Good quote. But it doesn’t sum up Hayek’s view on emergency powers.

The patriot act, the war on drugs, the war on terror, anti-communism, the pandemic—no shortage of state aggrandizement exists. It reminds me of Madison’s quote from a letter he wrote to Jefferson, “you understand the game behind the Curtain too well not to perceive the old trick of turning every contingency into a resource for accumulating force in the Government”. I fear we see that here.

I don’t see how my point of view leads to an authoritarian state, one that is able to resist the common will. It does not follow that my view of proper government precludes others erecting a different system. And the idea that we can “achieve the good” (whatever that means) through statist tinkering seems to me absurd. Maybe some more demonstration is in order.

The better students don't need tutoring, so they won't receive it.

I think it's fair that only you receive it because you're the one who needs it. Do you disagree with that?

I do disagree with that because it is unfair to deny people access to tutoring because you believe they do not need it. it is also unfair to the lesser student because you don't consider whether he wants it.

I’ve already stated my problems with state control. Its tendency to fail is just another problem with state control.

I think the only hole I’ve dug myself into is this conversation. So let’s just leave it at that.

That’s just false. The failure of state control is no refutation of the existence of state control. First a no true Scotsman then a non sequitor. It’s just getting weird at this point.

I never said that. No, I’m speaking of the one you fell for.

It’s like the no true Scotsman fallacy. The trick to refuting my examples of state control is to assert that it is not true state control.

If it was a true example of state control and censorship, the Covid-19 outbreak would be over already...

Countless prisons have had massive outbreaks, so I’m not sure a “true example of state control” would help any.



I don’t think that it is unfair so long as others can receive tutoring. Do you think it is fair that I should be the only one allowed to receive tutoring?

It’s the opposite. Treating people differently isn’t fair.

I’m not sure how “I see nothing political in it” means “political distinctions don’t exist”, but doublethink is rife in clownworld. What’s left but to make things up?

That’s a lie. I never denied political distinctions didn’t exist. I was merely stating that all political distinctions employ Covid fascism, and your attempt to make it a left vs. right thing is stupid. Yet here you go.

Your help is not required. Your political distinctions are meaningless here, but you cannot help to evoke them, for whatever reason. I’m not sure how stating that fact is risible.

What problem do you have with it?

I see nothing political in it. Reactionary right and left wing politicians have brought upon us this Covid fascism. There’s no escape into blame-games for this one. You’re either for freedom and fundamental human rights or you’re for Covid fascism, discrimination, and state power. Which is it?

Seeking for happiness is a dead-end, anyways, just like nihilism. Seeking for an incline in the decline is a fools’ errand. I found that it is better to return to the objective, to remember that each of us is a visible object that will inevitably affect the lives of others, and to make that object as interesting or as beautiful as possible, even if it results in our own pain and suffering. The only way to create tangible value in that sense is to become valuable.

All this science on your side and look how well you’ve done. Mass death, the denial of fundamental liberties, medical discrimination, huge transfers of wealth, police states, rampant authoritarianism. Defenders of freedom? More like defenders of regimented societies, segregation, state control, censorship.

That’s right, you can only imagine. Perhaps those that require a politician to tell them how to protect themselves are the problem to begin with.

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.