Vaxxed, masked, boostered, locked-down…the pandemic continues. The epicenter, once again, is Europe. What will be the new state boondoggle?

For Austria it’s another lockdown and the harshest vaccine-mandate in the western world. Inject these chemicals or face a fine. Inject these chemicals or you are not allowed to leave your house. And all this after the citizens were promised that lockdowns were a thing of the past. Without irony, Germany might follow.

In Ireland, with one of the highest vaccination rates in Europe, new curfews in pubs and clubs.

In the Netherlands it’s another lockdown. Encouraging signs of civil disobedience now fill the streets.

Almost invariably, the reasoning for more restrictions is to protect the state healthcare system. No one is surprised that rather than strengthen their precious systems, the politicians would rather control the lives their citizens.

Yes, we need to observe the stone, otherwise we have no data to work with. When we investigate in close detail what this stone is made of, we discover it is made of colourless, odourless, insubstantial particles. So the stone is made of stuff that lacks the qualities we attribute to them in ordinary life.

So close investigation reveals the stone to be a projection, yet without this projection, we wouldn't be able to get to the stuff that makes up the stone.

Hence the paradox. As I understand it

I think that’s what Russell was getting at. But is it true? I don’t know if naive realism leads automatically to physics or some form of atomism. I would also say the stone does not lack the qualities we attribute to them in orderly life. So the paradox exists more in physics or atomism than naive realism.

I don’t know why I called it “Russell’s stone”. I mean the stone that Russell was speaking about in this quote.

"Scientific scripture, in its most canonical form, is embodied in physics (including physiology). Physics assures us that the occurrences which we call "perceiving objects" are at the end of a long causal chain which starts from the objects, and are not likely to resemble the objects except, at best, in certain very abstract ways. We all start from "naive realism'', i.e., the doctrine that things are what they seem. We think that grass is green, that stones are hard, and that snow is cold. But physics assures us that the greenness of grass, the hardness of stones, and the coldness of snow, are not the greenness, hardness, and coldness that we knpw in our own experience, but something very different. The observer, when he seems to himself to be observing a stone, is really, if physics is to be believed, observing the effects of the stone upon himself. Thus science seems to be at war with itself: when it most means to be objective, it finds itself plunged into subjectivity against its will. Naive realism leads to physics, and physics, if true, shows that naive realism is false naive realism, if true, is false : therefore it is false.”

Bertrand Russell, An Inquiry into Meaning and Truth

I’ve always wondered how one would observe the effects of Russell’s stone without observing the stone. It seems to me “observing the effects” says more about the way we observe the stone, and utilizing the means with which we observe do not preclude observing the actual stone.

It is clear the language and technology has advanced, but it is not clear that man himself has evolved any further beyond man in Aristotle's time. We just have more to play with these days.

A great read. Thanks.

It is largely a problem of identity and self-hood, I think. I say this because the belief that one is not his body, but only a limited and mostly arbitrary part of it, begets all notions of perception, representation, idealism, and so on.

Whether it is a Cartesian or materialist dualism, or wherever one identifies with some amorphous locus within the body (consciousness, the brain, the mind), they are left with the implication that they are not in direct contact with the rest of the world, but are subject only to what the body allows them to see. If they were to extend the limits of their self to the boundaries of the body, the implication that there is a barrier or buffer or Cartesian theater between them and the rest of the world begins to dissolve.

The article was The Basic Laws of Human Stupidity, by Carlo Cipolla

I wouldn’t apply Cipolla’s classifications to human beings because they are unjust, impractical, and largely nonsensical.

They are unjust because they lead us to observe the results of certain acts, apply utilitarian considerations, and use them to judge the intelligence of the actor, as if the intelligent cannot make mistakes, and so on. One could never know whether a situation will be better or worse beforehand, in any case, so expecting people to understand the situation before it occurs is to believe in omniscience.

It is impractical because, using Cipolla’s graph, one would have to record every act a person makes in a lifetime in order to determine whether one is stupid or intelligent.

It is nonsensical because one can occupy all categories at once. If someone makes his own and another’s situation worse with one act and better with the next, he is, accordingly, both stupid and intelligent.

Those who would utilize this method in order to discriminate against other human beings would lead me to classify him as stupid.

It’s either true or false. That’s enough of a difference for me.

Censure doesn’t involve removing people from committees. This particular resolution includes both the censure and removal in two different parts, but the removal doesn’t follow from the censure.

Gosar is the 24th House member to be censured. Though it carries no practical effect, except to provide a historic footnote that marks a lawmaker's career, it is the strongest punishment the House can issue short of expulsion, which requires a two-thirds vote.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/politics/house-to-vote-on-censuring-gosar-over-tweeting-violent-anime-video

A censure resolution, if brought to the floor, could pass by majority vote. (Expelling a member requires a two-thirds majority.) A censure would have no practical effects on the GOP congressman, but it would a permanent scar on Gosar's record.

https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/amp/ncna1283716

Censure still has zero effect.

That’s the effect of their blind, censorial rage. Censure requires no compulsory action.

I like that.

Either way, it is worthy of a laugh, just as it is with the Kathy Griffen thing, as you pointed out.

Censure has zero effect beyond political finger-wagging, anyways. So, along with the press and woke social media CEOs, congress will make a big show of it, but that's about the end of it.

An anime meme is grounds for violence and revolution, apparently. But it might be better for all involved to stick to memes, that is if they could make a good one.

If they’re so weak-minded it should be easy for someone such as yourself to change them.

It would be worse than that. This was just a fake cartoon that was obviously not supposed to be taken literally. They took it literally, alright. Him holding a severed head would be grounds for violent reprisal. You’ve already evoked notions of violent revolution because of it.

Imagine if Gosar held up an AOC or horse mask with blood dripping from it.

AOC was once depicted as a superhero in a comic book and I bet she thought she could fly after reading it. It’s nonsense; one has to wonder how they cope with real problems.

Seeing a cartoon Gosar running along roof-tops with his samurai sword, and the impending attack on a cartoon giant with AOC’s face superimposed on it, broke my heart. One wonders how a politician could face the adversity of Twitter memes.

Nope. Your purely mental taxonomies apply to your mental furniture only, and not to any actual flesh and blood individuals, the vast majority of whom you are not even aware exist, let alone have met.

Fight what? I’m already not a part of any collective. No one is. The error is in believing you are a part of anything of the sort.

Right. The stories we tell ourselves. Of course, you would never voluntarily pay more or less than is required, and will dutifully pay whatever the politician demands of you. That’s the extent of your voluntary action: you voluntarily do whatever the state tells you.

Thanks. I should add that you get to watch as the federal government steals your children’s wealth and labor to fund its boondoggles.

A so-called “infrastructure bill” was signed into law yesterday in yet another obscene transfer of wealth and power.

(Note the blurred seal…why?)

This will pave the way for Biden’s “Build, Back, Better” plan, which will hoist America’s decline into abject collectivism on the backs of its citizens.

Australia is one of the world’s biggest importers of American weaponry, though apparently it would rather use its force to govern its own citizenry than for defense. But of course the people there gave up their right to own arms long ago. Now they have no choice but to beg for American protection, lest it become a communist or Islamist satellite. What is left of them? Who knows? Who really cares?

No, I had no such reservations. I just like pointing out that Biden’s campaign was a lie. But it’s true; the sooner the world learns to defend itself and stops sucking at America’s tit the better. You sleep cozy knowing that American military protects you while you sleep, and I wish it wasn’t so.

The Biden they voted for

Question:

Given the assassination of Jamal Khashoggi and Saudi Arabia’s involvement in the civil war in Yemen, what changes, if any, would you make to U.S. policy toward Saudi Arabia?

Biden:

I would end U.S. support for the disastrous Saudi-led war in Yemen and order a reassessment of our relationship with Saudi Arabia. It is past time to restore a sense of balance, perspective, and fidelity to our values in our relationships in the Middle East. President Trump has issued Saudi Arabia a dangerous blank check. Saudi Arabia has used it to extend a war in Yemen that has created the world’s worst humanitarian crisis, pursue reckless foreign policy fights, and repress its own people. Among the most shameful moments of this presidency came after the brutal Saudi murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, as Trump defended not the slain U.S. resident but his killers. America’s priorities in the Middle East should be set in Washington, not Riyadh.

President Trump’s first overseas trip was to Saudi Arabia. As President, I will rally the world’s democracies and our allies in the Free World. We will make clear that America will never again check its principles at the door just to buy oil or sell weapons. We should recognize the value of cooperation on counterterrorism and deterring Iran. But America needs to insist on responsible Saudi actions and impose consequences for reckless ones. I would want to hear how Saudi Arabia intends to change its approach to work with a more responsible U.S. administration.

https://www.cfr.org/article/presidential-candidates-saudi-arabia


The Biden they got

Biden administration notifies Congress of $650 million arms sale to Saudi Arabia

This sale is the second to Saudi Arabia under the Biden administration, the first was for $500 million. Congress has 30 days to review the sale and the sale may face pushback from Democrats on the Hill.

Simply because it is better, at least against “proportional representation”, in my opinion.

The repression of other parties is not the repression of flexibility. As Karl Popper argued, when suffering electoral losses the parties in a two-party system must seek ideological reform or they continue to lose.

As things stand, an inclination to self-criticism after an electoral defeat is far more pronounced in countries with a two-party system than in those where there are several parties. In practice, then, a two-party system is likely to be more flexible than a multi-party system, contrary to first impressions.

https://amp.economist.com/democracy-in-america/2016/01/31/from-the-archives-the-open-society-and-its-enemies-revisited

In the United States, the two main parties have gone through significant reforms during their lifetimes, and continue to this day.

Further, politicians in a system of proportional representation are beholden to their party before their constituents. Often, the party chooses who will lead it, and thus, who will lead the country should they win. Also, coalition governments are ass.

The principle of laissez-faire was never realized in the first place, I’m afraid, especially in economic affairs. One of the first pieces of legislation in the United States was the Tariff Act. It couldn’t do otherwise; absent begging, every State requires the economic exploitation of the people to exist. It wasn’t long until we had land-grants and subsidies, with monopolists clamoring to get a piece of it. As invariably happens, the more regulation the more regulatory capture. The point becomes not to abolish state intervention but to use it.

As far as I can tell, never once has industry wanted laissez-faire, anyways. At best they wanted protectionism, at worst they wanted hand-outs and monopoly, but in each case they ran to the State for all of it.

The usual canards like “laissez-faire” or “rugged individualism”, at least insofar as critics and proponents use them to describe some aspect of American reality or history, are mostly nonsense. No policy of either have ever existed. And of course the US is “capitalist”. So long as capital is capital, there is no system that has existed or will ever exist that is not.

Anyways, that was a round-about-way of saying maybe abandoning laissez-faire isn’t the best idea—it hasn’t been tried yet.

You’re the one supporting state confiscation of wealth, not me.

I would prefer to defend myself or pay for a service that defends my rights and property, instead of funding an agency that defends the interests of a central authority. But that’s theoretical. Hundreds of years of living under state rule makes it almost impossible to think how it would work in a practical fashion.

What are you grateful for when it comes to government?

Musk’s wealth exists largely in Tesla stocks, that is, on paper only. He lives off borrowed money. So the question arises, why should he pay income tax if he never made any income? When he sells his stocks (which, on a cursory glance, he just did) he will be subject to taxes you or I could never pay in many lifetimes. They don’t mention that.

Although filings detailing Musk's stock sales on Tuesday and Wednesday didn't mention any motivation, he does have an additional massive tax bill looming. When he exercises the additional options that are due to expire, he will have to report the value of the shares as regular income, at 40.3% federal tax rate, and likely some state tax.

The exact tax bill will be determined by the value of the shares at the time the options are exercised, but the federal tax bill is likely to be nearly $11 billion if shares stay near their current value.

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2021/11/10/investing/elon-musk-tesla-stock-sale-taxes/index.html

If I could end the relationship, it would mean I am no longer paying any money, so I would no longer expect anything in return. Since there is no chance of that, I have to content myself with whatever morsels the state will offer me, which turns out to be very little.

I’m not sure how that is possible in a progressive tax system. The tax-rate increases the higher the income bracket.

Like I said, people do not know where the sum total of their money goes. This is because the government, not themselves, get to decide what to do with it. They cannot know whether it goes to feed someone in dire need or to droning some family on foreign soil.

My argument was not that FEMA doesn’t help—it’s their job, after all, one that they’re not very good at—but that giving the state wealth and power could not be considered an act of help or compassion, and for the reasons I stated.

FEMA is not the greatest example. It has gone through more reforms due to its failing responses than it has had successes.

It doesn’t work like that. All we can be sure of is that they’ll take our money, they’ll spend it, but we don’t know whether it’s “helping others” or buying a politician’s neck-ties. And if they change directives, spend all their money on this or that program inimical to the citizen’s interests, we have no choice in the matter. Worse, every time we give the government the power to do something for us we give them the corresponding power to do something to us. Much better to skip the middle-man entirely, in my opinion.

Every state thus far—liberal, fascist, socialist, Islamist—has been organized monopoly and exploitation. One thing is clear to me: as government consolidates and strengthens, the power of independent moral judgment in the citizenry weakens. So it isn’t long before statists of all types beg for more government wherever their own morality is waning.

I can’t fathom it. You say you want to help others then delegate some government official to do it for you. But even then, erecting a bureaucracy is helping no one, so no help arrives at all, just more machine.

By all means, help others with help, but none of what you provide or do can be considered “help”. Rather, it’s an escape from having to help others.

Exactly right.

Socialism is state monopoly and power-grubbing, nothing besides. It has only ever served asa means to dupe entire masses into giving up their autonomy.

It does matter who pulls the levers. What you're describing is the state being controlled by the capitalists, and so you generalize this to all states. A nation-state is a kind of social organization, and there are various forms. Just as there are various forms of business. It would be nice if we tried democratic participation in both. You rail against the former while defending the latter, and so you forfeit any right to be taken seriously.

Abolish the state? Fine. Let's first abolish capitalism.

You can only pretend the two are alike in any way. If I could end my relationship with the state like I can with a business, by simply walking out the door, I would.

There is nothing but your own inaction stopping you from creating the business you keep demanding of other, so I read all you write with a clucking sound.

Democracy has this often resented feature that political movements do sometimes get their objectives and accepted by all sides. Hence if you refer to wealth transfers and social welfare nets being socialist, then both parties in the US (or parties in Canada) are all socialists. That hardly is the case. Yet when you look at how the UK, Finland or your country Canada actually spends the tax income (or the new debt), a lot of it goes into wealth transfers with systems similar to those implemented by Roosevelt and Truman in the US.

They are socialists to me. So-called “social” legislation and other mollycoddling adopted by governments these days are but the successive steps to a socialist regime, if they’re not there already. Let’s just swallow the pill already, name and all.