Augustine2004's opinions on Lew Rockwell, Plato, and assorted other subjects

[Challenger Grim]

Thanks to Challenger Grim, I'm reading Sardi's medical articles with a bit more salt.

Um... thanks?

I will admit, it's a tricky issue when you're a libertarian. (which I largely am)

I'll add (because I'm sure you'll enjoy this article) a tidbit I learned.
http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/dg...kins-part-one/

By the way, the Sioux escaped the ravages of small pox because United States contract medical teams vaccinated them back in the 1820s! You can look it up, the “evil” old US of A was worried that the disease might wipe out the western tribes and sent out those medical expeditions, except the Pawnees, Crows and a few others were at odds with white folks back then and kept their distance.

Of course this is the past so we can't use proper scientific rigor, but that is, more or less, the ideal test. Two or more groups close to identical (while there were undoubtedly differences between the tribes, we'd have to see if any of those would impact health +/-) and one gets a vaccine, the other doesn't. Since the Sioux survived the smallpox, it would initially seem to be evidence for. (and I'm quite sure those people got lots of sunlight)

[Augustine2004]

Part 9 Toward a better world

Two violators [note: we’re still considering three persons, so the third one would be an MBEP follower.] It doesn’t really matter whether one violator is violating the MBEP one way and the other violator another way against the third person or the two are collectively committing the same violation against the third person. It seems to me that the conclusions and suggestions made above still hold, mutatis mutandis.

Many violators, many followers
Again, it still seems to me that the conclusions and suggestions made above still hold, mutatis mutandis.

The world
To be sure, an MBEP violating government in Madagascar and its subject people would hardly affect what the government of Chicago is doing to its subject people and vice versa in the same moment. Hence, the world may possibly be divided into several many-violators many-followers cases. If so, the conclusions and suggestions made above are the same for all these cases. They continue to apply.
However, the world is messy. The typical U.S.A. citizen is subject to the federal government, a state government, a county government and local government. Perhaps throw in a protection racket and the occasional burglary or robbery. What’s more, some citizens may be MBEP violators at the same time others are violating the MBEP against them. A citizen of a town may be even right now robbing the home of the mayor of the town! That would be an example of a circle of violations. Another example would be, A violates against B, who at the same time violates against C, who also at the same time violates against A, completing the circle. If everyone is a violator, at least one circle would be unavoidable, anyhow. Proof: Assume that at a given moment everyone in the world is violating the MBEP, yet there is no circle. The case of someone violating the MBEP against himself is ruled out as an absurdity; at any rate, a case that should be ignored. So, everyone is violating the MBEP against someone else. Now, the latter person can’t v against the first person and so form a circle, so he must v against yet another person. The new person can’t v against the two other persons and so form at least one circle, so that he must v against a fourth one. In that way, extend the chain of persons until everyone is included. The last one must be an MBEP follower, otherwise he would form a circle . . . That contradicts the premise of this argument that everyone is v.

What a mess! The actual world may include many circles and open chains. Some circles could even be linked with other circles and open chains. Some chains with other chains, and so on. However, clearly there are many MBEP followers. I’m one, at least I try to be, and I hope if this essay is good it will induce many people to become followers. So, I hopefully assume there will be many followers. Also assume some of them escape being v against.

I suggest we follow a new procedure. Let’s classify actions this way:
* Hopeful Actions that include the end of making the world better.
* Realist Actions that are less ambitious–aimed at keeping the world from becoming worse.
* Despairing Actions that are the least ambitious–they are based on the assumption that there is no way to keep the world from getting worse and are simply supposed to keep the world somewhat better than otherwise.

[Augustine2004]

You don't have to read this. If you want to comment, though, go ahead. I'm not sure I'm getting anywhere with this line of argument yet.

I'll be taking a trip soon. Maybe on return I will see clearly what a colossal blunder this is.

I want to relabel and redefine the ‘Realist’ category: For your convenience, here are the categories again:

* Hopeful Actions that include the end of making the world better.
* Conservative Actions that are neither predominately “hopeful” nor predominately “despairing” (see the category next below).
* Despairing Actions that are the least ambitious–they are based on the assumption that there is no way to keep the world from getting worse and are simply supposed to keep the world somewhat better than otherwise.


The world probably can be divided into parts that each is independent from each other. Moreover, a few parts may be purely M (MBEP following). Let’s consider one such part. For each person in that part in a given moment, let’s sort the actions that he contemplates into the three categories defined above–we would have to be mindreaders, but we can pretend, can’t we? We then sum up over all the persons in that world part in each category. We might obtain a table like this one:

[column=M actions, categorized for Twebbia]
[row]Action Category[break]How many actions?[/row]
[row]‘Hopeful’[break]28[/row]
[row]‘Conservative’[break]36[/row]
[row]‘Despairing’[break]43[/row]
[/column]

Another objection is that

[Challenger Grim]

Lew Rockwell was on Judge Napolitano's web show.
http://theothermccain.com/2010/01/27...e-aig-scandal/

[Augustine2004]

Joel and another reader of this thread, whose name escapes me now, are minarchists, especially on the question of security. It surely would be interesting to know what they think of this item:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewr...ves/48972.html

[Augustine2004]

Wild West!? I admit to calling for at least two persons to be booted off Tweb, but that's nonsense, based on my own experience.
Sure we have cyberattacks, but I think some of those are at the behest of governments, to provoke the sheeple into demanding Internet regulation--i.e., government control.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewr...tml#more-49457

[Augustine2004]

Why did Challenger Grim leave TWeb? Maybe good riddance anyway.

[Augustine2004]

part 10 Toward a better world.

You may be wondering, how could the table help us decide what way to go–anarchy, minarchy, or some specific form of socialism? In a way the table above is like a snapshot. Not really useful or interesting by itself. But, if we organize many ‘snapshot’ tables and see them one by one rapidly through time, we have something analogous to a movie. We could then understand what effect any violation of the MBEP may have on the world.

In the pure MBEP part of the world that we are considering, suppose someone violates against someone else. The table above may then change to this:

[column=Categorized for Twebbia, after violation 1]
[row]Action Category[break]How many actions?[/row]
[row]‘Hopeful’[break]22[/row]
[row]‘Conservative’[break]38[/row]
[row]‘Despairing’[break]9[/row]
[/column]

The ‘hopeful’ column would decrease and the ‘despairing’ column increase. In other words, a shift from the hopeful end toward the despairing end. And that is what we are interested in. The shift would indicate an overall change in mood about life as a result of the violation.

Now for some objections:
‘You should have added the caveat “other things being equal” or a similar one.’
Reply: No doubt some unusual cases may occur in which the shift is actually from the despairing to the hopeful, or else whatever shift there is can be ignored as unimportant. Evidently some other cause of the shift overrode the effect of the violation. Anyhow, that such cases are obviously in the minority should count for something.

‘Classifying those acts correctly is a big problem.’
Reply: Indeed! Even if a starting table is correctly sorted, there is no guarantee that a later table would be. However, really all we are interested in is the change from table to table. For example, it doesn’t matter too much what the two classifications were in determining what the change was. Is it from the hopeful end toward the despairing end? Yes? Or, from the despairing end toward the hopeful. It shouldn’t be too much a problem in most cases to determine the nature of the change–more hopeful or more despairing?

Moreover in the remaining the cases, perhaps most of those are insignificant or generally to be regarded as such. Many violations may fall into the ‘don’t sweat it!’ category.

‘What if the supposed violation was actually an act that bettered the supposed victim’s world even in his opinion?’
Reply: In that case, it would not be really a violation, even if the one who did that act really intended it as such.

‘What if the violation is one of chicanery without any use of force or threat of force and the victim is unaware of that?’
Reply: It indeed may be that initially the violation either has no impact or causes a shift to the hopeful. However, some of the acts that the victim may consider may be based on the mistaken belief that he has more control of the world’s resources that he actually does. If he chooses one of those acts, its failure may cause a shift to the despairing. Eventually the victim may discover the chicanery, which may cause a further shift to the despairing.

‘Surely there are other ways to evaluate the world. Why do you think your way is better or the best?’
Reply: I think one unique feature here is that it evaluates the world in terms of what each member thinks of it as compared to the past. Let me remind you that the MBEP calls for maximum freedom to act for each member. So far we have not seen anything that contradicts it, have we? Of course people won’t follow it perfectly, but that’s not what I meant. I meant that my analysis has not turned up any reason to reject the precept, has it? If you think there should be a deeper principle or precept whereby to judge the worth of the MBEP, please suggest it.

‘[win undying fame and glory by putting your objection here, especially a killer.]’
Reply: I am dead! Dead!

If two or more violations occur instead of one, the conclusion does not change except in degree. Note that if there is more than one M part of the world, then all such parts can be combined to form one big part, though one part of it may be disjoint from another.

[Augustine2004]

Part 11 Toward a better world

I’m thinking of discarding the idea of the table of classifications of acts. Instead, each person would be ranked as hopeful, conservative, or despairing, according to his mental assessment of his life. A problem is that each person oscillates between hope and depression seemingly randomly. Even if one’s circumstances were exactly the same at two times that are days apart, his mood may nevertheless be different either day. We just will have to cope with the problem as best as we can. In other words, let’s ‘average’ over time and people, so to speak.

Now that we’ve studied the M parts of the world, let’s look at those parts of the world in which one or more violations are occurring. More specifically for now, consider the parts in which each violation has a different perpetrator and a different victim. If those parts have say 10,000 violations in total, then 10,000 perpetrators and 10,000 victims. As it happens we already analyzed cases like those in our study of the M parts. We agreed, did we not, that violations would cause shifts away from the hopeful end toward the despairing end. No differences, so the conclusion remains the same.

However, a scenario like this may occur:

Abby violates against Bobby, who in turns violates against Crabby, who . . .

Let’s call that scenario a string. It’s possible that a string may have one or more persons that are also in at least another string. However, let’s consider for now simple strings–strings that have no person in common. Now, as far as I can tell, the only new aspect we need consider here is that at least one person is at once both violator and victim.

An alternative world results when that person ‘is’ not a victim of anyone else’s violations. The alternative should be more toward the hopeful end from the despairing end than the original world, then. The same goes for the alternative world that results when the person ‘is’ not violating the MBEP though he is still victim.

[Augustine2004]

Part 12 Toward a better world

Discussing alternative worlds is tricky or can be ambiguous. If a person is said to be doing something or not, is that in the ‘actual’ world or in the alternative world? Consider the last paragraph of part 11. Would the following phraseology be not better?

Consider the alternative world where the person is instead not a victim of anyone else’s violations. Then the alternative world should be more toward the hopeful end as compared to the ‘actual’ world. The same goes for the alternative world where the person is instead not violating the MBEP though he is the same victim.

The rule seems to be, if a world (either ‘actual’ or alternative) has one violation less than the other world, it should be more toward the hopeful end as compared to the other world.

Any given string can be in two parts in an alternative world, e.g., A-B-C-D in the ‘actual’ world and (A & B-C-D) or (A-B & C-D) or (A-B-C & D) in an alternative world. Moreover, we need not have just one alternative world. We could have, e.g.,

actual: A-B-C-D
first alternative: A & B-C-D
second alternative: A & B & C-D .

The second alternative should be more toward the hopeful end as compared to the predecessor worlds. It appears however a given string is ‘broken up’ into one violator-victim link and the rest free individuals, the final alternative should be . . . hopeful . . .

[Augustine2004]

Part 13 Toward a better world

Now I would like to move on to what I call circles, but I fear many people may make a natural assumption that IMO obscures the truth. Of course any violation cannot exist if no action ever occurs that would violate against someone. Some people might be inclined to think that once a violating act ends, then the concomitant violation likewise ends, at the same time. For example, a boy steals a chocolate bar from a store and eats it. Is that the end of that violation by the boy against the store? No more chocolate bar! I say, not so, as long as the boy or his caretakers do not compensate the store by paying for the bar. When the store receives what it considers to be sufficient restitution for the bar, then that is the end of the violation, not before.

One may forgive a violation against himself. Several possible definitions of ‘to forgive’ may exist, but I don’t propose to consider all of them. I’ll just define it for the purposes of this essay as ‘to not want restitution (any more).’ When the store accepts the chocolate bar restitution as sufficient, the store may be said to forgive the violation, and thus that would be the end of it.

I am generally opposed to forgiving too readily or too much. To be sure, ‘don’t sweat the small stuff’ is good advice, when getting restitution would be prohibitively costly (such as spending years on building a case for restitution or getting the violator arrested for trial) or when the restitution would be trivial. However, do keep these points in mind:
* The violator may need to be taught a lesson. For example, small children.
* The violator can and should be made to make restitution for the cost that the victim or others incur to obtain restitution.

If the restitution is inadequate, the violation remains ‘alive.’ If excessive instead, that is in itself a new violation.

What if the violator and victim do not agree on the restitution? Of course violators naturally want to pay as little restitution as possible, and victims as much as possible. Victims should get the aid of third parties to overcome their violators’ resistance, but should be prepared to settle for less than they want to get.

Judicial resolution is when a third party (maybe a judge, arbitrator or mediator) gets the violator and the victim to accept a plan for restitution. Ideally, the plan should seem fair to both disputants and yet they both dislike it. I propose we accept every good judicial resolution as the end of its relevant violation.

[this is not necessarily the end of this section; perhaps you will think of something that I didn’t that should be included here]


Now circles. The smallest circle is two persons violating against each other at once. At first glance that scenario seems rare. We do have stories of poachers, though. The king taxes the poacher, the poacher takes the king’s stag. Actually, say Abby violates against Bobby many months ago, and she still has not made restitution to Bobby for that. Now Bobby has lately violated against her, and still has not made restitution to her, either. Thus, a two-person circle.

It’s quite tempting to say that Bobby’s violation cancels out Abby’s violation, so now the world’s all even. All well. I wouldn’t agree. Suppose Abby and Bobby are willing to make restitution to one or the other, but they couldn’t agree on how to end their mutual violations. [to be continued, pending comments from readers]

[Augustine2004]

Part 14 Toward a better world

If the two violations were alike in some way, then perhaps the circle can be regarded as a moot thing, for the violations cancel each other out. However, IMO the violations will usually be significantly different, so that we can’t really say they cancel each other out neatly.

In any case we can still ask, what if one violation ends, but the other remains? The circle breaks, transforming to a string. I just can’t see how to evaluate the change as better in general. Maybe the same or worse. Any one of the three outcomes seems equally possible.

One may hope that Abby and Bobby will resolve their conflict, or some third party will. In that case, the circle vanishes. This time, IMO the alternative world is better in terms of how people evaluate it.

Now, three-or-more person circles. How many persons, it doesn’t seem to matter, except the number of violations is equal to the number of persons in the circle. Let one violation in the circle end; then the circle transforms to a string. I’m not sure we can say that in general the alternative world is then better . . . The violation that ends may happen to be a rather trivial one among the circle violations. However, if we were to take the string and evaluate as we already did before, then the ultimate alternative world would definitely be best in general, would it? I admit I’m not sure. Maybe I will think of a better argument eventually.

I’m not sure the time when each violation ends really matters in the long run, if all circle violations end fairly soon, though they may not all end at the same time. IMO when the last violation ends, the world afterwards is better than the world with the circle or the resulting strings, other things being more or less equal. However, I feel I need a better argument than that. Any suggestion?

[Augustine2004]

It sounds a lot like some of events I have been to in Georgia. Except in Georgia we have a candidate who is running on a states rights platform and he speaks at these events regularly (to loud cheers and applause). In fact it was his candidacy, and me wanting to hear him speak, that got me to start attending these events.

Lots of that kind going on http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/sheriff3.1.1.html

[Faramir]

Lots of that kind going on http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/sheriff3.1.1.html

Great article. I was at a meeting with the local gubernatorial candidate who is running as a "State's Rights" Republican. His undergrad degree is in history and I commented that it is ironic that it was the Democratic Party that was historically associated with "State's Rights".

He was very quick to point out that what the Democrats used for evil (Slavery, Segregation, etc.) he wants to use for good.

Like anything, the idea of "State's Rights" can be used for nefarious purposes or good purposes.

I like this story as it shows the good that can be brought about by allowing the states to exercise their constitutional authority to nullify unjust federal law.

Power to the people!

[Augustine2004]

Part 14 [First revision] Toward a better world [Two-person circles, continued]


If the two circle violations were alike in some way, then perhaps they cancel each other out, so that the circle world is not worse than the MBEP alternative world. However, IMO the violations will usually be significantly different, so that we can’t really say they cancel each other out that neatly.

In any case we can still ask, what if one violation ends, but the other remains? The circle breaks, transforming to a string. I just can’t see how to evaluate the change as better in general. Maybe the same or worse. Those changes–worse, about the same, better--seem equally possible.

One may hope that Abby and Bobby will resolve their conflict, or some third party will. In that case, the circle vanishes. This time, IMO the alternative world is better in terms of how people evaluate their worlds and of control of them.

Now, three-or-more person circles. How many persons, it doesn’t seem to matter, except the number of violations is equal to the number of persons in the circle. 4-person circles? N-person circles? Anyway, let one violation in the circle end; then the circle transforms to a string. I’m not sure we can say that in general the alternative world is then better . . . The violation that ends may happen to be a rather trivial one among the circle violations. However, if we were to take the string and evaluate as we already did before, then the ultimate alternative world would definitely be best in general, would it? I admit I’m not sure.

I’m not sure the time when each violation ends really matters in the long run, if all circle violations end fairly soon, though they may not all end at the same time. IMO when the last violation ends, the world afterwards is better than the world with the circle or the resulting strings, other things being more or less equal. However, I feel I need a better argument than that.

Let me start over, all right? Consider a N-person circle, where N is a positive integer that is greater than 3. Each person in the circle violates against another person and is violated against by yet another person. That can be diagramed, thus: >person>, where obviously ‘>’ means ‘(someone) is violating against (someone else).‘ Select one person in the circle; let his violation and the one against him end. We now have one string and a person in the MBEP part of the world. We’ve already examined that case and I concluded without dissent (so far!) that the pure MBEP alternative is best.

Yet, might it not be possible that at least one circle person is so dependent on the circle that he is worse off after his ejection into the cruel MBEP part of the world? Bobby’s mom had successfully sued a man to compensate her for aggravated battery upon her of which he was convicted. She died shortly afterwards, but Bobby did not notify anyone as he was supposed to. He fraudulently spent the compensation money that the man was periodically sending. Eventually the fraud was discovered and Bobby had to go to prison. That partly led to the discovery of the circle violation against him by someone named Cacy. In dollar terms, Cacy’s violation was much less than Bobby’s. All in all, it’s certainly possible Bobby is worse off in the MBEP world or part than in the circle world.

One thing wrong with that scenario is that it glosses over the point that every violation does not end until the perpetrator has fully compensated the victim. The circle is still a circle until both Cacy and Bobby have finished their sentences.

For ease of argument, it seems much easier to go the other way, from the MBEP world to a circle world. Nevertheless, it seems unlikely that we could go from the MBEPW directly to say a 5-person circle world. So unlikely IMO, we should ignore it. Nevertheless, perhaps we should see how a three-person circle may form. Two-person circles should be common enough to merit attention. Surely now and then a third person may violate against one person of the circle: e.g., A>B and B>A, then C>A. After some time, B may turn from violating against A to violating against C, so we have this diagram: A>B>C and C>A. Rather unlikely, perhaps we can ignore three-person circles after all. I will certainly ignore N-person circles, N a positive integer greater than 3, from now on as not worthwhile.

[to be continued; possibly concluded]