distribute this money, because I have neither the time nor the expertise to do it myself.
An excellent illustration of why letting individuals pick their favourite charities is a bad idea is demonstrated by the fact that British donkey sanctuaries are rolling in cash while far less cute'n'cuddly but possibly more societally important projects are crying out for support.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 17, 2009 5:22 PM
In respect of the NHS, I would point out that primary care is one area where patients express the most disatisfaction. Of course GP's within the NHS are almost all self-employed, getting fees for providing patient care. The exceptions to this tend to be in poor inner city areas.
Good example of the free market there, I don't think.
Posted by: Walton | June 17, 2009 5:58 PM
Maureen brian:
I'm actually about to do just that - I'll be studying Criminal Justice and Penology as a module next year. I find it a fascinating field, and am even considering doing an MSc in criminology after I graduate.
No, I'm up for reducing the number of crimes for which we imprison people. In my view, the purpose of imprisonment should be simply to protect the public from those with a demonstrated propensity to use violence. Non-violent drug users should certainly not go to prison; nor should white-collar criminals. Imprisonment is absurdly expensive, mentally traumatic, and is highly likely to cause people to re-offend. We really need to re-think our approach to criminal justice. The Daily Mail "lock 'em up and make 'em suffer" approach needs to be abandoned in favour of a rational, intelligent pro-liberty strategy.
Knockgoats:
Yes - thousands more now study such worthwhile courses as "leisure studies", "football culture" (colloquially labelled by the press as "David Beckham studies") and "media studies". I personally know students at various third-rank universities who've spent most of their three years getting drunk and going to parties, do one essay a year, and are still set to receive degrees. And, of course, all this is heavily subsidised by the taxpayer (we pay £3000 a year in tuition fees, when the real cost of undergraduate education is closer to £10-12000). Hence why British higher education is becoming financially unsustainable, because of Labour's arbitrary target of getting 50% of young people into higher education come what may.
Ah yes - good old grade inflation.
Jadehawk:
My donations on their own won't make a difference - but the month-by-month donations of millions of ordinary people can, and do, make a difference. Why do you think mass charity events (such as Children in Need) are so popular? These events can genuinely raise millions for worthy causes - without any coercion being involved. I'm not saying charity can solve all our social problems; it certainly can't, and there is a major problem with some worthy causes not getting adequate publicity or donations. But private charity is, nevertheless, a great thing.
Well, it's always been good enough for me. (I absolutely hate Apple Macs, and have never used Linux.) I've honestly never understood why people complain so much about Microsoft products. I use them on a day-to-day basis and have found them intuitive and reliable.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
June 17, 2009 6:11 PM
I already told you that. because it makes people feel better about themselves. the same happened after the 2004 Tsunami: people donated, and then they forgot about it; after all, they already helped. In reality of course the donations didn't help, they merely assuaged the consciences of the rich who promptly went off and forgot about the poor brown people. the same with Katrina-damaged New Orleans. Germany was rebuilt in 5 years because of government involvement and popular support for this government involvement. Neither the Tsunami-damaged areas nor New Orleans have been restored, because people's consciences have been pacified, and now they get indignant at expectations that they should help more.
and all I have to say about Windows being reliable is this
Posted by: Paul | June 17, 2009 6:17 PM
In addition to what Jadehawk noted, a big reason is they allow people to lower their tax liability. Get rid of taxes or tax write-offs for charitable giving and you'll notice a large downturn in the amount given to charity. Does your Libertarian utopia take this into account when declaring that charitable philanthropists can provide for the less fortunate?
Posted by: maureen Brian
|
June 17, 2009 6:27 PM
Good heavens, Walton, we agree on something! I hope that you thoroughly enjoy your new module in Criminal Justice and Penology.
There is, of course, a "but". If we are to reduce the numbers in prison and the wastefulness of much that happens there then we have to come up with alternative ways of persuading people to turn their lives around and to compensate in a meaningful way for the damage they may have done. Such programmes can be cost-effective in the long term but in the short term they cost actual money - from taxes. They are also more likely to be run by soft old lefties like me than by people who think as you do. For a start, the money's not good!
It's no good saying to a smack addict that he needs to be in a proven rehabilitation programme then telling him that there's a 15 month waiting list - during which time he will be arrested a dozen times more at great cost for either small-scale dealing or theft. He needs to be on it now. Likewise, if we identify that a second person is engaged in petty crime because, basically, he is unemployable then we must have in place the means to teach him to read and write, introduce him to more positive leisure activities, train him for reasonably paid work. Again, it costs. It requires a mixed economy and a realistic level of tax.
I'd have the assets of all those white collar criminals seized in total to pay for some of it but I doubt whether we'd get that past the House of Lords!
Anyway, good luck on your new course.
Posted by: Paul | June 17, 2009 6:37 PM
I don't know much about the English prison system, but at least in the US you will also need to fight against the private market mechanisms that lead to paying off judges to lock more teenagers up and lobbying the government for minimum sentencing requirements. Curious if Walton's module will be more theory or "facts on the ground".Posted by: maureen Brian
|
June 17, 2009 6:50 PM
Paul,
The UK does have a few privately owned and run prisons. They are not wildly successful and not yet a high enough proportion of the whole to influence policy. Resistance to more of them is loud and cross-party.
Part of the rationale for having them at all was to reduce costs but real life, as ever, did not work out quite like that!
Posted by: Notagod | June 17, 2009 11:18 PM
Paul, re: 168. Yeah, I caught that after I commented.
Sorry.
Posted by: Peter | June 17, 2009 11:27 PM
Please note the greater fight that is occurring in the political realms of the city as several board members of the library were removed in the wake of the attempt and local librarians across the county mobilized.. so know that the majority of us are strong (at least in neighboring Hartford) and began the good fight immediately upon hearing the bad news.
Posted by: buck09 | June 18, 2009 12:55 AM
FYI - Robert C. Braun, who is one of the people representing the plantiffs in this case is a litigious a-hole and all-around Wesboro-ish nutbag member of the "Christian Patriot" (i.e. militia) movement.
His litigation history, including litigation against cops he doesn't like: http://wcca.wicourts.gov/simpleCaseSearch.xsl
Posted by: Walton | June 18, 2009 4:41 AM
Well, as we're already spending £37,500 per prisoner per year (IIRC) on imprisonment, I don't see why we shouldn't spend the money on something more effective.
In general, rather than imprisonment, I think petty crime should be punishable with unpaid labour in the community - the profit from which should be paid to compensate the victim of the crime. So if someone steals goods worth £1,000, he should do £1,000-worth of community service and the state should remit the proceeds of his labour to the victim of his theft. This would tie criminal justice directly to recompense for injury - as it should be. The State certainly has no right to punish victimless crimes; the purpose of all law is to protect people and their property from illicit interference.
(We already compensate victims of crime, in the UK, through the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme. So my proposal would end up saving money overall.)
Imprisonment should be retained only for the most violent and dangerous criminals who need to be kept off the street. It shouldn't simply be a punishment for any conduct of which the State disapproves.
Posted by: Svetogorsk | June 18, 2009 4:42 AM
I'm actually about to do just that - I'll be studying Criminal Justice and Penology as a module next year. I find it a fascinating field, and am even considering doing an MSc in criminology after I graduate.
I just knew you were a student - your writing betrays an unmistakable combination of intellectual overconfidence blended with wild impracticality and naivete so extreme that it's rather touching.
I bet Peter Hitchens is glad that online discussion forums didn't exist in the 1970s when he was spouting extremist revolutionary dogma (Trotskyite in his case), as I'm sure it would be exquisitely embarrassing today. In his case, he became a journalist, ended up examining the real world in extreme close-up and consequently did a spectacular U-turn to become the authoritarian ultraconservative that he now is. Which I genuinely admire (though I usually disagree with him) - it takes guts to be so honest about how utterly wrong you were in the past.
No, I'm up for reducing the number of crimes for which we imprison people. In my view, the purpose of imprisonment should be simply to protect the public from those with a demonstrated propensity to use violence. Non-violent drug users should certainly not go to prison; nor should white-collar criminals. Imprisonment is absurdly expensive, mentally traumatic, and is highly likely to cause people to re-offend. We really need to re-think our approach to criminal justice. The Daily Mail "lock 'em up and make 'em suffer" approach needs to be abandoned in favour of a rational, intelligent pro-liberty strategy.
Surprisingly, I actually agree with most of this, though there's no way you could get away with a term like "a rational, intelligent pro-liberty strategy" in PR terms.
But I do agree that prison is far too blunt an instrument and often actively counterproductive - though I paradoxically disagree with you that it's ineffective on white collar criminals. On the contrary, I think loss of liberty is the only thing that really had an impact on the likes of Jeffrey Archer and Conrad Black - certainly much more than fining them amounts that constituted small change to the likes of them.
Yes - thousands more now study such worthwhile courses as "leisure studies", "football culture" (colloquially labelled by the press as "David Beckham studies") and "media studies".
Well, I did a leisure studies module as part of a business degree - initially with some reluctance, as it was the only leftover option to fit my timetable after I'd selected other subjects I was keener on studying, but in the end I found it surprisingly engrossing and very definitely worthwhile.
That's largely because it combined history, sociology, politics and economics in new and sometimes surprising ways, and made me look at nineteenth-century history in particular from angles that I hadn't explored before. I even alluded briefly to my studies earlier in this comments thread when I referred to the Victorians being very keen on free museums and public libraries as an essential counterbalance to the social harm caused by the by-products of the industrial revolution.
In all seriousness, I recommend reading The Devil Makes Work: Leisure in Capitalist Britain by John Clarke and Chas Critcher - not least because it challenges some of your more dogmatic and unrealistic assumptions about the way a civilised society should function.
Posted by: Cosmic Teapot | June 18, 2009 6:24 AM
I agree. Closer to Walton on the political spectrum than many who frequently comment here, he still exasperates me to such a degree that I usually leave any thread he starts to spout his views on.
But then he sometimes comes out with well reasoned arguments such as the above views on prison reform, most of which I agree with. I do have hope that he drops this youthful exuberance for his current political view for something more practical.
__________________________
For me, this is because he not only shows that he is both willing and able of learning from others, but that he is also willing to admit to his mistakes.
This strength of character makes me unwilling to dismiss him out of hand as a hopeless far right nut.
Posted by: maureen Brian
|
June 18, 2009 6:57 AM
I reiterate that I believe that £37,500 could be better spent! I'm taking Walton's word for this figure - have not checked.
One of the problems in real-life politics, though, is that all parties will however grudgingly eventually cough up the needed funds for the prisons. The alternative programmes are the ones they are constantly trying to cut "to save money" - even when it does no such thing. Both history and recent experience suggest that the Conservative Party has an even worse record on this than the others.
I speak here from direct experience in both the voluntary sector doing some of its work on government contracts and in a commercial company running job clubs again on the government's behalf - work in both cases being threatened by constant budget cuts, constant demands that we make a silk purse out of a sow's ear! Gory details are available on request.
We could massively reduce the UK's prison population overnight if we shipped out all those who are mentally ill, all those whose main problem is drug addiction and all those who are by now far too old to hurt a fly. Well, we could were it not for the fact that mental health in the community, care of the elderly and addiction programmes are all massively underfunded. Even inside prisons education and anger management courses are the first things to fall apart when someone decides to save a few quid.
It is clear that we cannot afford both a prison population which will hit 100,000 one of these days and the necessary alternative programmes. Where, though, will we find a set of politicians brave enough to get itself elected on a promise to halve the prison population during its first term?
Prison they understand, or think they do, and so they press on. The alternatives require, shall we say, more thinking than they are currently prepared to put into it.
I agree with Svetogorsk that deprivation of liberty may sometimes be the only way to deal with the "top end" of white collar crime. They have too many caches in too many countries and too many friends in high places for anything else to make the necessary impact. Ex-cabinet minister Jonathan Aitken is good on this - just a pity that he discovered god while the other beneficial effects were happening.
Walton, could we please know your definition of a victimless crime? It is harder to take this one further without some understanding of what you include here.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | June 18, 2009 2:15 PM
I see the conversation has moved on from when I last looked in on it, but I did want to respond to one thing:
My question wasn't entirely flippant: In the U.S., at least, vouchers have AFAIK never been applied on a large enough scale (or over a long enough period) to support your assertion. I had thought (hoped, for the rest of the world's sake) that voucher mania was a peculiar disease of the American right wing, but if you know of a place (aka alternate universe) where [a] the initial mix of public and private schools was in any way comparable to that in the U.S. and [b] vouchers have been applied to accomplish a large-scale, enduring shift of student population from public to private schools, I'd like to hear about it.
I'll note, though, that in the U.S., it's not generally the poor squawking loudest for vouchers. Instead, it's usually politically disaffected middle-class families (at least some of whom could no doubt afford private schooling even without vouchers) who want to opt out of public schools for their own reasons (usually either religious or ideological.
That's not to say that individual poor students might not be helped by vouchers, but to portray school vouchers as a poverty relief initiative is, at least in the American case, entirely incorrect.
You call it success because you only care about individuals' results, and there's no doubt that a few select individuals would have their needs well met by having their neighbors pay for fancy private schooling. I, OTOH, look at it from a societal perspective: At the system level, anything that sucks the best students and most highly motivated families out of the public system and leaves everyone else behind is a frickin' disaster!!
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 18, 2009 3:01 PM
Yes - thousands more now study such worthwhile courses as "leisure studies", "football culture" (colloquially labelled by the press as "David Beckham studies") and "media studies". I personally know students at various third-rank universities who've spent most of their three years getting drunk and going to parties, do one essay a year, and are still set to receive degrees. And, of course, all this is heavily subsidised by the taxpayer (we pay £3000 a year in tuition fees, when the real cost of undergraduate education is closer to £10-12000). Hence why British higher education is becoming financially unsustainable, because of Labour's arbitrary target of getting 50% of young people into higher education come what may.
I agree that the 50% target is arbitrary, but your claim was that increased spending had achieved nothing. It was, not to put too fine a point on it, utter crap. Nor have you provided any evidence that what you regard as worthless degrees are worthless, or make up a significant proportion of the additional students. But then, evidence has never been something that bothers "libertarians".
...rising numbers and grades in exam passes.
Ah yes - good old grade inflation.
And of course if grades had not risen, you'd have taken that to prove your point. How about some real evidence that grade inflation accounts for the rise? You, Walton, made the claim that the additional money spent on the NHS and education had achieved little. Now back it up with real evidence, not Daily Mail talking points, or withdraw it.
Your claims about caring about the poor don't fool many people here, even if you've managed to fool yourself - I honestly don't know whether you're a conscious hypocrite, or just very good at self-deception. All the policies you espouse are aimed at increasing inequality of wealth and power, and making those inequalities hereditary - evidence I've cited before shows clearly that social mobility declines with increased inequality, and you have, IIRC, supported the abolition of inheritance tax. You whine about progressive income tax, ignoring the fact that the rich, with their trust funds, offshore accounts and accountant's dodges often pay very little. You even cited progressive income tax as an example of equality before the law being violated - revealing, rather alarmingly for a law student, that you don't have the slightest idea what that term means.
The move toward privatisation and deregulation over the past three decades has pushed many into poverty, and culminated in the most astonishing cases of reward for failure for the rich, and the worst financial crisis in decades - yet all do is call for more of the same.
Those not from the UK may not realise quite what a good posiiton Walton is in to get rich and stay rich, even if his knowledge and talents are as mediocre as appears to be the case. Oxford (and Cambridge) are where the children of the English rich go for their university education, even if they're not very bright - IIRC, about 50% of their students have been to private, fee-paying schools. Particularly as a law student, and as a prominent student Conservative, he will be mixing with members of many of the richest and most influential families in the country, and many who will go on to high positions in politics, the law, business and journalism. As the saying has it, "It's not what you know, it's who you know". So Walton's views - given the latitude for wackiness traditionally allowed to students - are precisely what one would expect if they were dictated solely by considerations of his own advantage. Of course, this does not in itself show they are wrong - that's shown by the abundant evidence that has been presented against them in thread after thread. But anyone who has seen his brazen disregard for that evidence, and his inability to put forward any substantial evidence or arguments of his own rather than simplistic slogans, need not look far for an explanation.
Posted by: Paul | June 18, 2009 3:16 PM
Knockgoats,
That's a lot of words for "he's a privileged Libertarian college student." But then, even my statement could be pruned without loss of meaning.
Posted by: maureen Brian
|
June 18, 2009 5:07 PM
Knockgoats is right and, given the truth of the situation, relatively moderate about it. Don't write him or me off as the middle classes whining and, please, let him use as many words as he wants - there are an awful lot of thick skulls to drill through on this one.
Walton, as so often, is in a position well recognised in the UK - his sense of entitlement leaves him dangerously ill-informed. This might be a person who ends up making decisions about his so-called third-rate universities without ever setting foot in one. Or deciding not to admit a very bright kid because she holds her knife differently than him. We have a lot of those already.
Posted by: Walton | June 18, 2009 6:48 PM
You have all formed, I fear, a dangerously misleading picture of me.
I am not a snob. I went to an ordinary state school. I am not from a particularly wealthy background. I'm just an ordinary student (with emotional problems, at that). I'm not part of any social elite or powerful cabal.
I'm rather offended by that. Discussing politics is virtually the only thing I'm good at. Maybe I'm not great even at that; but I do my best, and people tell me I'm a reasonably good writer and a fairly clear political thinker.
I notice that you have not replied to the post where I pointed out that your constant assertion that 1945-75 saw the fastest economic growth in history, while technically true, is vacuous and misleading. Of course recovery was fast at that point, because many world economies, having been devastated by WWII, were recovering from a very low base - with the help, incidentally, of loans from the eeeviiilll capitalist United States.
Few can seriously deny - and no one has really attempted to deny, when I pointed it out above - that by the late 70s, the British and American economies were in a mess. Will you seriously suggest that Britain was in a better state in 1979, economically speaking, than in 1989?
I am not an economic genius; it's not my field, and, indeed, I've never studied economics formally at all. So please forgive me if I am not capable of reeling off thousands of facts from memory. Having had a very hard couple of weeks, I don't have the energy to do any research right this second. But you have not answered my points above, and, until you do so, insulting my abilities, and making insinuations about my personal economic circumstances, is not particularly constructive.
Posted by: Paul | June 18, 2009 7:36 PM
I did not intend to write him off; I was simply pointing out that the vast majority of his statements about Walton follow purely from his (Walton's) Libertarian ideology. That is, of course he's privileged and has not had a taste of the real world, or had to experience life like the proles -- that's why he's still a doctrinaire Libertarian (he seems to still be at the point where it's a lack of exposure instead of a lack of empathy).
You've referred to your own abilities as mediocre more than once in comment threads here. You're surprised when someone takes it at face value instead of trying to talk you up? I think you don't give yourself enough credit, at times, but then you tow the Libertarian line without analyzing it from any perspective but your own and the impulse to give you the benefit of the doubt disappears.
Posted by: maureen Brian
|
June 18, 2009 8:09 PM
Walton, I misjudged you and I apologise. I was led astray by somehow getting the impression you were one of those - you will have met them - who end up at Oxford or Cambridge because they don't really believe in the existence of all the other universities!
Is it possible that you now find yourself in a situation where you are having to re-program yourself to fit in?
I do recommend the Richard Dawkins lecture which PZ has just posted - as well as being thoroughly amusing he is very good on this particular point. Give it a try!
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
June 18, 2009 10:35 PM
Morton's demon in action. I've given you one set of stats I've easy access to: savings rates
another set you might want to look into: real wages; healthcare costs; education costs; volatility of market;
then come back and tell me again how much better the average American was in the 90's then they were in the 60's (yes, the 60's, not 70's. to pick a depression as a starting point is disingenuous)
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
June 18, 2009 10:38 PM
example: real wages continued going up right into the 70's and then stopped dead, despite the fact that productivity continued to grow... hmm... I wonder where all the money went instead...
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 19, 2009 6:08 AM
Walton,
I notice that you have not replied to the post where I pointed out that your constant assertion that 1945-75 saw the fastest economic growth in history, while technically true, is vacuous and misleading. Of course recovery was fast at that point, because many world economies, having been devastated by WWII, were recovering from a very low base - with the help, incidentally, of loans from the eeeviiilll capitalist United States.
You object to my repeating the simple truth, because it shows your simplistic crap about high taxes and government ruining the economy for what it is. The postwar recovery would not have happened without the Marshall plan - which was probably the greatest piece of government economic intervention and enlightened self-interest in world history. Oh, and cut the attempts at sarcasm - you're no good at it.
Few can seriously deny - and no one has really attempted to deny, when I pointed it out above - that by the late 70s, the British and American economies were in a mess.
They were indeed - due partly to inflationary factors which had affected all economies - the US's attempt to fight the Vietnam War without raising tax rates, and the politically-inspired oil price hikes by OPEC; partly by the failure of the US and UK (unlike West Germany and Japan which weathered this inflation much better) to achieve workable systems for negotiating wage rates. Note that the West German and Japanese governments were far more interventionist than those of the US and UK.
Will you seriously suggest that Britain was in a better state in 1979, economically speaking, than in 1989?
Yes indeed: in 1979 we still had the manufacturing industry which Thatcher had wantonly destroyed by 1989 in her hate-fuelled campaign against the trades unions. Inflation was certainly lower - but unemployment was much higher (even though you've cherry-picked the year 1989 which was a low point in unemployment). In real terms, it's never been below 3 million since the recession of the early 1990s, but various statistical fiddles (by both Tory and New Labour governments) have disguised its level. I lived through the 1979-89 period; I saw the massive increase in the number of beggars on the streets, and the growth of "cardboard cities". But of course the rich did very well, and have continued to do so - which is all you care about.
I'm not part of any social elite or powerful cabal. - Walton
Yes you are - you're an Oxford University law student - that is a social elite in relation to your age-group, and your failure to recognise it is laughable. Your fellow-students, and members of the Conservative and "libertarian" groups, will include members of the richest and most influential families in the country. The policies you espouse are aimed at entrenching and extending the inequality from which they benefit.
Discussing politics is virtually the only thing I'm good at. Maybe I'm not great even at that; but I do my best, and people tell me I'm a reasonably good writer and a fairly clear political thinker.
Then they have low standards. Admittedly, one might get that impression from a brief acquaintance - but the more you comment, the more obvious it becomes that there's nothing there but simplistic nostrums.
I am not an economic genius; it's not my field, and, indeed, I've never studied economics formally at all. So please forgive me if I am not capable of reeling off thousands of facts from memory.
And yet you have no hesitation whatever in making sweeping pronouncements about economics. As to facts - look them up, then make your pronouncements, if the facts are actually there to support them. OK, pretty much everyone, me included, is sometimes guilty of making the pronouncement first in the heat of argument - but you do it habitually, and seldom if ever back it up with facts even when it is challenged.
Having had a very hard couple of weeks, I don't have the energy to do any research right this second. But you have not answered my points above, and, until you do so, insulting my abilities, and making insinuations about my personal economic circumstances, is not particularly constructive.
As Paul noted, I'm partly just taking your own expressed estimate of your abilities at face value. Aside from that, I'm going on your performance here. I'm not bothered about being constructive any more as far as you're concerned - I'm sick to the back teeth of your whining (see above for yet one more example), your egoism, your callousness, your invincible ignorance, your self-righteousness, and your empty sloganising.
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 19, 2009 6:17 AM
example: real wages continued going up right into the 70's and then stopped dead, despite the fact that productivity continued to grow - Jadehawk
Indeed (in the US anyway - real wages have grown in the UK). But as far as Walton's concerned, all the gains of additional productivity going to the rich isn't a bug, it's a feature.
Posted by: Walton | June 19, 2009 6:47 AM
Knockgoats,
I don't understand your resentment and hostility towards me. Yes, I am at Oxford (and I am very lucky to be here, particularly as I went to an ordinary state school), and yes, I do know a few people who are from wealthy and well-connected families - but many more who are not. Please don't perpetuate stereotypes. Most people at Oxford are from ordinary backgrounds; about 55% went to state schools, and it is only a small minority who are from well-known families. (Yes, I realise that it is still disproportionate, as only 7% of the population as a whole is privately educated. But I'm just pointing out that the majority of people at Oxford are not wealthy.)
The majority of serious academic economists today will acknowledge that Thatcher saved the British economy. The corporatist model which existed after WWII stifled innovation, perpetuated inefficient and unsustainable industries at the public expense, and made us less competitive. Britain today - for all its flaws - is a better place to live than Britain at any other time in history, and I feel very privileged - as are we all - to live in the present day.
But I feel it could still be made better, if we trimmed down the bureaucratic state. Just go on the Guardian Public Sector Jobs website - what the hell does a "Local Committee and Partnership Officer" do exactly? What we need is what Daniel Hannan is suggesting - a major dispersal of power away from Whitehall and Brussels, to local communities. We need to significantly strengthen local government (including giving it a much more solid tax base of its own, rather than forcing it to rely on ring-fenced Treasury grants), and we need to get rid of centralised, unaccountable quangos (Regional Development Agencies, the Health and Safety Executive, English Partnerships...).
This is why I hope that Cameron's Conservatives - while leaving much to be desired, and I'm certainly not an uncritical supporter - will pave the way for a better, less centralised and more free Britain.
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 19, 2009 7:37 AM
I don't understand your resentment and hostility towards me - Walton
As I said: "I'm sick to the back teeth of your whining (see above for yet one more example), your egoism, your callousness, your invincible ignorance, your self-righteousness, and your empty sloganising."
The majority of serious academic economists today will acknowledge that Thatcher saved the British economy. The corporatist model which existed after WWII stifled innovation, perpetuated inefficient and unsustainable industries at the public expense, and made us less competitive. - Walton
Once again a lot of Tory spew without a particle of evidence.
what the hell does a "Local Committee and Partnership Officer" do exactly? - Walton
I don't know. Why don't you fucking well try to find out, since you brought it up, instead of just assuming it's nothing useful? You'll find plenty of similarly obscure job titles in the private sector.
Posted by: maureen Brian
|
June 19, 2009 8:11 AM
I have no idea, nor do I care, whether this is the job Walton is complaining about. I simply googled and it came up.
It does, though, seem to be about ensuring that government and the relationships between bodies both formal and informal work together well at the most local of levels.
Wasn't that something - powers devolved, decisions made as close to those affected as was humanly possible - that our Walton was on about not so long ago?
Or am I simply going mad?
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
June 19, 2009 12:33 PM
oh yeah, because that's working so bloody well for the U.S.
*facepalm*
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | June 19, 2009 1:00 PM
Walton:
I think you may be associating privilege too closely with wealth and social prominence, or (and this is really just another way of saying the same thing) you're defining wealth and social prominence too narrowly.
I suspect the numbers are fundamentally similar at Yale, where my daughter is now a rising sophomore (indeed, AFAIK Oxford and Cambridge are the models upon which the older elite U.S. universities were originally based). Because it is focused on academic excellence, and because its endowment enables extraordinarily generous financial aid, Yale is by no stretch of the imagination mostly populated by the sort of polo-playing, yacht-owning old-money elites that the movies and TV sometimes portray.
But, and here's the key point, that doesn't mean the students there aren't privileged elites. First, Yale students (and, I presume, Oxford students as well) are by definition intellectual elites (the relatively few who might be academically undeserving "legacies" are by definition elites of the other sort). But more broadly, simply being a college-educated member of the American or British middle class — and regardless of a person's origins, a Yale or Oxford (or similar) degree is an automatic admission ticket to the middle class, at least — represents a dizzying level of privilege and wealth, compared to the vast majority of the world's population.
It's this last point, and your apparently impenetrable resistance to understanding same, that frustrates many of us here. You keep pointing at your wealthier, more aristocratic "betters" and saying (whining, it sometimes seems) "hey, I'm not one of them, so why are you picking on me?" You seem incapable of seeing — or, which would be worse, unwilling to see — that for ever person wealthier or more privileged than you, there are thousands or tens of thousands of people less well off.
Mind you, I don't partake of the disingenuous anti-intellectual "populism" of the American right wing: I think elites are good... but only if they remain mindful of the existence of, and their responsibilities to, those less fortunate.
The philosophies you promote here with regularity seem distinctly unmindful on that score: They would (at least theoretically) benefit individuals of your own station, and of the higher stations to which you seem to aspire, but they hold no promise for those who begin from disadvantaged positions, nor do they embrace any sense of community with your fellow humans.
The frustration this provokes in some of us is made all the more piquant because you appear to possess the intellectual "equipment" to be something so much better than the selfish Randite you come off as so often.
Does that help explain it for you?
Posted by: Walton | June 19, 2009 1:32 PM
That's very true. Indeed, most people on this blog - the majority of whom are college-educated and live in either the US, UK or Australia - are vastly more privileged than billions of people in the Third World. No one is denying this.
But the fact is that the only hope for generating the wealth which will lift those billions out of poverty, and give their children and grandchildren the opportunities we presently enjoy, is free international trade. We in the West enjoy a luxurious lifestyle today, compared to our ancestors, principally because of the Industrial Revolution and generations of consumer capitalism. The same process of trade and economic development is, as we speak, reducing poverty in many of the world's economically developing countries.
Generally, the poorest countries, and the ones that are staying poor, are poor because they are politically unstable, and therefore cannot attract investment and international business. No one is going to pour money into commercial opportunities in Zimbabwe or Iraq, for instance. But when a country becomes politically stable, and opens its markets to global trade, it soon becomes wealthier and more prosperous. All we need to do is open up international markets, abolish tariffs, subsidies and barriers to trade, and let the world economy flourish. Yes, this will have a detrimental environmental impact in the short run, as millions of new consumers in China and India start spending their disposable income; but as I'm highly sceptical about anthropogenic "climate change", I firmly believe that lifting the poor out of poverty is more important than "saving the planet" (and we cannot do both).
So my policies are not primarily aimed at aiding people in my own position. They're aimed at aiding the poorest and most disadvantaged people in the world. Certainly, I think - and often say - that it's OK to be successful and to enjoy the fruits of one's success. But wealth is not a zero-sum game, and caring about oneself doesn't mean one can't care about extending the same opportunities to others.
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 19, 2009 1:44 PM
as I'm highly sceptical about anthropogenic "climate change" - Walton
You know absolutely fuck-all about climate science, but because its conclusions conflict with your ludicrous ideology, you reject them. Exactly like a creationist.
Posted by: Paul | June 19, 2009 1:45 PM
?
It's amazing how one can look at two of your posts in the same thread and, if they were anonymous, would never guess the same person wrote them. You want to help those in the third world, but will actively argue against offering help to people in your own nation. Why can't you write off people in the third world as "losers" and call it a day?
Oh right, because lack of tariffs and employee rights means cheap labor for the rich to use to further enrich themselves, while driving down the cost of local labor. It also allows them to cut corners and avoid baseline safety requirements for products, which the market will not penalize because the average citizen has no capacity to analyze the quality or safety of goods they purchase.
Basically, almost every belief you espouse can be predicted based on your "class" and the conservative company you keep, though you use different arguments and approaches to justify them (varying as widely as compassion for the poor or the fairness to the common man or how it will stifle business/enterprise). Do you ever sit down and wonder why that is?
Posted by: Mpeterson | June 19, 2009 1:45 PM
Thank you for keeping this issue in front of the public. (I notice we finally made ABC News.)
Attention from outside has done wonders for morale here, among those fighting off this nonsense.
Best from West Bend,
Mark
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
June 19, 2009 2:01 PM
wtf?
"free trade" has not lifted any nation out of poverty ever. and for someone who desperately wants to believe that "society" doesn't exist, you seem to be surprisingly prone to conflating "nation" with "people living in a country". Investment and free trade do sometimes make a "nation" wealthy, but at the same time make a large chunk of the people living there more desperately poor.
and I'm not even going to go into your AGW denialism. Morton's demon for the libertarian soul.
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 19, 2009 2:03 PM
All government should do is provide mechanisms to give the gifted a chance to succeed, and accept that some will succeed and others will fail. - Walton
And if, because they fail, their children starve to death or have to prostitute themselves - well, tough shit. They should have chosen their parents better. You fucking scumbag, Walton.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
June 19, 2009 2:05 PM
that should have been "investment, trade, and consumerism do sometimes make a "nation" wealthier"; makes a lot more sense that way :-p
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
June 19, 2009 2:10 PM
KG, didn't you see Walton above agreeing with AG about there not being anything wrong with import wives from poor countries like Thailand? now where would all those lovely mail-order-brides come from, if we made people not be desperate enough to find that an acceptable option???
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 19, 2009 2:17 PM
Jadehawk,
Well sure - and those women ought to be grateful for having their choices broadened in that way. Just as the eleven-year-old prostitutes there should be grateful to the pedophile sex-tourists for generously giving them work.
Posted by: Walton | June 19, 2009 5:00 PM
I've been under a lot of stress this week. I apologise for the fact that my posts on this thread have not been especially coherent or well-argued. Please don't take this as indicating intellectual shallowness in my general worldview.
Posted by: NinjaEema | June 19, 2009 7:52 PM
"That must be one powerful book. It sits on a shelf balefully, emanating damaging gay-rays that permeate the whole town, and disrupting the sexual health of its inhabitants. Perhaps the elderly are especially fragile and sensitive to its effects. Imagine some tired old codger, exhausted after a lifetime of aggressive heterosexuality, sitting in his easy chair before the TV, and suddenly he starts feeling frisky at the sight of Matlock reruns — it must be distressing. And the fault must lie in some kids' book sitting in a library a few miles away, undermining their ancient manliness."
Thank you for that paragraph. After dealing with these people for the last few months (I live in West Bend) I need all the laughs I can get.
Posted by: NinjaEema | June 19, 2009 7:54 PM
"That must be one powerful book. It sits on a shelf balefully, emanating damaging gay-rays that permeate the whole town, and disrupting the sexual health of its inhabitants. Perhaps the elderly are especially fragile and sensitive to its effects. Imagine some tired old codger, exhausted after a lifetime of aggressive heterosexuality, sitting in his easy chair before the TV, and suddenly he starts feeling frisky at the sight of Matlock reruns — it must be distressing. And the fault must lie in some kids' book sitting in a library a few miles away, undermining their ancient manliness."
Thank you for that paragraph. After dealing with these people for the last few months (I live in West Bend) I need all the laughs I can get.
Posted by: NinjaEema | June 19, 2009 8:04 PM
"That must be one powerful book. It sits on a shelf balefully, emanating damaging gay-rays that permeate the whole town, and disrupting the sexual health of its inhabitants. Perhaps the elderly are especially fragile and sensitive to its effects. Imagine some tired old codger, exhausted after a lifetime of aggressive heterosexuality, sitting in his easy chair before the TV, and suddenly he starts feeling frisky at the sight of Matlock reruns — it must be distressing. And the fault must lie in some kids' book sitting in a library a few miles away, undermining their ancient manliness."
Thank you for that paragraph. After dealing with these people for the last few months (I live in West Bend) I need all the laughs I can get.
Posted by: MichaelL | July 1, 2009 9:41 PM
...Damaging Gay Rays...
OMFG... ROFLMAO.... I hope they don't experience the dreaded "Gay Ray Burster"...
Posted by: Jean Chauvin
|
December 21, 2011 7:47 AM
Liberlaism is a small town where every single person is insane. I've visited this town before and I was the only one that was sane. The creepy liberals thus being nuts, deemed the sane one as insane and simply assumed their status as normal. That is what virtually every University is like in America today.
The Problem with secular "scientists" (lol)is that they are not trained in the science of thinking. This is not due to the lack of attempt, but rather is just a default to their status of liberalism.
For example, that small minded man simply opened his remarks with ad hominem abusive arguments, and throughout his entire letter had his thesis continued via ad nauseam, fallacy after fallacy. And of course, if he were to respond to my letter he would respond yet again with ad hominem abusive after ad hominem abusive fallacies lol. I suppose there may be a few other logical fallacies in the mix, but ad hominem abusive fallacy would be his most popular one. Poor guy.
The disturbing thing about this, is that all the liberals would take this as a sound way to argue
In logic, an invalid argument (thus making it unsound) need not be answered. Logic is the language of the sane. The language of Liberlism is absurdity. Now the insane may speak our language from time to time, but they will never understand how to communicate.
The madness of liberalism and the hypocrisy of liberalism should be evident to the mad "scientists" of today. I have debated countless liberals and atheists where they are absolute about logic, and that God does not exist, but upon entering the classroom, there are no absolutes.
To say that liberalism is the cause of our planet's demise would be a correct statement. Before the insane took control of our country we were the greatest and strongest land in the world. There were no crazy people taking control of America for the crazy were locked away.
Truly, our planet is owed its defeat to the insane among the towns of modern attempts at what is. And for the mayor of one mad town who caused me to write a piece of sanity among the insane, may God have mercy on your stupid soul.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
Posted by: Jean Chauvin
|
December 21, 2011 7:51 AM
Liberlaism is a small town where every single person is insane. I've visited this town before and I was the only one that was sane. The creepy liberals thus being nuts, deemed the sane one as insane and simply assumed their status as normal. That is what virtually every University is like in America today.
The Problem with secular "scientists" (lol)is that they are not trained in the science of thinking. This is not due to the lack of attempt, but rather is just a default to their status of liberalism.
For example, that small minded man simply opened his remarks with ad hominem abusive arguments, and throughout his entire letter had his thesis continued via ad nauseam, fallacy after fallacy. And of course, if he were to respond to my letter he would respond yet again with ad hominem abusive after ad hominem abusive fallacies lol. I suppose there may be a few other logical fallacies in the mix, but ad hominem abusive fallacy would be his most popular one. Poor guy.
The disturbing thing about this, is that all the liberals would take this as a sound way to argue
In logic, an invalid argument (thus making it unsound) need not be answered. Logic is the language of the sane. The language of Liberlism is absurdity. Now the insane may speak our language from time to time, but they will never understand how to communicate.
The madness of liberalism and the hypocrisy of liberalism should be evident to the mad "scientists" of today. I have debated countless liberals and atheists where they are absolute about logic, and that God does not exist, but upon entering the classroom, there are no absolutes.
To say that liberalism is the cause of our planet's demise would be a correct statement. Before the insane took control of our country we were the greatest and strongest land in the world. There were no crazy people taking control of America for the crazy were locked away.
Truly, our planet is owed its defeat to the insane among the towns of modern attempts at what is. And for the mayor of one mad town who caused me to write a piece of sanity among the insane, may God have mercy on your stupid soul.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
December 21, 2011 8:47 AM
0.4 Tc.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
December 21, 2011 8:53 AM
Yeah, this Chauvin lunatic also wrote to me personally. He's got no argument other than "liberals are insane".
Posted by: Stanton
|
December 21, 2011 9:10 AM
I don't know: constantly repeating and rewording that "liberals are insane, and are mean and are stupid" doesn't count as an argument.
Posted by: Jean Chauvin
|
December 21, 2011 10:11 AM
An adhominem abusive, how classic is that. I mean, I would have thought that you would have purposely avoided; this fallacy since I said you would commit this fallacy if you were to respond. I mean, the insane just keep getting more nuts. lol.
Those who are truly educated know that modern science and medicine was discovered by Christianity via the logical sound thinking it contains by default. Without Christianity there would be no science.
The ugliness of liberalism had a temper tantrum and they have been trying to redefine terms over and over like the little engine that couldn't and it failed. However, they did gain prominence via human acceptance (which is irrelavant when it comes to reality) around the 1800's with the higher criticism from Germany. Via the 20th century, all the seminaries were deceived by liberlaism except Princeton in which it started to decay in 1929. At this time all the seminaries (major ones) and secular Universities were totally against Christianity thinking.
SO for 80 years you guys have had a chance to get it right. You have caused nothing but more ugliness. The fact that we are living in Post Modern times is a testimony to the deeds of liberlaism, NOT chrisitanity. But the stupid keep getting more stupid and entropy of thought is accelerating at full speed with liberlaism at the wheel.
Question, what caused us to drift into a Post-Modern era of apathy where there are no absolutes and where fragmentation of thought is championed over coherent unity of thought?
Christianity did do this since liberalism was prominent in the start of the 20th century?
I read to my daughter about a king and everything he touched he turned to gold. Liberlaism is like that king, but everything liberlaism touches it turns to death, and ugliness and fragmentation. This is not an insult but a actual reality of what has happened if we were to study liberlaism from a historiographical and historical setting.
Liberlaism has no answers for:
1)Morality (To Each Their Own)
2)Reality (your truth is yours, my truth is mine)
3)Knowledge (all is relative there is no absolutes
4)Beauty (in the eye of the beholder)
As a result, the categories of academics that the liberals stole from Christianity to redefine it to paganism has caused certain consequences to our society.
Everything about liberalism is ugly. There is no beauty there. You cannot love since this is redefined into nothingness unless you steal it from Christianity.
As a result, it is 100% impossible for a liberal to know or conduct science unless he steals ideas from Christianity, which the liberal has done often. The liberal is a theif.
I enjoy science immensely. This summer I got to hike down to the crater of Mt. Saint Helens via the little grand canyon with a geologist friend of mine revising a documentary on St. Helens in relation to petrification. Dr. Steve Austin is a primary researcher and geologist. I also studied the Grand Canyon for a while also.
But the most comical study of how liberls respond to their so called science is through the means of astronomy. Whenever something doesn't fit their little model, they create a collision in their theory for the purposes of explosion. Secular (Worldly via the Latin) astronomy would be fun to talk about if there is a blog for that.
Liberlism has failed. But because the ugliness in people like you is so thick, you will not embrace what is via reality, knowledge morality and beauty.
Liberlaism has no answers for truth, beauty, justice and love.
So keep on stealing Christian thinking, using empiricism (logical empiricism) as the means to conduct science even though it self refuted itself in the 30's
I wish I had your class when I was younger, I would have eaten you alive you self righteous hypocrite.
Merry Christmas.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
Posted by: Jean Chauvin
|
December 21, 2011 10:46 AM
EMPIRICISM
Empiricism for some reason has won the coin toss of the day. David Hume, the father of modern empiricism (Locke is credited among the conservatives, and Berkeley the religious, Hume is chosen for the worldly secular.
If we take empiricism via Aristotle we have prblems. Plato and Aristotle differed via the paraticulars and the universals. The problem with Aristotle is that he couldn't get up. You and I are particulars, so if we use empiricism as the means for science then how shall we tie it into universls? And thus the interpretation of the data is non empiricial but instead is Rational.
In order for empiricism to work, it needs to be tied into the universals. Since this is impossible via our experience since we will never experience a universal, empiricism fails.
David Hume accidently refuted empiricism. If we are right next the the table, the table is large, if we are 500 feet, the table is small. Say we are on a flat surface with nothing in our way. If we were 500 feet away from the table it would be invisible.
The question then rose, at what point in time and space is the correct point to infer the our perspective of the table? Since this question is a non empikricism question using non empiricical thoughts in the question, empiricism is refuted. David Hume is said to have become a Skeptic as a result.
Logical positivism was going to rule the 20th century. A kind of skeptical empiricism where metaphysics is denied. However, logicial positivists accidently refuted themselves (self refuted) via reality. More on this later possibly.
Then came a kind of mystical empiricism a blend of two epistemologies. Bultmann who was earlier rose in thought with Tilich and Barth. The 60's sex decade came from the contradiction of the Universities with Society.
All of a sudden, nobody remembers any history and logical posisitism is back but is more discreet. Even though it was refuted, in the post modern era where contradiction is okay and you can clap with one hand, we can have anything.
The curious question I have is why empiricism? There are 2 other views the liberal can take and still be atheistic and ungodly. Rene Descartes was NOT an empiricist, why not take his position? What about Schleiermacher (which many take) but why not his position?
Today we have a kind of Logical positivist/August Comte view of science which is very pathetic.
With this understanding, ALL of liberal science fails completely UNLESS they are inconsistent and steal someo ideas from Christianity which is the only way they will know which way it up.
My friend, Dan Barker from Freedom from Religion Foundation has told me personally and has published this in his newsletter that HE BORROWS THE ETHICS FROM CHRISTIANITY At least he's honest.
Let's be honest please. When it comes to truth which is not absolute remember, it is only because you steal it from someplace else.
Empiricism has been refuted on countless occasions. It is a false way to conduct science.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
institutio@gmail.com
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
December 21, 2011 11:11 AM
Steal what from delusional fools? Xianity is based on the twin lies of an imaginary deity existing and a holy book that isn't a book of mythology fiction. There is nothing to steal, as Xianity is vaporware.Ethics/morality predate the babble. Cultural evolution required morals for tribes to be cohesive entities. Anybody who can think knows that.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
December 21, 2011 11:13 AM
Oh, and double posts are signs of inferior thinking abilities JC.
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
December 21, 2011 1:55 PM
Liar.
Be honest, and write: "With Hatred and Contempt,".
Which is really all you have. No facts, no truth, no logic. Just hatred and contempt.
Posted by: Jean Chauvin
|
December 21, 2011 2:46 PM
#296,
Are there absolute truth(s)? If not you cannot know. If you cannot know, you cannot know science since science is the means of the know.
I'm in West Bend now, and tonight there will be some occult rituals at the Lizard Mounds, I don't see anybody talking about that. Wow, that was off topic lol.
It's very simple. The most consistent position you can take is Skepticism like David Hume. You can never step in the same river twice my friend, thus your own view haunts you. Atheism is like inviting your mother in law over for dinner, you'll do anything to stop your headache.
Again with the ad hominem abusive with you guys. I just did an entire post on this and you just can't help it. It's like that energizer bunny, you just keep making fallacies after fallacies after fallacies.
I don't hate anybody. But I"m just curious, are you absolutely sure that I have hatred and contempt lol.
facts? You mean those things that are absolute, i thought absolutes don't exist and thus facts.
You see, you don't mean to be so stupid and make blunders like this. There's nothing you can do. The only way for you to be intelligent is to be a Chrisitan.
I said Merry Christmas, now that can't be construed as hate.
That professor guy will burn in hell in a very hot place, hotter then most I presume. The guy's just a clown among a sea of worthless clowns, I speaking according to the atheistic view now.
I don't take atheists very seriously. I have pity for them sometimes. There are some really smart people that are just really stupid since they are trapped in the quick-sand of atheism.
Let God be True Even If Every Man Is Called A Liar
Paul
Merry Christmas.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
Posted by: Jean Chauvin
|
December 21, 2011 2:55 PM
Oh, and one more thing, this Christmas, as we celebrate the birth of Christ, try being kind. While this is completely against the grind of atheism, I give you permission to borrow Chrisitan thinking regarding this.
Now of course you cannot be kind hearted in your nature since you are all very evil and rotten to the core (Jeremiah 17:3, Is: 64:4-6, etc), but still you have the image dei so that is still a small pssibity for a fraction of the time you have your breath.
You might as well bow your knee t God now, eventuay you will wheather yu like it or not but when that time comes, it will be to late. (Philppians 2:8=11
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
Credo Ut Intelligum.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
December 21, 2011 3:17 PM
A conservative godbotting asshole showing his hatred for anyone who isn't a conservative goddbotter.
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
December 21, 2011 3:27 PM
Liar.
Liar.
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
December 21, 2011 3:39 PM
It's like Sye Ten B and Eric Hovind had a baby with Duane Gish.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
December 21, 2011 4:13 PM
False presupposition on your part. Illogical, considering evolutionary perspective. You don't know anything, you presuppose an imaginary deity exists and your babble is something other than mythology fiction. You have no evidence for the validity of your fallacious presuppositions. Ergo, your whole bit of philosophy is bullshit. Welcome to reality.Posted by: Jean Chauvin
|
December 21, 2011 7:03 PM
wow,
Nobody has answered my arguments but instead has insulted me. They haven't addressed anything I say but rather do what atheists do best, have emotional reactions of a kind of intellectual temper tantrum and constantly commit ad hominems. Holy cow, you guys are freaks of nature. I didn't say that there is no absolutes, you guys did. So if one is rational via the logical understanding of contradiction, you cannot claim to know science and then claim to know nothing absolutely. It's absurd you bunch of dummies.
I made no argument for God's Being. I was merely discussing the logical fallacies of atheism. But since you asked I can give you a logical argument for God's existence.
I do not argue according to the rules of atheism but rather via rational understanding. You guys look at the world backwords and upside and sideways and can't find your way out of your hole.
An example is your understanding of "Proof." Since there are no absolutes, there is no such thing as proof via atheism. in fact, empirical proof is non proof of substantiation. I should mention that via the 3 secular kinds of epistemology, proof within those epistemologies are all viewed differently.
Actualy proof is via deductive demonstrations.
This is extremely brief and may be oversimplified, but here it goes.
God and God's Word are axioms. An axiom need not be proven or justified. Therefore the doctrines in the Bible are proofs of demonstration, NOT substantiation. God is my first principle.
Therefore via the Axioms, if an implication of the Axiom says there are trees, and we encounter trees, we do not substantiate the axiom but via deductive principles it flows from the axioms.The implications are what we call doctrine.
In other words, via a Transcendental means as Kant put it, the argument of God is summed up in this phrase.
"What must be, in order for what is to be what it is."
Kant was a liberal, don't get me wrong, but Kant refuted David Hume after he already refuted himself. Via this came the transcendental understanding.
Now of course there will be typical questions or emotional reactions to this. I will address them as they come.
All atheists that are consistent via empiricism CANNOT by definition be a-priori but a-posterori. By definition, the empirical atheist must work from absoulte nothing to absolute something. If he cannot do this, he cannot know. And as the professors say in the classroom, he does not know since he cannot know absolutely anything.
If Euclid understood the axioms of shapes without time and space being part of his understanding, how much more the creator of these shapes and the creator of time and space itself.
Posted by: stuv.myopenid.com
|
December 21, 2011 7:30 PM
Shorter #305:
I believe in God.
Therefore I consider God to exist.
This proves God exists.
Jean, your entire argument is "because I wanna". That's fine, but why the need for validation?
Posted by: Stanton
|
December 21, 2011 7:32 PM
Then why do you keep repeating ad nauseum that "liberals" are all insane, incapable of logic, and deserved to be locked away forever?Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
December 21, 2011 8:21 PM
Your "arguments" boil down to "I hate liberals, liberals bad," "I hate atheists, atheists bad," "I love gawd, you should too." If you had an argument we haven't read a bazillion times before then we might discuss it. Bur all you're doing is "I hate liberals, I hate atheists, I love gawd." In short, you're boring.
And if you don't have anything else to do, why don't you fuck off?
Posted by: Stanton
|
December 21, 2011 9:01 PM
Unfortunately for us, this is what Jean does in lieu of fucking.Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
December 21, 2011 9:04 PM
You made no arguments. You only presented presuppositions, not arguments. Arguments require logic and EVIDENCE. Like evidence for your imaginary deity, and that your babble is not a book of mythology/fiction, with is the null hypotheses, as there is no evidence for either. Until you provide said evidence all you have is lies and bullshit. Welcome to reality, which you ignore.The evidence for your imaginary deity must be conclusive and physical. Evidence that will pass muster with scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers, as being of divine, and not natural (scientifically explained), origin. Something equivalent to the eternally burning bush. Show us you tell the truth by showing (not talking about) said eternally burning bush...
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
December 21, 2011 10:37 PM
You argue like a incontinent three-year-old throwing a tantrum. Why should anyone respond to a mental infant who has pooped his diaper and now wants to throw a shitfit?
You insult us; you get what you dish out, hypocritical moron that you are.
Also, your English sucks badly enough that your nonsense is ungrammatical and incoherent, as well as being stupid. Get someone who is fluent in English to correct your grammar and spelling before posting your blitherings.
This is the most fucking stupid demonstration of presuppositionalism I have ever seen. You're making multiple arguments by fiat, which are still logical fallacies whether you like it or not.
And what's really stupid is that the bible contradicts the first chapter in the second chapter, as well as all the other implicit and explicit contradictions. You're basically going to be able to "prove" anything you like by the principle of explosion.
Psychotic fundamentalists, how do they work?
Posted by: Stanton
|
December 21, 2011 11:26 PM
You remember those old cartoons that feature silly, whimsical Rube Goldberg devices? Now, remember how these same Rube Goldberg devices look perform after someone has thrown a monkey wrench into them.That is the best metaphor I can dredge up to illustrate how a typical "psychotic fundamentalist"'s mind behaves.
Posted by: Jean Chauvin
|
December 23, 2011 5:48 PM
lol, the problem with atheists is that they have been brainwashed so badly in the universites they can't think anymore. They're like zombies who simply parrot absurdity and if you present logical evidence that shows their views as completely absurd and idiotic they call you names.
Since I have shown how David Hume has disproven his own empiricism and how logical positivism self refuted itself, then logically speaking we cannot use evidence within the epistemology of empiricism. I've met many atheists who claim to be empirical and then they quote Rene Descartes "I think therefore I am." thus creating a classifiation fallacy.
And since perspective is an empirical term of inference of EMPIRICAL evidence this is impossible.
I do use empiricial evidence (even though it's non evidence) as an ad hominem against the morons of Post Modern non thinking i won't be a chrisitan no matter what attitude. Most atheists say that even if there were empirical evidence (which is impossible for any thing in life to have empirical evidence), they would still choose hell over God.
My evidence is demonstrative and deductive, not substantial inductive.
The argument is simple. If Euclid, the father of geometry and allow his shapes to have axioms, then logically the creator of Euclid's shapes are also an axiom.
I am not using the Bible to say God exists since that would be circular, correct. I'm allowing the axiomatical understanding of God the creator of Euclid's shapes to be axiomatic and thus need not be proven or justified.
If the bible says there are trees and we encounter trees, this is prove of DEMONSTRATION.
Your brainwashed brains can't think when I don't play according to your illogical rules.
Thus there is evidence, but it is evidence of:
"What we would expect to find."
Many Chrisitans don't even understand this since many have also been sucked up in the mindless liberal attack of thinking.
Empiricism has been refuted hundreds of times by me and others.
But don't despair. There are 2 other secular attempts at knowing you can try, if you choose either Rationalism (Capital R) or Intuition as your epistemology or attempt towards science, it will be my joy to refute them also.
who knows, maybe in a 100 years the coin will be tossed again and empiricism will be out and intuition will be in.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
December 23, 2011 6:56 PM
Chauvin,
Take your hatred of everyone who isn't a conservative evangelical and shove it up your rosy red rectum. Nobody is interested in debating an asshole who sets up strawmen and then ineptly demolishes them.
Fuck off and die, cupcake.
Posted by: Brownian
|
December 23, 2011 7:39 PM
And after claiming this, you then thought it would be convincing to use a form of argumentation you believe we're unable to comprehend?
Please, do go on about being unable to think. That may in fact be one topic you are qualified to speak on.
Posted by: Carbon Based Life Form
|
December 23, 2011 10:39 PM
Obviously, you do not know what "axiom" means. An axiom is a statement which is assumed to be true for which no proof is given. Euclid's axioms are along the lines of "It is possible to draw a straight line from any point to any other point." and "All right angles are equal to one another." You cannot go from things like that to "therefore God exists".
Your "liberals are insane" twaddle reminds me of Conservapedia, one of the least sane sites on the internet.
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
December 24, 2011 1:35 AM
So, his god is a circle. . . who is not circular.
Hm.
I've got it!
He worships contradiction itself! He's made a Golden Parrot-Ox, and bows down before it.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
December 24, 2011 5:50 AM
JC, still no evidence your imaginary deity exists, or your babble isn't a book of mythology fiction. Still the delusional fool ranting about that which you don't understand, as you are too stupid and ignorant to be able to do so. Take your presuppositional bullshit and shove it where the sun don't shine, while we laugh are asses off at your vapidity, insipidity, and delusional belief in the imaginary. Dunning-Kruger in action, a classic case.
Posted by: Jean Chauvin
|
December 24, 2011 2:42 PM
wow. I do not use empiricial evidence since empiricism has failed as a system to conduct science. So i use a deductive means of evidence.
Also, regarding particles and universals. Since empiricism is starts inductively with only particles, and since particles + particles + particles can never equate a universal, empiricism fails.
Therefore, the Creator of all universals as the Infinite Reference Point, bringing meaning to all universals, then God is an axiom which need not be justified.
Because of this, it is assumed as
Also, in logic ALL arguments start with assumption. Euclid started with an assumption, Hume and the pervert who wrote this blog started with an assumption. You guys don't understand this and freak out because freaks hate logic.
Therefore, God need not be proven. He need not be defended. The consistency of my argument is the deductive expectation of the axiom which is allows the implications of doctrines to exist.
You cannot refute this because it is clad tight in validity. You can object to the premises because you guys are a bunch of perverted evil lunatics that would rebel just for the sake for being a bunch of punks with a cause for nothingness.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
December 24, 2011 3:30 PM
Shorter loony-toon: My non-circular circles are better than your logic from axioms or empirical evidence, because I say so!
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
December 24, 2011 3:42 PM
It refutes itself, because it is completely invalid.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
December 24, 2011 3:52 PM
Chauvin,
Come back when you can write grammatical English. Also there are free spell-checkers available on the internet. Find one and use it.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
December 24, 2011 4:11 PM
So Jean Chauvin continues his quixotic quest to write fiction in some language other than english, I see.
Failing on all counts....
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
December 24, 2011 5:49 PM
1) For morality, try innate empathy and enlightened self-interest. It is true that morality is not among the laws of physics; it follows from social life.
2) I like to distinguish truth from reality. Reality is that which exists outside your head, that which does not go away when you stop believing in it, that in which the argumentum ad lapidem is not a logical fallacy. Truth... maybe truth is reality (that's physicalism); or maybe solipsism is truth, so that reality is nothing but my remarkably consistent imagination; or maybe God is the solipsist; or maybe reality is the Matrix. Claims about truth cannot be tested; even solipsism cannot be falsified. Therefore it is useless to talk about truth. I talk about reality instead – and there is only one reality, the same for you as for me.
3) Absolutely certain knowledge about truth is impossible. Reasonably certain knowledge about reality, knowledge that is beyond reasonable doubt, can be acquired fairly easily, and this is not relative at all.
4) Not the eye. The brain.
Please do explain.
There's lots in the brain of this beholder...
This is so stupid that I cannot imagine you have ever loved.
Huh? Astronomy is itself a science. And why would "liberls" respond to their own "so-called" science... what do you mean???
LOL!
Really, what else than laugh can I do? Give you a ten-hour unpaid course in basic astrophysics to explain the evidence for the Big Bang?
You have taken your own words, put them through a blender, and repeated them. What is the point?
Not "we". Aristotle has problems. His loss, not anyone else's.
Are you trying to claim that science is inductive? Are you talking about the so-called problem of induction?
Induction does not work, and science is not inductive.
Science is hypothetico-deductive. You make up a hypothesis – no matter how: as a random guess, by induction, based on your aesthetic preferences, from a dream, it's all the same –, then you deduce predictions about reality from it, and then you test those predictions by observation. If you observe that at least one of the predictions does not agree with reality, your hypothesis is wrong.
Why do we think that the sun will rise tomorrow morning? Not by induction. That the Earth will continue to turn around the sun is a prediction that we deduce from the laws of physics (inertia, gravity, conservation of energy and impulse...), and tomorrow morning we'll test it.
We cannot prove that the laws of physics won't change tonight. However, we have no reason to suppose they will, so we must start from the assumption that they won't. This is the principle of parsimony.
That's a very silly question, and you know it. "Large" and "small" are relative; "75 cm tall" is not.
It died out very quickly; you just haven't noticed. You should pray that the scales may fall off your eyes.
Science is postpositivist = postempiricist.
It burns bright, your strawman. May your shame to have talked about things which you don't know enough about burn as bright.
1) Science is not postmodernist.
2) Not that it matters, but you can, in fact, clap with one hand. Or at least I can. It's not very loud, but very easy indeed. You should try it.
Because it would be intellectually dishonest to start from a conclusion and then look for ways to arrive at it.
Atheism is a conclusion.
I'm an atheist because I'm a postempiricist, not the other way around. In fact, I find it insulting that you imply it's the other way around. Postempiricism shows that – given the currently known evidence – I have no reason to believe anything supernatural exists, so I don't believe anything supernatural exists. That's how it works.
I wonder if you're projecting: you want to believe in the Christian god, so you're trying to look for ways that make his existence plausible. Is that what you're doing? That would be dishonest. You should instead look for ways to disprove every opinion you hold about reality.
That's lazy of him. It's so easy to construct ethics from enlightened self-interest and innate empathy... it's in fact so obvious that I won't waste time explaining it here.
No, no, no. Science is not a search for truth. It's the search for all falsehood. Disprove as much falsehood as you can, and reality (see above for the difference between reality and truth) will be among what's left standing.
Also, "the know" is not English. Don't type faster than you can think.
Wait, wait. You've been insulted aplenty, but where's the ad-hominem argument anyone has made against you? I haven't seen any.
Argumentum ad hominem: "I don't like Person X, therefore whatever Person X says is wrong."
Insults and ad-hominem arguments can occur together or separately. They're not the same thing.
What headache?
No. Facts are what reality consists of; reality may or may not be the same as truth. Facts are inferred from observations, and observations are limited.
Each of your comments contains several insults. Are you a remarkably stupid hypocrite or simply a troll?
Just for fun, though, I'll borrow some Christian thinking, just for show. The Christ was not kind to hypocrites or to the moneychangers in the Temple; does it not follow that we shouldn't be kind to hypocrites or to ideologists who try to meddle with science? :-)
Imago Dei.
I'll bow my knee, or fall flat on my belly if you prefer, exactly as soon as you give me a reason. At present, I can't see a difference between bowing my knee to God or bowing it to the tooth fairy or bowing it to Russell's teapot.
Laddies and Gentlewomen,
Some of you have doubted whether English is a native language of this impersonator of John Calvin. The above quote is good evidence that it is: only someone who natively speaks English would ever pronounce intellegam and the fictitious "intelligum" the same way.
Anyway... credo ut intellegam means "I believe in order to understand" (or, a bit more literally, "so that I may understand"). How is that supposed to work? If your belief is wrong, you won't arrive at any understanding – you won't even come to understand that your belief is wrong! How useless!
Work hard to disprove your belief, or you shall learn nothing.
You hardly even tried. You put up strawmen and set them ablaze in blissful ignorance.
The argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy.
:-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D
No. The existence of God is a hypothesis, and that the Bible (or anything else) is God's Big-W Word is another hypothesis.
The postulate that God exists is not a logical argument for itself. For fuck's sake! :-D Are you the most pathetic troll ever? Surely you can't really be this stupid?
Uh... of course not. Who ever was stupid enough to claim there was such a thing as "proof via atheism"???
I don't know about classical empiricism, but in postempiricism – in science – there is no such thing as proof. Proof is for math, formal logic, and alcohol. Observation is not proof; observation can at most be a failure to disprove.
If a hypothesis predicts that there are trees, and we encounter trees, we have not managed to falsify the hypothesis.
If several hypotheses predict that there are trees, and we encounter trees, we have to restrict ourselves to the most parsimonious one(s) of these hypotheses.
Doctrine = a body of religious teachings. There is no such thing in science.
No. Again: we don't need to work to absolutes at all.
We may stumble upon truth by accident, but if we find the truth, we cannot prove that what we've found is the truth.
...What does this have to do with the rest of your comment? And why do you assume there is a creator of all those things? Have you ever tried to test that assumption?
Oh, that depends on what the god is like and what the hell is like. :-| I just don't worry about such things any more than I worry about Santa Claus or the tooth fairy or Russell's teapot. Why should I?
Ungrammatical. Please explain what you mean by "the father of geometry and allow his shapes to have axioms".
So... you claim that the Euclidean shapes must have been created, and you explicitly refuse to subject this claim to either falsification or parsimony?
In that case, buh-bye. There's no point in trying to continue this non-conversation. If your claim is testable, test it. If your claim is not testable, it's useless.
Don't the Euclidean shapes simply follow from the existence of space itself? Aren't they a mental abstraction of space?
Do they really exist outside our heads? Even crystals cannot have a perfectly Euclidean shape, because they're composed of atoms which do not have Euclidean shapes.
What?
That sounds like you play the lottery.
Perhaps, but science doesn't.
What, if anything, does it mean to bring meaning to a universal?
In science, all arguments start from the assumption that reality is reasonably consistent. This assumption is itself testable, it hasn't been disproved so far, and it's more parsimonious than all alternatives.
That's what you want to believe. But you have no reason to think so.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
December 24, 2011 6:38 PM
only in your delusional mind. You must break the babble-->imaginary deity--->babble circular reasoning, and that is only done by using the null hypothesis of non-existence for your imaginary deity, or your babble being a book of mythology/fiction, and proving either one with conclusive physical evidence without reference to the other. Just like any rational person would do. You aren't rational, merely another delusional fool thinking they have a "gotcha" moment that backfires since they can't point to the eternally burning bush or equivalent.You need to stop lying to yourself, then you can stop lying to us and the lurkers. You have nothing but presupposition, which isn't a logical argument, merely fallacious attempt to define the conclusion with your definitions. Bad, bad, philosophy.
Posted by: Stanton
|
December 24, 2011 6:39 PM
David, after reading your spectacular necropsy of Jean's nonsense, I feel like smoking a cigarette.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
December 24, 2011 6:47 PM
OH, and JC, every time you say your imaginary deity doesn't need to be proven, you are tacitly agreeing with Gnu Atheists that it doesn't exist. Such a evasive and begging proposition is only used for non-existent things. like bigfoot, pixies, and Yahweh. Existent things must perforce be shown to exist with physical and conclusive evidence...
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
December 24, 2011 8:10 PM
Oh, David. I wouldn't put any stock at all in the loony-toon's assertion that Dan Barker is his friend, nor that Dan Barker ever said anything like what the loony-toon claims.
The loony-toon is obviously a compulsive liar.
Here's a quote from a quick google search...
Source link:
Preacher-turned-atheist Dan Barker raises questions of religion, ethics
You're talking to a loony-toon who thinks you can get Christianity from geometry, and that he's allowed presuppositionalism because he says so. The only things that are "obvious" to him are what his fizzing, short-circuiting brain happens to pop out at any given moment.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
December 26, 2011 5:43 PM
I'm afraid our chew toy thinks he's banned because of the sign in being borked.
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
December 26, 2011 5:43 PM
Go hug someone. Maybe that'll help you break the habit. :-]
Hey, I never said I wasn't lazy myself.
I know, but I didn't have time. If he comes back to ask, maybe...
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
December 26, 2011 6:10 PM
Let's see if this will be double-posted...
Go hug someone. Maybe that'll help you break the habit. :-]
Hey, I never said I wasn't lazy myself.
I know, but I didn't have time. If he comes back to ask, maybe...
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
December 26, 2011 6:24 PM
He's not coming back to ask, because he has no interest in actually learning anything. If he comes back, it will be to blather some more, probably about how logical fallacies aren't logical fallacies when he makes them.
I am right because I am right! That's an axiom, which does not have to be defended! And it follows from this axiom that I am right! Therefore, you are wrong and I am right! Ha-ha!
Feh.
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
December 26, 2011 6:35 PM
I got a "500 Internal Server Error" message after posting the above @#332, but I reloaded the thread before reposting.
/smug
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
December 26, 2011 6:48 PM
I didn't get an error message; I haven't in many months. But I'm not at home, I'm on an Internet connection that uses the cell phone network, and the connection is often very bad in this house, so I had no guarantee the comment had actually posted. I reloaded, and it was not there, so I tried again.
...erm. Does the <font> tag still work? Test: And it follows from this axiom that I am right!
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
December 26, 2011 7:38 PM
It took ten minutes between the time I submitted #329 and when it posted.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
December 26, 2011 7:48 PM
Now Sb seems to be working well again.
Posted by: Jean Chauvin
|
December 30, 2011 3:03 PM
Hello Evil Pagans,
I tried to post earlier but an error message occured.
The problem with evil worthless atheists that are only here by accident and have no purpose, worth, or sense of love or beauty in their own brainwashed worldview is that they don't analyise argument. They just reaction and get emotional.
I start from God's Being which is the highest universal and work down to the particulars. Atheists argue from particulars and are like a grandmother who has fallen and can't get up.
Justify your means of knowledge. Explain to me you hypocritical evil followers (not leaders) how you can have two propositions in the same way relationship and manner and not have it a contradiction.
For the one who attempted to demonstrate atheistic means for morals beauty reality and knowing, were you ASBOLUTELY SURE ABOUT THAT?? or are there no absolutes.
The more you argue, the more you self refute your position since grammar has universal absolute order.
I thought you guys may have a hair of a shot at discussion with the most logical person you've ever met, but it appears all you've experienced are professors who stroke by the echoes of their students. You guys are like Nazi's or something in how you think.
hope you pagans had a nice christmas. we went to the Lizard Mounds in West Bend, WI which was interesting. I did a documentary and found some strange items.
Anyway, my goal is for you guys to be the best atheists you can be. Murdering your family, cannibalism, random adultery and riots would be consistent to your worldview since men are evil to the core. (Jeremiah 17:3).
Thus, if you haven't murdered your family members, then you are stealing Christian ideas "in practice."
go out and be all you can be, in the atheism you evil bastards. : )
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
December 30, 2011 3:22 PM
Fuck off, asshole.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
December 30, 2011 3:29 PM
No you don't, asshole. You start by stating your god is axiomatic. In other words, you presuppose your god exists and then use that to show your god exists. You don't show shit, other than the fact you're a stupid asshole.
You make rude, stupid statements about atheists which show nothing but your hatred of athiests. And then you think we're going to be impressed by your arguments.
Just fuck off and die, asshole. That's all you're good for.
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
December 30, 2011 3:57 PM
See? He came back to be even more of a dishonest asshole.
Like God murdered Jesus.
And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it; and he gave to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took a cup, and gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many unto remission of sins.
Like God did with Mary.
and he made a scourge of cords, and cast all out of the temple, both the sheep and the oxen; and he poured out the changers money, and overthrew their tables;
Fixed that for you.
Liar.
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
December 30, 2011 4:02 PM
Fixed that, too.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
December 30, 2011 7:15 PM
What kind of dressing does JC want with his word salad?
Italian? Or Texas Ranch?
Posted by: Jean Chauvin
|
January 10, 2012 4:45 PM
Hello,
Of course I presuppose. ALL argument via first principles are presupposed you dummies. lol. Anyway, since God is axiomatic as the Infinite Reference Point, then all things can be argued from the infinite reference point.
The reason why those who are properly educated hate this and hate Euclid, is because it defeats their empiricism."
This is why in the 1800's there was an attempt to make geometry only via particulars, not infinites.
Atheism is anarchy. It's the satanic code of:
"Do What Thou Wilt is the whole of the law "
Atheism is the death of soceitya nd thought as shown in our Post Modern stupidity.
Atheism is the reason for our bad economy and bad government.
Atheism is the evil that drives our nation to a transnationalistic one world government.
Atheists don't think. They simply are Schlieiermacher parrots who forget about the Evils of Cuba and Mai, and want it in America.
Atheists are idiots and hyopocritical bastards that are going to rot in hell for their pide and stupidity.
Rot in hell you bastards.
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
January 10, 2012 5:44 PM
That's the funniest garbage you've spewed yet. You worship a mathematical abstraction!
Ha ha!
Yeah, good luck getting morality from that.
Same to you, idolater.
Oh, and thank you for this time not lying about having any respect for anyone who isn't a contemptuous hate-filled seething frothing looney-tune sack of santorum like yourself.
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
January 10, 2012 6:27 PM
Why don't you start by showing that God's Big-B Being is the highest universal – or even just simply a fact in the first place?
Oh no. Science is not inductive. It's hypothetico-deductive.
Evolutionary epistemology, parsimony.
(I'm not in the mood to make lots of words tonight, so just look those terms up.)
Explain what you mean, with enough commas, please.
Well... it's not possible to disprove solipsism and several similarly useless ideas, so, in that sense, there are no absolutes.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Reality, however, is that which doesn't go away when you stop believing in it. If I'm the solipsist, that means my imagination is really remarkably consistent...
Morals come from innate empathy (which a few people lack... maybe you're one of them) and my own long-term self-interest.
What? Grammar? Why grammar?
If grammar really is what you mean, I must go on to ask: Why do different languages have different grammar? Why does the grammar of languages change over time, just like how their word inventories and their sound systems do? And why do some languages have a grammar in which word order is free?
Woohoo! Godwin's Law knows no exceptions!!!
My imagination is well enough developed that I can tell with enough certainty that I wouldn't enjoy any of those things.
No, not even random adultery.
Are you any different? Do you enjoy making people suffer?
Posted by: Stanton
|
January 10, 2012 6:34 PM
If, as the Bible says, God is love, then how can Jean Chauvin justify his hate-filled tirades?
In fact, didn't Jesus say, if one is attacked by one's own enemies, to offer them the other cheek to strike?
Is it just me, or is it just so pathetic that Jean screeches the exact opposite of what his alleged idol, Jesus Christ, preached and taught?
Posted by: Stanton
|
January 10, 2012 6:40 PM
While we're on the topic of highly improbable events, why don't we also ask Jean to sing "I am the very model of a modern Major-General" backwards in German, too?Posted by: David Marjanović
|
January 10, 2012 6:45 PM
Then don't argue from first principles. :-|
Atheism is lack of belief in gods.
I'm a scientist, not a postmodernist.
"We" is the USA, right? Because that's not where I am. This country is much more godless than the US, has a better economy, and even a better government (...unless you consider charisma a necessary property of government, LOL... ours actually has what's called charisn'tma.)
The reason for your bad economy is deregulation in the 1980s. The reason for your bad government is a host of things: the lack of separation between president & government that forces your country to have a two-party system; the Electoral College; the incredibly stupid practice of funding schools (other than universities) from micro-local property taxes, which makes sure that poor neighborhoods cannot have good schools; the incredibly stupid practice of having curricula set at a similarly micro-local level, so that often nobody who actually understands the subjects that should be taught ever gets anything to do with a curriculum; the stupid laws that allow Faux Noise to lie (they sued for their right to lie and won); and I'm sure I could think of more if it weren't so late at night over here.
See, this ignorant paranoia is why I think "our nation" is the USA.
Who on this blog has ever forgotten about the evils of the communist rule of Cuba? I, for one, am certainly not going to defend the way people are treated there for disagreeing with the government.
What is Mai??? I can't figure out what place you mean.
Oh, some are.
Evidence, please.
Evidence that hell exists in the first place, please.
Pride? I haven't chosen to not believe in a god. The complete lack of evidence for anything supernatural has forced me to let my faith fade away. If you managed to give me evidence, you'd force me to change my mind again.
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
January 10, 2012 6:52 PM
Oh. Since we're dealing with an American fundamentalist here, I probably need to spell out what I mean by "believe in a god". I mean "believe that a god exists". I do not mean such extended usages as "trust in a god" or "trust that a god can do anything in particular".
Show me that a deity exists, then show me what that deity is like, and then we can discuss whether I best love it, hate it, worship it, puke on its shoes, ignore it, whatever.
Posted by: Stanton
|
January 10, 2012 6:52 PM
Maybe he either means Mali or the My Lai/Mai Lai Massacre (though, neither of which were ever the fault of "atheists)Posted by: David Marjanović
|
January 10, 2012 6:56 PM
Yeah, both of those don't make sense in that context.
My Lai with "ee", not with "eye", in the first syllable. The Vietnamese spelling system was invented by Portuguese missionaries in the 16th century, so it contains 16th-century spelling conventions such as using i inside words (or rather syllables) and y at their ends.
This extends even to the surname Nguyen, which has "wee" rather than "ooy".
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
January 10, 2012 7:56 PM
Actually, "i" is next to "o" -- the blithering loon who worships a mathematical idol probably made a typo for "Mao", possibly while thinking of "China".
Referring to a place and a person (from a completely different place) -- as opposed to two places or two people -- is the least of the unclear and confused thinking this batshit crazy nutbag writes.
Posted by: Stanton
|
January 10, 2012 11:31 PM
Ironically, that sounds logical. Apparently, Jean's MO is to rant about how the numbers add up in his favor, and not in favor of the evil, disgusting, horribly Anti-American Atheists who are out to ruin the world (i.e., America), and sap and impurify his precious bodily fluids.Posted by: David Marjanović
|
January 11, 2012 6:37 AM
It does.
So, for the record, wannabe theocrat of Geneva: there are no Maoists on this blog. Maoism is a cult of personality that differs from a religion only in its lack of an afterlife. It even claimed to have numerous miracles... and killed tens of millions of people.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
January 11, 2012 2:11 PM
Mao, of course, was not an atheist. He was a devout, fervently fundamentalist believer in the Church of Mao. There is no real difference whatsoever between cults of personality and religions, since not all religions have afterlives and not all cults of personality do not. They are just two labels for the same thing.
And naturally, Mao used the trappings of atheism as a convenient bludgeon against his religion's major enemies, which, as with all fundamentalist religions, included other religions.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
January 11, 2012 3:22 PM
Our little chew toy from hell showed up and I missed it. Gosh o' golly, gee willickers and other expletives as appropriate.
Posted by: Jean Chauvin
|
January 17, 2012 1:16 AM
Hello,
A lot of questions. Let's start with the love is God one. God loves his children but hates those who are not (e.g Romans 9:13). So we are to love those who are children of God.
Regarding Proof. I did prove God and I refuted Empiricism. So to continually say there is no proof in which you mean empiricial proof after I refuted empiricism what mental patients do. God need not justified or proven empirically but demonstratively.
I am not a fundamentalist. Fundamentalism has changed. If we were in 1920 yes, I'd be a fundalmentalist but not in 2011.
Mao was an atheist. One need not profess what they are. Anything contrary to the worship of the true God is atheism since it's object is the edify the self.
Since atheism has so many denominations one loses tract to the kind of atheist when a dozen shout.
All atheists who are CONSISTENT would murder people including their familes since they are evil to the core. If one does not, they are stealing chrisitan thinking since they are resisting evil (actually God is holding them back).
So you guys are a bunch of bastards true, but I'd still have a beer with you. Even if you are the intellectual scum of the earth.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
January 17, 2012 1:55 AM
Some people are not God's children? So Genesis is wrong; God did not create everything.
Obviously, you are one of the ones that God hates. How do we know? By your inward nature.
→ They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.
And by your evil fruits.
→ Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
Your claims to believe in God -- a mathematical abstraction! -- don't matter at all.
→ "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven
You've stolen Euclid's geometry, and use it as an idol.
→ You condemn idolatry, but do you use items stolen from pagan temples?
Idolaters like you will be among the damned.
→ Nothing evil will be allowed to enter, nor anyone who practices shameful idolatry and dishonesty-
See you in hell, idolater and liar!
You proved your idolatry.
You're talking about yourself, of course. You're an atheist, because you don't really believe in God. You believe in your mathematical idol.
Idolater and liar that you are.
You are stealing from humanist thinking.
Liar.
You're still talking about yourself.
Liar.
Posted by: Jean Chauvin
|
January 17, 2012 2:34 AM
Hi OwlMirror,
lol to say that God hates wicked is a fallacy to then say He did not create them. Romans 9:21-22 illustrates how God made some as Vessels of Wrath and some as Vessels of righteousness. You are using a false dichtomony.
All of logical is a kind of mathematical equation but with argument and terms/concepts. It's the process as to how one reasons which has always existed since everything God does is perfectly logical and reasonable.
Euclid did not come up with the axiomatic principle. Perhaps in the classification of the mathematical world but not the logical world of intellectual argument. This is found in Scripture.
Right, you shall know them by their fruits. I agree. You guys are a bunch of evil bastards, that's a truth, so professing what already is, is not hate or bad fruit but reality. God speaking through Isaiah calls you guys a bunch of bloody dirty menstrual pads. You guys are worthless pieces of crap. Everything you do via atheism is harmful to mankind, and our society.
But yeah, I've had a beer with all kinds of scums. Satanists, atheists, Scientologist Cultist, Mormons, etc, etc, etc.
I'd even buy the beer for you guys. Truly you are the intellectual scums of the earth. Everything you touch is death.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
January 17, 2012 3:23 AM
The fallacy is yours, since you wrote it first.
And I guess you're God's little shitpot, here to slop diseased stinking diarrhea all around.
I guess it's perfectly logical and reasonable for God to have created you as a shitpot and then shit in you.
Now you're lying that your idolatry is in Scripture. Liar and idolater.
You're speaking of yourself again, damned liar and idolater.
So you're a shitpot and a used tampon, who is worthless and harmful. I suppose you're so proud of your foulness that you have to boast about it, eh?
You've had a beer with yourself?
Yes, you are.
Liar.
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
January 17, 2012 7:17 AM
You didn't even try. You only said you were doing that, but you didn't do it.
There is no such thing as empirical proof. We'd be satisfied with evidence, which you haven't brought to the table either.
To worship oneself would be autotheism, not atheism.
We're atheists, not autotheists. Not everybody takes themselves for as important as you do.
You wish.
Is it Christian to think "it doesn't help me to make everyone treat me as a mass murderer"?
Is it Christian to think "it doesn't help me to harm anyone"?
Is it Christian to have innate empathy?
Is it Christian to like cuddling?
"When I do good, I feel good. When I do bad, I feel bad. That's my religion."
– ascribed to Abraham Lincoln
You're still assuming your premise instead of testing it.
You keep defending your wishful thinking by simply insisting it's got to be true.
You want to believe so badly that you don't care if anything is actually true. That's cartoon postmodernism – and not an intellectual argument.
Posted by: Stanton
|
January 17, 2012 8:36 AM
Jean, did Jesus Christ speak of the tax collectors and prostitutes he dined with as being "scum" and "Satanists," like you do of us?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
January 17, 2012 9:30 AM
Well, let's see Jean's argument to date:
Evidence for his imaginary deity: Zero, zilch, none, nada. Ergo, doesn't exist.
Evidence his babble is not a work of mythology fiction: Zero, zilch, none, nada. Ergo, not inerrant.
Evidence that science doesn't work: Zero, zilch, none, nada. Ergo, science works b****s.
Looks like total logical failure, with presuppositional thinking, assertions without evidence, circular reasoning, and total lack of cogent argument. Won't one of these delusional godbots actually try a new argument for a change?
Boring.
Posted by: Stanton
|
January 17, 2012 9:15 PM
As in a new, "logical" argument, or as in a fresh tossing of word-salad?Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
January 17, 2012 10:50 PM
The former. Except there is no logical argument for their deity, so they hide that behind word salad.Posted by: Jean Cauvin
|
January 29, 2012 2:11 AM
Hello,
It amazes me greatly when i read your posts and find how radically uneducated you guys are in the mannierisms of basic thinking. I actually have a little pitty on you guys.
David M,
I didn't even try to refute empiricism? Perhaps in between posts you were to busy smoking the Green Bud and forgot. David, put the Green Bud down and slowly, step away from the mojo grass. Have a cheese burger while you're at it. Upon the moment of sobery you shall understand what is going on here.
David Hume accidently refuted empiricism via the point of perspective one ought to refer to determine the senses of a table. 1 feet. 10 feet. 500 feet. Since space and time are non empirical questions, empiricisms fails and as a logical result, empiricism has no answer to this. This is one of many many refutations that the father of modern empiricism determined by himself. And thus he became a skeptic.
[quote]"there is no such thing as empiricial proof [/quote]
my point exactly!!!! lol. Houston, we have contact. lol. wow
The evidence i gave is the same "kind" Euclid gives for the evidence of a triangle. Thus via deductive reasoning, the evidence is what we would expect to find from the axioms in which are demonstrated through the implications.
Perhaps write this down next week when the green bud wears off. But it is a means of deductive demonstrative evidence, not supportive evidence. If I punch you in the face, what would we expect to find? We would expect you would cry like a little girl to your mommy. The upon the mommy boo hoo you would possess after my fist lands upon your face we would see that this evidence demonstrates what has already been known and that demonstration is evidence of the: "What must be, in order for what is to be what it is.
Look, autotheism would be a good term to use for yourself that's true. Look, you're the one that is terribly inconsistent. You just pointed out another example of your inconsistency. I'm just using what is and bringing it to a consistent level despite what your fantasies may say.
One may say they do not worship self in theory, but in practice admit and committ selfish acts (which all atheists do) in practice. Another example of your absurd inconsistency.
why would I wish for atheists to murder people. lol. Okay, perhaps the Green Bud was giving you the benefit of the doubt. Drop the needle, just drop it and kick it towards me.
"Is it Christian to think "it doesn't help me to make everyone treat me as a mass murderer"
This is not what I was referring to. Thus you are changing the subject. I was speaking of ethics, not convenience. But there you go thinking of only yourself again. Read a few paragraphs up.
Is it Christian to have innate empathy? - yes Imago Dei
Is it Christian to like cuddling?- yes Imago Dei
"When I do good, I feel good. When I do bad, I feel bad. That's my religion."
– ascribed to Abraham Lincoln
Lincoln was a Chrisitan. And you as of now, still have a partial view of the imago dei in you.
"""You're still assuming your premise instead of testing it."""
Um, i thought there was no such thing as empirical proof. Testing via experimentation would be empirical. You have yet to define your terms. And second, ALL ARGUMENT in the first principle starts with assumption. Via the axiom of God is, all else flows from that. The soundness of the premises are found via the demonstrative evidence of the argument as a whole.
"""You keep defending your wishful thinking by simply insisting it's got to be true."""
lol, um, look, i don't know if your mom took the milk tit away to early or what. I mean, what do you say to this. Are you able to pay attention. Any normal educated person would understand that you're very poor at comprehension evidently lol.
"""You want to believe so badly that you don't care if anything is actually true. That's cartoon postmodernism – and not an intellectual argument."""
This is false. Since Belief and Knowledge are the same thing then this is absurd. Faith, belief and knowledge are all interchangeable. Thus my belief is not a mere blind cross the fingers but the assertation of the Knkowledge that I have regarding the absolute logical construct of understanding that God is true even if every man is a liar (Romans 4:3).
Look, upon eating a grape, i thought perhaps your brain has some kind of air pocket in it. I'm not sure what the problem is but wow, comprehensiion would be a D on this one.
Hi Stanton
"""Jean, did Jesus Christ speak of the tax collectors and prostitutes he dined with as being "scum" and "Satanists," like you do of us?"""
Yes he did Stanton. On many occassions.
Luke 3:1-9,John 8:44 Matt 23: 31,33
Jesus even blew up Sodom and Gommorrah. You know the sticker what would Jesus bomb. Where there's your answer (Genesis 19:24).
YOu're referred to as a lot worse in other places.
There are many different atheist denominations. Stemming from those of Mao to Castro, to Stalin, and to O'Hair. They all have one thing in common. They hate God, and worship self, and thus are a evil group that will burn in a section in hell that is hotter then most.
And regarding the cowards who just banned me. You guys are cowards. Finally, you get a Chrisitan not hynoptized by the stupidity of our atheistic times and you panic. Go to hell coward.
All those who wish further correspondance may contact me at my email: institutio@gmail.com
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
January 29, 2012 3:33 AM
The idolatrous lying shitpot has returned . . . with a fresh load of shit!
You can't even spell knowledge (or assertion)! And your grammar is shit, too! Ha!
Liar.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
January 29, 2012 7:16 AM
Yawn, still no conclusive physical evidence for JC's imaginary deity, or that his book of mythology/fiction is inerrant. Still going in theological circles thinking he is profound, instead of incoherent. As his theology is based on the twin fallacies of a deity existing and his holy book being inerrant, it makes everything based on those fallacies even more lies. Boring, incoherent, and evidenceless (JC's opinion is not evidence) rant.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
January 29, 2012 8:11 AM
I hope the chew toy sticks the flounce. He was boring.
Posted by: Jean Cauvin
|
January 29, 2012 10:36 PM
The yawns and boredom i'm afraid is just a by-product of atheism in the 21st century. The intense concentration of drugs and MTV from these youts has caused their mind to become a solid mass of ousia.
Nobody has engaged me on my arguments. Nobody has yet attempted to refute me on the grounds that I lay. My argument is valid. The soundness is an epistemological question which I have addressed and is rock sound.
You guys are a hilarous bunch. I'm guessing out of all of you that I've been engaged in maybe 1 (maybe) even understood my argument, let alone had enough brain power from the swipe MTV has taken from your intelligence.
Good times. Thanks for the laughs. Remember me when the demons rip your skin off with their hot teeth.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
January 29, 2012 11:00 PM
No, the fare a product of your insipid, incoherent, and presuppositional arguments. We've heard that evidenceless idiocy many times before from godbotting losers like yourself.We have engaged you. You haven't shown conclusive physical evidence for your imaginary deity, or that your babble is inerrant. Evidence that will pass muster with scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers, as being of divine, and not natural (scientifically explained), origin. Nothing but presupposition on your part. "That which is alleged without evidence can be dismissed without evidence". Christopher Hitchens. You provide nothing but circular and presuppositional evidence.Only in your delusional mind. It is as holey as mosquito netting or cheese cloth, but you are too blinded by Dunning-Kruger to look at the truth.Ditto delusional Dunning-Kruger fool. You offered nothing of evidence, typical of those who don't understand circular reasoning and presuppositional arguments. We had fun laughing at your pomposity, fuckwittery, and irrationality.Posted by: Owlmirror
|
January 29, 2012 11:48 PM
Your arguments are as shitty as yourself.
The "grounds" that you lay are that you start with your conclusion, moron. You then argue that you cannot be wrong and you must be right, so there!
Pathetic.
You'd be tortured forever in hell too, if there was one. You're an idolater, a liar, a wolf in sheep's clothing, and a shitpot that God shat in.
Damned liar that you are.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
January 29, 2012 11:56 PM
Hey look. Our resident word salad chef is now spelling its own name wrong.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
January 30, 2012 12:04 AM
EVERYONE has engaged these arguments, and EVERYONE has eviscerated ALL of them within 5 words.
That someone is too intellectually stunted to RECOGNIZE engagement, or too ethically impaired to acknowledge it, is not our problem.
Though it is not surprising, given past patterns of representative behavior.
As rock sound as pumice.
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
January 30, 2012 12:29 AM
Talc.
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
January 30, 2012 12:34 AM
No, even talc is too generous.
His argument is shit, so, coprolite.
"Let God be the mathematical abstraction of geometric infinity.
Geometric infinity exists.
Therefore, God exists."
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
January 30, 2012 1:35 AM
Let's not forget that rocks of any kind, while solid (to varying degrees), are not, in general, sound.
For a guy who takes metaphor as holy writ, he can't even get his metaphors straight.
Posted by: Stanton
|
January 30, 2012 9:04 AM
Rocks and shit are superior beings compared to this troll. He can't even get his scripture correct. Of course, if he did, he wouldn't be here antagonizing us in the first place.Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
January 30, 2012 3:34 PM
You don't prove God by saying God is axiomatic. An axiom, by definition, is not proved, just assumed. So proof of God's existence by assumption of God's existence is a logical fallacy called begging the question.
This is the second time I've refuted this argument, the first time was a month ago in post #339. So stop pretending "Nobody has engaged me on my arguments."
Posted by: Stanton
|
January 30, 2012 9:35 PM
If Jean the Cowardly Asshole For Jesus is forced to stop lying about no one allegedly being unable to engage what passes for his arguments, he might as well stop trolling here.