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

[Augustine2004]

Poor guy could be if he wouldn't let his political convictions get the better of him. Sometimes he can oversimplify things.

Challenger, you don't have to explain why I'm unpopular. But I do wonder exactly what led you to opine that about letting my 'political convictions' get the better of myself. My support of Ron Paul? Merely quoting what he said? As for 'oversimplifying things'--huh! What things?

[Challenger Grim]

Challenger, you don't have to explain why I'm unpopular. But I do wonder exactly what led you to opine that about letting my 'political convictions' get the better of myself. My support of Ron Paul? Merely quoting what he said?

That you could have a lot more friends (at least on here) if you didn't automatically assume that every one who disagreed with your politics was evil or unchristian. Heck, I've generally tried to give you the benefit of a doubt up until the "rooting for China over USA" bit.

As for 'oversimplifying things'--huh! What things?

Just about every time I've called you out for the "sheepdog-wolf" logical fallacy. Remember the monkeysphere. Things are NEVER as simple as they seem - even the idea that America is an empire.

[Augustine2004]

the "rooting for China over USA" bit.

I don't remember that. Please, which post? In any case, I dislike China's government, too.

Just about every time I've called you out for the "sheepdog-wolf" logical fallacy. Remember the monkeysphere. Things are NEVER as simple as they seem - even the idea that America is an empire.

What was my most recent post for which you called me out for the 'sheepdog-wolf' logical fallacy? I have no idea what you mean by 'monkeysphere.'

People certainly do have difficulty with thinking that America is an empire. Evil, to boot.

[Augustine2004]

Yea for safe skies http://www.leftcoastrebel.com/2010/1...lests-nun.html

Seriously, I would like Challenger Grim's opinion.

[Augustine2004]

A jerk I may be, though not as bad as the TSA, but I'm going ahead and bet Challenger Grim won't be able to explain why Zug, Switzerland, has 1.9% unemployment. That's right, not 19%. 1/10 that much. 1.9%.

[Augustine2004]

(not addressed to anyone in particular)
Wow, what do you think, Michele Bachmann, a Presidental candidate, overreaching for votes?



If voted prez, she'd be the first since LBJ to show a belly button--or did LBJ really show his belly button?

[Augustine2004]

Nazi doctors did experiments on 'captured' Jews. Lots of documents support that assertion. So, the Nazis must be the evil guys, and we the good guys.

Well, not so fast!

http://news.yahoo.com/panel-reveals-...012040543.html

[Challenger Grim]

Seriously, I would like Challenger Grim's opinion.

Do not assume I have forgotten. You asked for examples, so research is in order.

I don't remember that. Please, which post? In any case, I dislike China's government, too.

In reply to Rapheal:

Dude, I hate to break it to you, but you guys are in so much debt you're not an Empire, China would own you if it called in what the US owes it.

That'd be great.

Hard to read the above as anything but cheering for China to own the USA.

I have no idea what you mean by 'monkeysphere.'

Do a google search for it, one of the first results should be a cracked.com article. It's not a bad reminder of the principles of perspective.

People certainly do have difficulty with thinking that America is an empire. Evil, to boot.

Well you've answered your own earlier question:

What was my most recent post for which you called me out for the 'sheepdog-wolf' logical fallacy?

Thinking America is an empire is like thinking that a sheepdog is a wolf. But don't feel bad, it's the most common fallacy among libertarians.
http://www.scifiwright.com/2010/01/l...nd-feral-dogs/

As for 'oversimplifying things'--huh! What things?

I found another example as answer to this question while digging through archives:

You see Lincoln as a saint, and I see him as a devil (killed 350,000 Southerners and many Northerners).

I should point out, that not everyone sees Lincoln as a saint or a devil. They see him as human. Again, go find and read the monkeysphere article.

[Augustine2004]

Something to warm the cockles of Dick Cheney's heart. You know Dick, the water-board torture advocate who's now on a tour for his new book.

[joel]

I should point out, that not everyone sees Lincoln as a saint or a devil. They see him as human. Again, go find and read the monkeysphere article.

What is this "monkeysphere article"?
Whether one approves of Lincoln or not, he was certainly a huge-government guy. He was no friend of limited government. He rates with Wilson and FDR--perhaps even worse--on this.

[Challenger Grim]

What is this "monkeysphere article"?
Whether one approves of Lincoln or not, he was certainly a huge-government guy. He was no friend of limited government. He rates with Wilson and FDR--perhaps even worse--on this.

Oh no question about that.

(also, I can't link to the article directly, that's why I'm saying, just google it)

[Augustine2004]

[Challenger Grim accused me of rooting for China against the USA. I asked him for evidence]

In reply to Rapheal: [[Rapheal said if China called in its USA debts, it would own the USA. Before I reply to Challenger, let me point out that this is seriously asinine (gross oversimplification for one thing). In reply to Raphael, I then said, somewhat facetiously, 'That'd be great.']]

Hard to read [that] as anything but cheering for China to own the USA.

Well, aside from slamming that as gross oversimplification, all I will say is, most anything that causes the American empire to wreck on the shoals of history is great.

Do a google search for ['monkeysphere'], one of the first results should be a cracked.com article. It's not a bad reminder of the principles of perspective.

Quite interesting. Probably worth keeping in mind. I'm a bit puzzled. Surely it's not as though you think the reality of the monkeysphere invalidates the Maybury precepts (do all that you agree to do and respect others' property). It does furnish a reason why we should expect them to be frequently violated, such as a government starting a war with a contrived pretext (e.g. the Gulf of Tonkin 'affair'). Nor does the reality excuse the American Christians from doing anything with our bloodthirsty power elite.

Well you've answered your own earlier question [[I said that people do have difficulty thinking that America is an evil empire]]:Thinking America is an empire is like thinking that a sheepdog is a wolf. But don't feel bad, it's the most common fallacy among libertarians.

First of all, what are all the 700+ overseas military bases for? The pretext is to keep the peace and maintain law and order. I'm sorry if that fooled you. Actually there could be hundreds of secret bases, so maybe the count perhaps should be 1,000+. And what about the history of CIA coups, such as the 1953 overthrow of the Irani democracy? Lots more argument left.

http://www.scifiwright.com/2010/01/l...nd-feral-dogs/

Ah, Stephan Kinsella, I believe. Our relationship go back way before the end of last century. Clearly neither Wright nor you understands the libertarian argument (Rothbard, e.g.). I think we should defer our argument on that article to later posts.

I found another example [[of my oversimplifying things]] as answer to this question while digging through archives: [[I asserted--I may have overstated things a bit, I concede--that Lil Pixie sees Lincoln as saint and I see him as devil. I am not overstating the devil part. Lincoln was truly evil.]]

I should point out, that not everyone sees Lincoln as a saint or a devil. They see him as human. Again, go find and read the monkeysphere article.

Oh, wow, zat so?

[Challenger Grim]

Well, aside from slamming that as gross oversimplification, all I will say is, most anything that causes the American empire to wreck on the shoals of history is great.

So a zombie apocalypse that would devastate world population would be great for it bringing down America? I REALLY have to wonder about your perspective some times.

Quite interesting. Probably worth keeping in mind. I'm a bit puzzled. Surely it's not as though you think the reality of the monkeysphere invalidates the Maybury precepts (do all that you agree to do and respect others' property). It does furnish a reason why we should expect them to be frequently violated, such as a government starting a war with a contrived pretext (e.g. the Gulf of Tonkin 'affair'). Nor does the reality excuse the American Christians from doing anything with our bloodthirsty power elite.

You couldn't even keep it in mind by the time you got to the bottom of the paragraph.

First of all, what are all the 700+ overseas military bases for? The pretext is to keep the peace and maintain law and order. I'm sorry if that fooled you. Actually there could be hundreds of secret bases, so maybe the count perhaps should be 1,000+. And what about the history of CIA coups, such as the 1953 overthrow of the Irani democracy? Lots more argument left.

Yeah... I forgot about all those tributes other countries had to pay to us and how they had to get approval from our emperor on internal matters.

And I mean... if you think the government has enough coherence to keep anything secret... you need to watch less hollywood movies.

[Augustine2004]

So a zombie apocalypse that would devastate world population would be great for it bringing down America? I REALLY have to wonder about your perspective some times.

What kind of thinking led to that!? 'Zombie apocalypse'!? America did more than the rest of the world put together to bring on our current economic storm. To be sure, I wasn't quite right. We need everyone to respect others' property far more than is true today. That's a major cause of our problems. We need to get rid of the USFG, but we won't benefit from doing so unless we start respecting private property.

You couldn't even keep it in mind by the time you got to the bottom of the paragraph.

??? You give the 'monkeysphere' effect far too much importance, morally speaking, I think.

Yeah... I forgot about all those tributes other countries had to pay to us and how they had to get approval from our emperor on internal matters.

What do you think all the foreign aid is for? It would take a while to explain how the empire obtains and maintains satrapies, so not now. And any time a satrapy leader steps out of order, and the empire sees a threat, whammo! War. Probably that's why we are in Libya, Gadhafi was talking about doing trade in gold dinars (correct name?) rather than dollars, for one thing.

And I mean... if you think the government has enough coherence to keep anything secret... you need to watch less hollywood movies.

A technique against keeping things secret is to cry 'conspiracy theory!' Another is to put out enormous amounts of disinformation, so much that we are unable to sort out the real stuff from fake.

The Nazi regime maintained coherence right up to the fall of Berlin. The USSR kept together until around the time the Berlin Wall fell. I suspect you are not really thinking things through.

I guess I will go ahead and add this. We've let sociopaths take over the government. Some operate in public, but generally they operate in the shadows: we have shadow government. Besides, the bureaucracy lasts from administration to administration, and that applies to the CIA and FBI. I've only just begun, I fear.



Ok, I've looked at John C. Wright's 'reply' to Stephan Kinsella's comment

http://www.scifiwright.com/2010/01/l...nd-feral-dogs/

He merely assumes that the government can do more good than bad. I would on the contrary assert that even if people will violate the Maybury precepts all the time, we still should expect the government to do more bad than good in the long run.



A reason is that the more we need good government the less we are able to set it up. Surely you would not expect a wayward gang of kids marooned on an island to set up good government?



Is there any other part of the Wright article you wish me to comment on?

[joel]

(also, I can't link to the article directly, that's why I'm saying, just google it)

The monkeysphere article says, "It's just the one single reason society doesn't work."
But this assumes that the monkeysphere is the basis of society or the reason it works.
Some have argued otherwise. For example, Ludwig von Mises argued that the foundation and essence of society is the division of labor.

"The greater productivity of work under the division of labour is a unifying influence. It leads men to regard each other as comrades in a joint struggle for welfare, rather than as competitors in a struggle for existence. It makes friends out of enemies, peace out of war, society out of individuals."
[...]
"Once it has been perceived that the division of labour is the essence of society, nothing remains of the antithesis between individual and society. The contradiction between individual principle and social principle disappears."
[...]
"Of all accusations against the system of Free Trade and Private Property, none is more foolish than the statement that it is anti-social and individualistic and that it atomizes the body social. Trade does not disintegrate, as romantic enthusiasts for the autarky of small portions of the earth's surface assert; it unites. The division of labour is what first makes social ties: it is the social element"
http://mises.org/books/socialism/part3_ch18.aspx

The division of labor and thus society transcends the monkeysphere.

I'll also respond to Wright's article. He writes:

"A libertarian is someone who cannot tell the difference between a taxman and a thief, or between a pirate and a policeman.


"Let me state the basics:


"The difference is that one has authority and the other does not."

This response is mere question begging. The libertarian complaint is that there is no distinction between the taxman and the bandit such that one has moral authority to do what he does, and the other does not. No one is able to say what makes the difference. To just state that there is in fact that difference is circular.


The unanswered problem is not new. It was posed by St. Augustine and I think Cicero, raising the story of Alexander the Great who encountered a pirate who pointed out that the only difference between the two was that Alexander did the same thing on a much bigger scale. No one has yet explained how doing something immoral on a big enough scale magically turns an immoral act into one done with "authority".


Wright goes on to argue that you have a moral obligation to help oppose aggressors. "Your moral duty is to resist pirates, and hunt them down and kill them, either in your own person, by joining the marines, or by proxy, by paying taxes to the prince or to the republic whose duty it is to impress marines and built ships and hunt pirates." In response I say:
- Even if I am morally obliged that does not give others the right to use force against me.
- It certainly does not mean that I am obliged to help in a particular way or to fund a particular organization. Surely my obligation would be met if I did it myself or funded a different organization of my own choosing. (Wright also makes the mistake of thinking that "hangman" services can be funded only coercively, and there is no way to fund them by voluntary means. Not true.)

- The argument can also backfire: if this particular enforcing entity uses means that make it an aggressor (e.g. by stealing or using force to maintain a monopoly), then by the same argument I have the obligation to help oppose that organization.

As an aside, I might comment that Wright's focus is to "hunt down the thief imprison, maim or hang him." But how does that help the victim? Surely the primary focus should be on restoring the victim. And if anyone should be forced to pay the costs of all this it should be the criminal himself, rather than me the innocent bystander!


Wright has this strawman thinking that anti-statist libertarians would have nothing be done to stop thieves. That simply is not the case. He says, "Not paying your taxes is tantamount to letting a thief take your goods" which does not follow. For example, what if you stop the thief yourself, or fund a voluntary organization to combat theft? No one is saying we shouldn't have organized defense against thieves. The point is that that can be done through voluntary means, and that it is immoral/theft to resort to the same means as the thief.

Wright gives another straw man: "The libertarian is equating two opposite things, lawbreakers and lawkeepers." Not at all, the libertarian is all for lawkeepers--just that the lawkeeper too must actually obey the same (natural) law as everyone else or else he to that extent becomes a lawbreaker.

Wright says, "The libertarian is carefully and completely blind to the difference between the deeds, whether the deeds are helpful or harmful, good or bad, lawful or lawless, protect the innocent or harm the innocent, establish property rights or abolish property right, et cetera and et cetera."
Again, not at all. The Libertarian has just thought though these issues much more carefully and logically. Theft, even to fund lawkeeping activities or any other 'services', is bad, unlawful, harms the innocent, violates property right, etc.


Finally Wright makes the argument that what makes the moral difference is that theft is okay if you use (some of) it to provide a service for the "public weal". But this is insufficient. Would Wright think me just as morally upright if I begin stealing to provide my own services for the public weal? I'm sure he would say it is immoral if I began to steal (demand money upon threat of physical force) from him to provide a police organization or local school that I start in competition with the state. If Wright is correct that services for the "public weal" or keeping the peace justify theft (or what would otherwise be theft), then surely it justifies that action for any and all who do so, not just the state.
And if everyone else has the moral obligation to fund the state for this reason, then everyone has just as much obligation to fund any and all such competitors that also choose to fight thieves.

Also, what if I am not interested in the state's particular brand of service? As Lysander Spooner wrote, it is no good to say "to the dissenters: We offer you equal rights with ourselves, in the benefits of the church, school, hospital, or theatre, which we propose to establish, and equal voice in the control of it. It would be a sufficient answer for the others to say: We want no share in the benefits, and no voice in the control, of your institution; and will do nothing to support it."

[edited to add]
And as for the analogy of sheepdog vs wolf. The libertarian's whole point is that it doesn't matter whether it's a sheepdog or a wolf that is killing the sheep. What matters is the killing of the sheep. It is equally the killing of sheep whether it is done by a sheepdog or by a wolf. There is no moral difference merely because one thief calls himself a magistrate. All men are under the same moral law. You don't get exemptions from the law just because you wear a particular uniform or badge or claim a special title. It is the act of theft that makes one a thief, regardless of who you are.
[/edited to add]