We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Samizdata quote of the day I see no advantage to the American system at this point. We’ve had so much “yeah it says that but they didn’t really mean what the words say” reinterpretation of our founding document it’s essentially been rendered meaningless. The president can do whatever he wants, from starting wars to snooping though your computer to prior restraints on what you can say to using the apparatus of the bureaucracy in a campaign aimed at burying you under audits and investigations.
– Samizdata commenter Eric
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
But this isn’t the “American System”. It’s unchecked power and corruption, which would of course destroy any system. The American system of liberty and small government works as well as it ever has. Americans have just ceased to use it.
Just throw him out after four years! And put another scoundral in his place!
ain’t that what de-mock-crazy is all about?
This is why i want to replace representative democracies with time-share minarchies. If we all had a direct share in the job of government, as well as the law-making, and limited it to canton-type governments, we’d be able to keep governments under some sort of control.
There are still limits on the power of the President – Mr Obama has done much evil (and I choose the word “evil” deliberately), but not nearly as much as he would like to do.
However, the basic point of the comment is sound – the judges have arbitrary power. Impeachment is an utterly impractical process – as far as I know, no Federal judge has ever been impeached for “reinterpreting”, i.e. ripping up, the Constitution.
The judges should not be appointed by the very government they are supposed to be limiting.
They should either be freely elected (and subject to regular reelection – and real elections with no restrictions).
Or JURIES should be given the task of deciding whether a specific statute or Executive Order is Constitutional or not.
The establishment (the Economist magazine and so on) love “educated” judges appointed to do whatever they feel like doing.
That is why such creatures should not be allowed to continue.
Isn’t that cute? He still thinks there’s some kind of difference between the Republicans and the Democrats.
The difference to me seems to be that the Democrats do evil, and the Republicans end up doing the Democrat’s bidding.
The American system was intended to make it hard to get things done, by subdividing a lot of functions and making sure that they all had to agree or nothing got implemented. Unfortunately, due to a number of nasty European wars that entangled the US, and the consequences of those wars, and a bad depression, the US emerged as the only government on the planet that was ready, willing, and able to deter bad behavior (somewhat) by other nations. We jiggered the government apparatus to deal with the exigencies of being a world power, and some parts of the government gave up more control to the other parts. We now have rule by decree from both the executive branch and the judicial branch, but not the legislature. Because the legislature does not have the power to implement anything – it only has the power of the purse, and is terrified to use it.
We need to have the legislature take back the controls that are inherent in the system, or we need to remake the system, which is a terrifying prospect. The progressives have been trying to do this for nearly 150 years, and had good initial success, but then they stalled. So, they have decided to do it by stealth, bit-by-bit, using the Gamsci strategy. And it has worked to their advantage. They have gotten their way with all sorts of government programs and the concept of the “nudge”, backed up with the threat of the stick, is firmly entrenched, but they have not had to deal with constitutional conventions that get out of hand and produce documents like the late, lamented EU “constitution”.
At least we still have a central bank that is willing and able to print money when it is needed.
I don’t think the problem here is democracy (against Nicholas) but rather restraint of democracy. In most of the US the two major parties have a legal status denied to others, and in some places other parties need a different (obviously higher) entry requirement to get on the ballot. So as anywhere where the party has an identity of its own, it becomes necessary to play the party game to enter politics (see also the European parliament and its UK representatives – first loyalty to those who allocate them a place on the list), and this means that US politics is a team sport between Republicans and Democrats. So to have a fair chance of getting results you need only to control one of the parties – and you can do this through ways you cannot manipulate an election (hence the minority idiots on both sides). It is worth noting that in its first 80 odd years there were around four notable political parties that rose and (sometimes) fell in the US (five if you count Tories, who were certainly a presence in 1790, even if they never really were a party); since the emergence of the Republicans there have been no new movements with serious impact, and only one really credible third-party attempt at President (Theodore Roosevelt). This is simply the take-over of the state by party hierarchies – a kind of oligarchy which does change but does not represent the people.
I may dislike PR with a vengence, but it does at least allow new voices in; the US system fails to achieve this. And a proper system will only recognise the candidates, and give no legal identity (other than as a free association) to a political party.
People with “new” ideas.
Lest we forget, variations of Aesop’s fables, Shakespeare, and the wheel, have been reinvented innumerable times.
Is it the scales of justice, the balance of power, or the pendulum of “popular opinion”?
Like capturing pigeons from another flock, they STILL live in a coop, sh1t where they eat, dependent for “minimal basic needs”.
Now let’s discuss slavery again.
I wonder if the PMO has considered the changes over the past 90 years or so in the U S legal system from a (the?)predominant function of “our” legal systems to identify, delineate, reconcile (including enforce) obligations recognized and accepted within the general society, to becoming a means for attaining economic, social and political ends?
Has it, or did it, thereby lose its function to check and correct the legislative functions?
The advantage to the American System was that it was able to chuck off the Old Systems and begin tabula rasa (or as t.r. as the cultures and economic realities of the men creating the system would allow).
That was a couple hundred years ago, and we’ve learned a few things since then. One of which is that first-past-the-post elections inevitably and mathematically ordain a two-party system even when NOBODY in the system (except the members of said parties) wants this to be the case (for a brilliant explanation of this, see Peter Drucker, in The Ecological Vision — I think. I’m still on my first coffee). Problem.
Fortunately, said two parties are forced into coalition politics meaning that those who tend to become more radical get dumped. Mitigation.
Unfortunately, in doing so we get a constant wobbling see-saw between Failed Tweedledee and Failed Tweedledum, with real changes coming about only very slowly, mostly due to economic changes most of said politicrats don’t understand.
That would be good, because in a perfect world it would keep the radicals at bay. But thugs like Andrew Jackson and Woodrow Wilson proved that this is NOT actually the case, so long as the person engaged in the thuggery can retain just enough of the middle-ground support to stay in office.
We can improve on this system. But to do so, we need, again, a physical location allowing a tabula-rasa approach so that lessons-learned can be implemented. That need not be a slavish imitation of the original with a few jots, either. The Choctaw notion of justice was defined as “returning to a state of mutual happiness” among the aggressor and the aggrieved. Now, that tended to be much more communitarian than an individual might like, and was no panacea at all for individual believers in liberty. But one of the things it DOES do admirably is destroy the notion of a victimless crime. Nice going, whacking out mala prohibita, that ugly bugbear wrecking so much of the average serf’s personal life in the modern world.
Pray for the rocket ships, and praise they who build them. If it keeps up, we just might get a chance to see what “Democracy, 6.0” actually looks like.
Looked at from another angle, I ask myself in what respects the US appears a worse place for liberty than other developed countries.
The crazy and expensive health care system and regulations can perhaps be explained by the complex interactions of the different branches of government, and inevitable pork barrel politics that result. Although it is great to have a system that makes it difficult to make new regulations and laws it is not so great when you are trying to remove or reform them.
Picking on some other feature, the abandonment of the 4th amendment (transgressions against its principles seems much worse in the US than elsewhere) are perhaps more difficult to explain. The only thing I can think of is the ongoing ‘Brazilification’ that Mr Marks mentions from time to time. Swathes of the populace have no real say in the government of the country. If it were educated white people at the receiving end of dawn raids by the cops then I bet things would change rather more quickly.
Obviously, I’m not an American so all of the above is just speculation.
They often are. Indeed the main targets of totally out of control civil forfeiture are the white owners of small businesses.
@ Russ in TX (USA)
The issue of mala prohibita having the practical effect of mala in se has been made clear by Laird.
But, that effect was not fore ordained by the systems of order in place on this continent well before the separation from Parliamentary absolutism.
Examination of how, and with what variances, the former is enforced (under the rubrics of what has become “Administrative Law”) are clear departures from what the original coalitions envisioned they were establishing.
“But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.” – Lysander Spooner
Most of us here are well aware of the systematic, if piecemeal, evisceration of the US Constitution beginning (primarily) in 1936. Since then we’ve seen the federal (sic) government assume primacy over essentially anything it chooses to do, and the relegation of the states to distinctly inferior political entities. This is due to a variety of factors: the consent of the courts; structural changes to the Constitution itself (notably, but not exclusively, direct popular election of senators via the 17th Amendment); and acquiescence by the states to their own progressive neutering. This can be seen as a failure of the “separation of powers” conceit embedded in the Constitution: there is no superior agency to intervene when the three branches of government collude to expand their collective power. (That superior agency was intended to have been the states, which not only supposedly retained all the residual [non-delegated] powers but also possessed a sort of nullification power through the refusal to implement federal directives at a time when the federal government had very few of its own enforcement mechanisms. Obviously, that has all changed now. The states also retained an implied right of withdrawal from the union, but Lincoln took care of that. So we are left today with an out-of-control federal government.)
But a different, and I think under-appreciated, sea-change has occurred with respect to the presidency. If you read the Constitution with fresh eyes, it is abundantly clear that the legislative branch was supposed to have most of the power. The three branches were never intended to be “co-equal”; Congress was clearly superior to the other two (hence its pride of place in Article I). The courts could merely interpret laws (a sort of veto power), not enact positive law. The President could only enforce legislation duly enacted by Congress, not make his own laws. Yes, he can appoint judges and negotiate treaties, but only with the consent of the Senate. He is the Commander-in-Chief, but only after Congress declares war. His actual constitutional power is quite limited. It is Congress which passes all laws, appropriates funds, imposes taxes, regulates trade, etc. Congress even has the power to override presidential vetoes and impeach federal officers. Congress is supreme.
But it is not. Over the last few decades Congress has repeatedly acquiesced in its own neutering. It has created “independent” administrative agencies over which it has almost no control. It permits (applauds) the complete obliteration of our privacy and constitutional rights by the NSA and other federal police agencies (for which there is no constitutional authority, but at this point what does that matter?). And it has stood by and permitted (even willfully facilitated) the unchecked growth of the President’s powers. Thus, it allows the President to unilaterally declare war (under cover of the “War Powers Act”, which no one follows). It allows him to negotiate treaties without Senate approval (witness the recent Trade Promotion Authority bill and the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, both blatantly unconstitutional abrogations of Senatorial power). It refuses to meaningfully exercise its oversight powers (such as by permitting the Executive branch to repeatedly stymie its legitimate document requests). And there are no consequences for ignoring Congress (holding Eric Holder in Contempt of Congress was a meaningless gesture; Congress is contemptible). This is not a new phenomenon (TPA-type bills and “independent” agencies go back to the 1930’s), but it has accelerated wildly under Obama, to the point where he has acquired nearly dictatorial powers. His “pen and phone” now trumps all of Congress. This is directly attributable to ineffectual (cowardly) leadership in Congress and career politicians more concerned with retaining their offices and power than in protecting the country and our federalist system of government. My own congressman, otherwise a relatively sensible person and a Republican (no, the two are not always mutually exclusive!), voted for both the TPA and INARA.
So now we have a national government which thoroughly dominates the states, and a president who thoroughly dominates that government. Obama may leave office in 17 months (we’ll see if he actually does!), but the next occupant will inherit all of the power he has usurped. Perhaps that next occupant will be benign and circumspect in his use of that power, but who’s to say the following one will, or the one after that? It’s a certainty, given our thoroughly irrational method of selecting national leadership, that at some point a complete psychopath will occupy the oval office (if he doesn’t already). We will then regret permitting him to amass complete power, but by then it will be too late to do anything about it.
We are thoroughly screwed. At this point the only way out is the (probably inevitable) collapse of our economy and with it the government. Of course, the odds of emerging from that with something even worse are considerable. But it’s the only chance we have.
Laird: I’m sticking with rocket ships. It’s quite clear that domestic political change is a lost cause except around the margins: there is not a government in the world which is not merely “Pharoah 3.0.” Those differences which remain are largely culture, where it is permitted to exist, not state.
Russ, you’re probably right. But I won’t live to see the rocket ships, so I’ll simply do what I can with what we’ve got now.
Russ and Laird, I think you are both wrong.
Even if we had rocket ships, i think the colonies on other planets would be more dictatorial than any Earth nation, because survival would mean everyone staying in tightly-bound societies and obeying central commands. Even if we reached other star systems, and found planets we could colonise, the initial settlements would feel the need to stay together and conform, since that is what survival would nessecitate.
Also, whilst libertarians make up only a small percentage of the world’s population, that could be concentrated into one country. Why not settle here in Australia? We have lots of open spaces, and good economic prospects for the future. (Can you say ‘vast mining quarry’?) Our climate is sunny, though snow-lovers might prefer Tasmania, or even NZ.
More importantly, we gained our Constitution without a fight, so there is little emotion invested in it- so libertarians might find it easy to change through referendae and conventions! We might even rename the capital after you, though that is not guaranteed!
And Australia’s wildlife is unusual, if you want something exotic and otherworldly. You can’t get more alien than being an Australien!
Nicholas, nice idea, but I fear it wouldn’t work. Here in the US we tried to gather all the libertarians up into one small state (New Hampshire) and still couldn’t get any substantial number to move there. (Climate certainly had something to do with it, but I think mostly it was simple lethargy.) There was even a splinter group which tried the same thing in Montana. Still no good, and probably for the same reasons. We’re certainly not moving half way around the world!
But we’ve got something here for most libertarians! Cool, mountainous Tasmania, business-oriented Victoria, great Harbour properties for richer libertarians in Sydney, and for Miami-philes, we have the Gold Coast, and Surfer’s Paradise, near Brisbane! You should be able to launder your drug money through Lightning Ridge, and the area around Byron Bay has always been Cannabis Country, whatever the laws! And if you’re looking for a Galt’s gultch getaway, the northern and western regions abound in mountains for the discerning tax-exile!
Also, if your average American Libertarian won’t move interstate to help the libertarian cause, then your rockets to freedom will also have empty seats on them! So, again, rockets aren’t the answer.
Well, since you mentioned Lightning Ridge, I’m in. Where do I sign up?
Nicholas – I owe you a beer, soon as I’m rich enough to hand-deliver it.
Small numbers of emigres coming from America and telling Aussies what their government should be like seems like it would go over like a lead balloon to me.
A great deal of damage has been done, but the Constitution is far from a dead letter.
Rights under the Second Amendment have been expanded to an extent unthinkable even 25 years ago.
The First Amendment remains a bulwark, as shown by the Democrats’ efforts to eviscerate it by revision. (One would think that H. Clinton would have some residual trace of propriety that would restrain her from repeatedly denouncing a free speech decision – Citizens United – that was about speech criticizing her.)
The legal history I’ve read (not extensive, I’ll grant you) suggests that the deterioration of the U.S. constitution goes back at least to the slaughterhouse cases of 1873, and the forces behind it go back essentially to the beginning. It (the deterioration) took a great leap forward during the FDR years, but the ingredients essential to that leap were already well in place.
It was understood going in that the American constitutional republic was an experiment, and there was doubt in many quarters that it would succeed. I’m reluctantly coming to the conclusion that, though it had many successes, many of the fears of its early critics have come true. While it remains possible in principle that it could self correct, that seems increasingly unlikely. I know there are a significant number of Americans who would like to dissolve the political bands and re-declare unalienable rights as self evident, but that was only possible the first time because it could be done on new land, distant from the old rulers. Now there’s nowhere to go.
(Except space, of course. And I do acknowledge great long-term possibilities there. But I don’t expect to live to experience them, nor even to see them experienced by others, probably.)
Paul Marks August 4, 2015 at 9:18 am:
Direct election of judges is a fool’s errand. In the first place, it makes judges even more dependent on political alliances for getting office and keeping it. And beholden to donors. Some of the Texas judges who were notoriously favorably to plaintiff attorneys in class actions like infamous breast implant suit were recipients of large donations from plaintiff attorneys.
In the second place, there are far more judges than voters have any time to evaluate. We have elected judges in Illinois, which is why we have “bedsheet ballots” with dozens of positions.
No one knows anything about the judicial candidates; it’s a well-known fact that having an Irish surname is worth about 20% of the vote. Judges are subject to “retention” votes every two years, but no judge has been removed in decades. Last year an admittedly deranged judge was retained with well over 50%.
There are obvious flaws with appointment of judges – but direct election is worse.
I haven’t read the various arguments that first-past-the-post leads to a two-party stalemate, but empirical evidence suggests there’s more to the story. Canada has had first past the post now for longer than it took the U.S. to stabilize on two parties, with no sign that we’re likely to have less than the four or five major parties we now have, any time soon. I don’t have a theory as to why things evolved the way they did in the U.S., but I suspect it has more to do with structural differences between the American system and the Westminster system than it does with balloting methods.
Under the Westminster system, all that’s needed is for a third party to gain enough seats to prevent either of the other two parties from getting a majority and suddenly that third party is the belle of the ball. There is definitely a stable point at three parties, with four also a stable point in Canada due to the unusual (though not unique) situation of Quebec. Additional parties face a struggle, but even they are often helped by the need for minority governments to form coalitions.
If you did emigrate to Australia, you could join our own small Liberal Democrat Party, the vanguard of the libertarian movement, and increase the vote until it is a major factor in our Federal Government. It has one upper-house Senator at the moment, though the minor parties together decide the votes in the Upper house. (P.s. ‘Liberal’ is used in the British sense of pro-business, minimal government, etc.)
Why not have impeachment of judges before a jury sitting without a judge? Perhaps once a year, a person, not being a convict or State or Federal employee or pensioner, could present a case to a jury that a judge has breached the Constitution. Upon an adverse finding, the judge could be disqualified from office and pension etc., and any precdent established in the case in question to be deemed a nullity.
No appeals against impeachment, just back to the private practice.
Or no standing judiciary, a greater threat than a standing army, just appoint judges like arbitrators on a case by case basis, at least in civil cases.
Rich, above, today at 5:08 am,
You’ve made a very, very important point, and I have to thank you for doing so, because I’ve been trying to think how to put it and not been satisfied with anything I came up with.
Yes indeed. In Illinois and at least some other states judges are indeed elected, and mostly the voters don’t know much about them.
This is a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t situation. The Supremes are appointed (not elected, because this is NOT supposed to be a pure democracy, but rather a representational Constitutional Republic), and appointed for life, precisely so as to make them invulnerable to suasion by politics or politicians.
(It’s also true, by the way, that there is no requirement that Supreme Court justices be legal professionals or have any legal training of any kind.)
I remain confused as the dickens as to why people seem to think we need “direct” or “participatory” democracy when we’re talking about judges and Presidents, but that Senators should be appointed by the States’ Legislatures rather than elected directly by the people.
Property rights mean nothing in the USA if a police force can seize anything you have, not upon conviction of any crime, not upon even charging you with a crime, but merely upon suspicion that you might have committed a crime. And moreover to get your stuff back, YOU must prove your innocence against an institution with essentially unlimited funds to bankrupt you with legal fees.
The reason the First and Second Amendments are (more or less) intact is that what you say can just be ignored, and they know that the now para-military police will win most armed confrontations.
The costumed thugs will win any encounter where they can bring in massive resources against a small number or one person. In a general kick-off things are different. Without overwhelming force the bluebottles will not do so well at all.
The problem with Australia is that it is not that easy to immigrate to. Canada is much easier and at the top of my ‘most likely’ list of countries. Obviously the weather is a big negative, and you have to put up with all the political correctness.
Tedd, you’re certainly right that the whittling-away of the Constitution had its roots far before the FDR administration (which is why I inserted the parenthetical “primarily” into my embarrassingly-long earlier post). Washington himself violated it during the Whiskey Rebellion, and the Alien and Sedition Acts under John Adams were blatantly contrary to the 1st Amendment (and lead directly to Jefferson’s election in 1800). And of course Lincoln did great damage to the Constitution in many ways (not merely by his jailing of newspaper editors critical of his war). But those were relatively isolated incidents. The tipping point, and the beginning of massive and systematic federal incursions into what were previously areas of purely state authority, seems to have been the New Deal era.
I agree with you about FPTP elections. My theory is that it is the parliamentary form of government (which we don’t have) which permits the rise of multiple political parties. By not requiring the creation of coalitions to “form a government” we smother any nascent party in its crib.
Rich is correct on the election of judges. I’ve lived under both systems, and while neither is perfect (what is?) popular election is far worse. The general public has absolutely no conception of what it means to be a “good” judge and no basis upon which to cast a vote. Furthermore, no competent lawyer would subject himself to the indignities of a political campaign, especially one which is state-wide. The ideal judge is one who has had a long and distinguished career in private practice and desires to wind down his career by “giving something back” to the state. Such a person has the wisdom and experience which only years in actual practice can bestow. And it is precisely such a person who would never run for elective office. They could only become judges by appointment. Those who do run are, almost by definition, political hacks, precisely the sort of people we don’t want on the bench.
But I do oppose lifetime judicial tenure (the federal system). Judges should be appointed for a defined term, without possibility of re-appointment to that particular court (i.e., they could be appointed to a superior, or even inferior, court, but not to the same one). This would permit regular “pruning” of the judicial branch without the need for partisan retention disputes or embarrassing a judge who has gotten too old for the office but refuses to retire.
Laird; come now, surely this is a slip?
“The ideal judge is one who has had a long and distinguished career in private practice and desires to wind down his career by “giving something back” to the state.”
The State?
But, to abandon my standing as a twit:
The manner of selections of judges must vary for particular (and differing) services at different levels of a legal system. [Is that Voegelin or somebody else?]
The functions of judges and how they are to be performed are directly related to the functions a “society” requires of its legal system.
Where the predominant function of that system is in its use as a means of seeking ends, the judicial function may have a particular aspect that makes a specific mode of selection optimum.
Where one of the predominant functions of that system is participation in the administration of “policy,” the optimum mode for selection may differ.
As lawyers say; “It all depends . . .”
RRS, I was using “state” in a general sense (as I suspect you know). It could refer to a nation-state, a “state” as a semi-sovereign political entity, even a county or municipality. The arguments are the same.
You’re right that the selection method must depend, in part, upon the function of judges in a given legal system. I am thinking primarily of the US system. I don’t know enough about civil law systems to have a strong opinion; my sense is that in places such as France judges have much more of a policy role, and if so the considerations regarding method of selection would be different. But in the US, anyway, judges aren’t supposed to have a policy role, so I would employ a selection methodology targeted toward the ideal.
But I’m not sure that I agree with you that the selection method should vary for different levels within a given legal system. True, the skill sets for trial judges and appellate judges are somewhat different, but that’s relatively trivial (for a seasoned lawyer), and the mindset and overall judicial acumen are roughly the same. You might look more closely at personal legal philosophy in an appellate judge, but that doesn’t imply a different overall selection method.
PeterT:
Embrace winter! Seriously, once you’ve tasted truly different seasons you won’t want to go back to a boring, mid-latitude climate. I now live in a part of Canada that has no winter and I really miss it a lot. Of course, it’s possible to have too much of a good thing, and much of Canada has too much winter even for me. But if you’re not seeing temperatures nearly as far below zero in winter as they are above zero in summer then you’re missing the best that Earth has to offer. And every fresh snowfall adds an element of romance and excitement to the day that no other form of weather can match.
Still thinking about something intelligent to say about the main topic.
Meanwhile, let me offer a perspective on winter somewhat different from Tedd’s.
First of all, you have to take note of the principle of indifference: when there is no net migration from Minnesota to Florida (or Finland to Greece), it means that people are just as happy in Minnesota as in Florida. That’s because so many people have migrated to Florida, that housing prices in Minnesota have gone down enough to compensate people for the cold weather.
You might still prefer to live in Florida, but then you have to admit that you are more wimpish than the average American. Which brings me to a good reason to live in the cold: it keeps the wimps away.
In support of the principle of indifference, i offer this piece of evidence, though i have to rely on memory: monitoring the happiness of people before and after they move from Minnesota to California, shows that they are no happier in California — even though they claim they are.
Finally, listen to the wisdom of Southern Europeans moving to Northern Europe: what makes life miserable in winter is not the cold, it’s the darkness.
Snorri, if you choose to consider me a wimp I’m perfectly comfortable with that. But I’ll stay here in warm South Carolina, thank you. I’ve spent far too much of my life in cold climes. The occasional chilly snap is fine, as long as it doesn’t get below 20 degrees (Fahrenheit!) or so. Been there; done that; no more. You can have it.
(3) Presidents are mainly at fault. All three detested the Constitution:
Woodrow Wilson 1913 – 1921
LBJ 1963-1969
Muslim Brother Jive ass Frat Boy 2009 – 2017
In each cased they had the full blessing of the press, the schools, the leftist elites. Only a Ted Cruz type can turn this around. If the new president is Hillary or Jeb Bush/Karl Rove GOP jackass, we are screwed forever.
Watchman,
The idea that any of the fundamental problems plaguing western nations would be solved with more democracy is genuinely incomprehensible.
Nicholas Gray,
Ah – to be so close to the mark! You’re not the first to think that, as Joseph de Maistre put it, one may design a government as one designs a watch. A government materializes organically over time.
Representative democracies certainly ought to be replaced.
A main reason minarchy won’t ever arise is that the so-called system permits no sovereignty to rule. There must always be a sovereign power that rules – not because I or any one else wants such a thing, but rather because sovereignty is the gel that binds societies together. It’s neither the soldier nor the businessman nor the artist nor the inventor who makes society civilized. It’s the executioner.
Rich Rostrom,
It’s absurd to cite a couple minor, temporary successes in limiting government’s reach as evidence that the Constitution is not a dead letter towards reaching such an end.
The IRS, Federal Reserve, EPA, dept of education, dept of energy, dept of commerce, etc. are all entirely without constitutional basis and dwarf the temporary small-government lurches you cite in their impact on American society.
With few minor exceptions the Constitution’s primary purposes have been circumvented, violated, twisted, and reinterpreted so grossly so as to render it virtually meaningless. Dozens of government bureaucracies employing thousands have routinely and selectively enforced unconstitutional laws that have robbed citizens, ruined communities and violated personal rights for decades in the United States.
The per capita rate of incarceration is higher in the USA than any other nation on the planet.
A final escape- find a spot not covered by borders, and claim that, and start a new, libertarian, city right there! This is not as wacko as you might think- some American recently claimed a small spot of African land as his own, on behalf of his daughter, and set up a kingdom, and didn’t some Checkian do the same on some border in the Balkans? So look for fuzzy borders, and resolve the border by creating a new state, with your libertarian set of laws and Constitution! (Or you could wait until a new island pops up somewhere, and grab that before anyone else does, but these are usually volcanic places, so land tenure might be hypothetical.)
Nicholas,
lol
Good luck with that!!!!
“It’s neither the soldier nor the businessman nor the artist nor the inventor who makes society civilized. It’s the executioner.”
I’m not sure I entirely agree with that sentiment (it requires deeper thought), but it’s certainly a great line! Is it original with you, Schlomo?
I agree with just about every point you made in the above posts. And I’m almost (almost!) convinced of the superiority of an hereditary monarchical political structure. My stumbling block with de Maistre is the overtly and fundamentally religious basis for his argument. I’m sorry, but I cannot accept the “divine right of kings.” Am I misunderstanding him?
I never said it would be easy! But it would be do-able. Or you could set up a fake mining town, with the mining company only letting in selected workers. We have FIFO (Fly In, Fly Out) already here in our outback. So the appearance of a mine could be set up, whilst libertarians would be the sole occupiers, and only use real money inside the hole-in-a-wall.
Laird,
Thanks. That made me feel good.
The line indeed is mine, but the sentiment was stolen from Joseph de Maistre’s “The Executioner” which is justly characterized by amazon review as “terrifying and bizarre […] a meditation on human evil like no other.”
You’re probably not misunderstanding him so much as you’re misunderstanding reality 🙂
Three answers to your question:
1. Read Maistre’s “Study on Sovereignty”. I was born and raised as a secular Jew in a highly secular environment & culture where 80%+ of the adults were self described atheists or agnostics. Maistre convinced me that there is a Creator and society forms organically in accordance with divine provenance.
2. There’s no need to accept the divine right of kings as rational, logical, or sensible to support hereditary monarchy. One need not accept the divine right of kings as anything more than practical to support it. The pragmatic basis of monarchy derives from recognizing that it’s not rational ideas that bind societies so much as irrational beliefs.
3. If all else fails, read Mencius Moldbug’s “Divine-right monarchy for the modern secular intellectual” at Unqualified Reservations.
http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.co.il/2010/03/divine-right-monarchy-for-modern.html
Nicholas,
Let me explain.
Yes it would be doable in a world without outside interference. Unfortunately, we live in the real world.
No great nation is formed by such meticulous planning or for such benevolent purposes and only great nations can summon the power required to extract worthwhile concessions from the global powers to make any endeavor in libertarian statecraft fruitful.
Insofar as such a scheme begins to take root and succeed, so will the forces of governments rise to squash or mollify and eventually assimilate the endeavor.
There can be no alternative to the powers that be because they are the powers that are. Sovereignty is conserved.
For a start, Shlomo, Australia has not had the death penalty for over forty years now, so your claim about executioners is disproved (America is not the only society on Earth, you know.) And as for the chance to be free, some places here in Australia seem to be just that. If you look up Hutt River Province on Google, you will find an independent micronation that has existed since 1970, on the west side of Australia, in Western Australia. There are quite a few of these micronations around, left alone by the sovereign states around them. Maybe American authorities are more strident, but America is not the only country in the world.
Moving around the sovereignty as Shlomo suggests is pointless. The problem is not who has all that state power, but rather how much power the state can wield and the ease with which it can be done. Democracy is not the solution and neither is monarchy (particularly not monarchy based upon power devolving from some imaginary magical super-being). The USA was at least on the right track with constitutionally separated powers.
Good article here
Not sure that is entirely on the right track – the political elites would shiver in their boots at any proposal to adopt direct democracy – which thanks to the internet is now easily feasible (and the Swiss has had a version of it for ages of course).
Having read some of the constitutional debates it seems to me that many Republicans (i.e. anti-federalists) such as Jefferson, Henry and so on where to an extent ‘small d’ democrats who might approve of a society with most political decisions taken at a local level, with a healthy element of direct democracy.
They were of course afraid of the plebs as well as ‘monarchists’ such as Hamilton, but I’m not convinced they would have agreed with your statement, at least if they saw what had happened to the US today.
Suggested readings for this course:
Freedom and its Betrayal (Six Enemies of Human Liberty) Isaiah Berlin (Princeton University Press)
[Maistre – pp 131-154]
At any point in our perceptions of the disorders of mankind we can find their sources in man’s (Genisis 1 -27)perceptions of the rest of mankind.
A minor point: if a two-party system is inherent with FPTP elections, why is ballot access restricted in every state in a way that suppresses minor parties? Isn’t it more accurate to say that the first two parties to gain the combined power to do so colluded to lock out further rivals, in the same way the American producers combine to get laws passed that limit foreign competition?
This strikes me as a good candidate for SQotD. Perry will presumably feel that he should not quote himself, so i appeal to other Samizdatistas.
If i were to edit it, i would make a few changes which are of little relevance in the current state of the world:
NB: “democracy” as the word is understood today, does not dilute the power of coercion: rather, it places it in the hands of people whose main talent is getting elected, and increasingly in the hands of administrative agencies.
BTW if there is going to be monarchy, i think i’d rather have it based on Divine Right rather than General Will … as long as there are sacred texts, intelligible to everyone, that spell out divine law. The General Will, in practice, is whatever the people who control the media say it is.
Laird:
I agree. But, if we allow some latitude in the meaning of religion, is a divine sanction for a monarchy really so different from the second paragraph of the U.S. Declaration of Independence? I think that’s the most significant sentence in any political text I’ve read, but We hold these truths to be self-evident is a declaration of an unprovable axiom, which meets my criteria for religious belief. (I.e., it is unprovable at this point in time, and sacred to the person who believes it.)
Snorri:
Definitely. As glorious as winter days are, when they are very short (and the darkness correspondingly long), it can get oppressive. If you grow up with it, it doesn’t seem to be a problem, but it’s difficult to move as an adult to a place where the length of the day changes much more than what you’re used to. On the other hand, those long summer days are also glorious!
Laird: what strikes me as wimpy about people not wanting to live in cold climates is that, nowadays, one never has to suffer the cold physically, thanks to central heating, heating in motor vehicles, and affordable clothing. So the wimpiness is psychological rather than physical, as far as i can see.
A few additional remarks:
* People who don’t wear warm clothing and then complain about the cold, are not so much wimps as whingers.
* Sure it’s nice to be able to go to the beach at least once a week year round, but how many people do that, even in warm climates?
* I would not call wimps the people who complain about the winter darkness; and note that, for a given average winter temperature, you have to go much further into the darkness here in Europe than in North America.
BTW talking about extremes in temperatures: last week i tried for the 1st time a sauna just above 100 degrees (Celsius). I had to get out for cold showers more often than usual, but otherwise it’s great and i look forward to more of that in winter. NB: not for beginners.
Tedd: i noticed that i stopped getting depressed in winter when i started listening to the soundtrack of Conan the Barbarian almost every morning, loud.
Now i don’t do that as often, but maybe it still resonates in my subconscious.
Or maybe as i got older, i got used to the idea that winter is only a temporary condition.
Or maybe it’s my low carb regime.
They are, but i need a scarf tied around my eyes to sleep!
Snorri, of course you can remain warm if you stay indoors and/or in the car, but not all of life is lead there. And why should you want to be so limited?
Anyway, my problem with cold climes isn’t so much the physical cold as it is the ancillary effects: shoveling snow; treacherous road conditions; heating expense; and did I mention shoveling snow? Thanks, but you can keep it.
Schlomo, I’ve read a fair amount of Mencius Moldbug (and am working through that link you provided), and while I always find him thought-provoking, and often quite entertaining, I don’t really find him persuasive. But I’ll keep on it.
Incidentally, I’ve just this morning come across a reference to (review of) Matt Ridley’s The Origins of Virtue. I need to find the book, but his thesis seems to be that the basic desire of humans to cooperate is genetically based; that evolutionary pressures have hard-wired us that way. This give biological support to the “natural-rights” or “natural law” theory, or what Hayek refers to as “rules of just conduct”. While that is the basis of our Declaration of Independence and, indirectly, our Constitution, I think it could also serve to provide a secular foundation for an hereditary monarchical political structure. I’m not sure of that yet, but I need such a basis because I simply don’t accept the concept of a “creator” (at least, not one in the Judeo-Christian model, or which is anything more than Spinoza’s First Mover; certainly not an anthropomorphic god which takes any interest in human affairs). I agree with Laplace: I have no need of that hypothesis.
Laird: of course you can remain warm if you stay indoors and/or in the car, but not all of life is lead there. And why should you want to be so limited?
Studiously avoiding the issue of adequate clothing, i see.
Every time i go out cross country skiing, even at temperatures below 20 (Fahrenheit), i get back soaked in sweat. Why? because i wear adequate clothing.
A few keywords:
wool undershirt (even better, mixed wool/silk undershirt)
Norwegian sweater
sheepskin coat
ushanka
hiking boots
NB: when i go cross-country skiing, i wear 2 woolen undershirts and a Norwegian sweater lined with GoreTex, but certainly no sheepskin, ushanka, or hiking boots.
Shoveling snow: not a problem if you go low carb, and lift weights.
Heating expense: the principle of indifference proves that it is more than compensated by lower housing costs than you would find in a town with all the same amenities but in addition a warmer climate.
(Comparisons of Finland to Greece do not apply, because Finland has amenities unavailable to Greece, eg banks which are unlikely to close for a few weeks in the immediate future.)
WRT Mencius Moldbug, i am not sure i ever was able to read through one of his long blog posts to the end. He tends to be prolix and unfocused.
I must give him credit, though, for first calling my attention to James Burnham’s excellent (if flawed) book, The Machiavellians.
I also give him credit for his hyperbolic, but thought provoking claim that the Pentagon and State Department are the puppet masters behind almost all conflicts in the world today.
Snorri, as I said, you can keep it. De gustibus non est disputandum.
Snorri;
Tell us next about Finnish co-ops and their managements.
Tedd,
This.
Except it is not really true. Why? Because…
… a given theory about the truth may be strong, or it may be weak, but holding it to be ‘self-evident’ based on ones other theories about reality is not really all that different to a Popperian statement saying “I have formed a critical preference for the following theory”. You cannot ‘prove’ anything other than ‘existence exists’, you can only disprove (falsify) theories.
Perry,
If you are right about the idea that theories cannot be proven to be true then a theory one accepts as true is basically just a preference. For example, one might state “we hold the truth that there is a Creator to be self evident”. Like the Declaration of Independent’s second paragraph, one cannot prove this statement anymore than one can prove how many angels dance on the head of a pin.
In other words, you may prefer the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence to the truth of the Creator, but both are – according to your diagnosis of the issue at hand – mere theories that cannot be proven to be true.
Libertarianism is beautiful. Any set of beliefs about what should happen on a universal basis without reference to what does happen (or would happen otherwise/regardless) is perhaps a reasonable definition of religion. Religion, Perry, is often beautiful.
I think that ideology is a synonym for religion, but that any ideology devoid of religious pretense is a form of Progressivism. In other words, any ought statements that are justified on a universal basis without reference to a spiritual order that implies realities beyond human comprehension is a type of Progressivism.
Nicholas,
Not all societies have the death penalty (it’s their loss) but “Executioner” may be taken as being merely representative of the Sword of the State – the law being enforced.
Obviously, Hutt River Province is about as meaningless to the mass of humanity as a community can be so it’s not really worth the resources to get rid of it.
As I said – insofar as these “micro nations” succeed, the forces that be will squash or assimilate them.
Laird,
Glad to hear it.
The idea that there ever has been a “secular” government is one of the subtly absurd propositions of the Enlightenment era.
Imagine, I beg you, the baffled uproar that would rightfully ensue were Chief Justice John Roberts to justify any majority SCOTUS opinion on such grounds as “well, it’s the least bad alternative”. There’s a reason, of course, that one must imagine and not observe such a catastrophe, for no farce has ever been attempted, as every ruler justifies his reign by some assumption/falsehood/belief or another, be it “social justice” or “divine-right monarchy” or “individual rights” or “original intent”.
The consequences wrought by the LOGIC of the (purportedly rational) ideals justifying modern Western governance are dwarfed by the effects wrought by the abiding fondness and EMOTIONAL affinity attached to these ideals by the overwhelming majority of people for them. It is, after all, this reflexive, abiding emotional affinity that facilitates what obedience there is to the modern state’s dictates.
“every ruler justifies his reign by some assumption/falsehood/belief or another”
Of course, and ours (in the US) is explicitly grounded on the belief in the existence of “natural law”. As I already stated, my problem with de Maistre is that his is grounded on the belief in a deity, a proposition which I reject. Therefore, if I am to accept his argument for the superiority of hereditary monarchy as a form of government, I must find for myself a satisfactory substitute for that deity. If I can find a non-religious basis to justify the existence of “natural law”, that may do it for me. Still searching, but Matt Ridley might provide the answer.
Laird, using a deity to justify ‘natural law’ is absurd, it is no justification at all. It is saying that ‘this is law, because of my flying Spaghetti Monster’, and, should one lose faith, or find no such deity exists, (proving a negative), how would that invalidate previously held good tenets of ‘natural law’?
Surely basing law an a deity’s undemonstrable existence is an unnecessary final link in the chain? If the law achieves justice, that should suffice, n’est-ce pas?
No. Critical preference. The word critical is not there for decorative purposes.
Or one might say “In his house at R’lyeh, dead Cthulhu waits dreaming and therefore hereditary monarchy makes perfect sense”. Remove the critical bit and the moon might well be made of cheese.
Correct. You now approach the basis of rational thought and the scientific method: you cannot prove anything other than existence exists. The entire world may be a figment of your imagination. Not a theory I have formed a critical preference for as there seem to be better explanations, but I cannot prove otherwise.
Everything you know is a ‘mere’ theory. But that does not make all theories equal, which brings us back to the word ‘critical’. You need to use reason, your critical faculties, to conclude which theories provide the best and deepest explanation of reality with the information available to you. That is why I do not form a critical preference for theories about orbital mechanic based on invisible pixies, rather than gravitation, even though I cannot actually disprove the existence of invisible planet pushing pixies.
This paragraph says nothing relevant to the discussion.
Axioms are not meant to be provable. Consistent, yes. Provable, no. You judge a set of axioms by where by logical deduction they get you. Ultimately axiom sets are arbitrary in the logical sense. Having said that in math, up to a point, they have to pass muster with known math such as 2+2=4. Off course Godel chucked a spaniel in the works…
Trying to justify natural law, or any moral code, is bound to lead to one of the horns of Agrippa’s trilemma: an infinite regress, or circular reasoning, or dogmatism.
As an example, justifying natural law based on a Deity (and not just a generic deity: a deity that imposes this particular law) raises the question of how to justify our belief in this Deity. The justification can be circular: we need to believe in this Deity so that we can justify our natural law, or the belief can be imposed dogmatically (but then, why not impose the natural law dogmatically?), or one can opt for infinite regress (though i am not sure how to do it believably in this case). Note that both the circular reasoning and the dogmatism are arguments that have actually been advanced.
Agrippa’s trilemma is a stumbling block no matter what you try as a justification for natural law, so i see no alternative but to leave it unjustified; or rather, justified to me personally by my moral intuitions. What happens when people have different moral intuitions on some important matter, is something that i do not need to explain to anybody who has witnessed, or been involved in, a dispute over inheritance.
Agreed, Snorri, and all arguments for the existence of “natural law” (of which I am aware) do indeed lead to the horns of Agrippa’s trilemma. (Incidentally, I prefer the term “axiomatic” to “dogmatic” in the description.) But it seems to me that if, as Ridley posits (per Boudreaux, anyway), the “instinct” for cooperation is genetically imprinted in humans as a result of evolutionary forces, then there truly exists a fundamental “natural law” with respect to human beings* which escapes that trilemma. In other words, “natural law” is an inherent property of humans as we have evolved over the eons. Again, if that is true (a big “if”) it seems to provide a pretty solid (and non-religious) foundation for natural law theory.
* Obviously it says nothing about any other sentient creatures.
Perry,
Very, very, very long story made merely long – we differ in our understanding.
There are truths outside of the realm of human comprehension. Any theory (assuming it relies on empirical evidence) is not an immutable truth in any essential sense.
Material forces cause effects by moving across space over time. In other words, matter is only a cause insofar as it’s an effect. Enlightenment thinkers believe they can use science to identify causes in the mortal domain, but nothing man can observe has the capacity to cause without having been caused. The unmoved mover, Paley’s designer, rendering effect without cause, is beyond the material world, since all material forces have themselves material causes.
Therefore, all man’s observations must necessarily be effects and not causes. For instance, gravity is not a cause of the ball dropping. Gravity is a term we use to describe a phenomenon that we observe.
Men (even Enlightenment philosophers using science) cannot discover causes of material phenomena; men uncover facts about material phenomena. If it were otherwise, there would be no problem of induction but only the solution of induction.
Perry,
As always, it’s a pleasure chatting. Would love to read any reply.
I knew it was not there for decorative preferences. I still maintain that if you are right that theories cannot be proven to be true then a theory one accepts as true is basically just a preference. Perhaps i’m missing something?
I “know” the moon is not made out of cheese primarily insofar as I have faith in authorities who tell me this.
Furthermore, there are truths that empirical evidence cannot demonstrate. The “Enlightened” thinker, in calling his religion anything but, implies that reason, not faith, is the basis of his beliefs. This is virtually never the case – even, perhaps in some ways especially, for the most dogmatic Enlightenment thinkers. Insofar as their beliefs are unquestioned (inherited like a fine lasagna recipe) they are mere prejudices and these are developed subconsciously based on self-interests (usually). Insofar as their beliefs are questioned these are developed consciously based on faith in authorities (and sometimes self interest).
The entire world may be a figment of my imagination, Perry, but I believe otherwise. And, crucially, I recognize that I believe out of mere faith. It’s crazy, I know.
Nope. The reason why is introduced best by Mencius Moldbug:
I subscribe to Paley’s watchmaker.
Let me make clear that I was using “Progressivism” in the Reactionary sense that is commonly known as Enlightenment thinking. Until the Enlightenment it was often accepted that the truths of the world are only partially knowable to humans. I know this to be true still.
The fact not everything can be known is the very basis of Popperian epistemology and indeed the scientific method. I would say it is preposterous to think we can do more that theorise about the nature of reality as we can only experience a small part of it directly with our senses, and even our senses must be suspect, as anyone who has had an Armagnac too many can attest.
You say you ‘believe’ this or that. Well of course you do, that is precisely the theoretical nature of knowledge I am talking about. I do not ‘believe’ in planet pushing pixies because I think there are better explanations. I do not ‘believe’ in god because it does not actually explain anything, indeed it is an anti-theory if you will, a mere refusal to theorise about reality. I do not ‘believe’ Obama is not a natural born American, because his mother is indisputably American (and thus he is entitled to US citizenship regardless), and the idea that his papers were falsified in 1961 to make him seem ‘native born’ in case he ever became President strains credulity to breaking point. I do not ‘believe’ a secret cabal of Jewish bankers under the supervision of the Rothschild family are the pervasive master manipulators of history due to reasons best summed up as “Occam’s razor”. I ‘believe’ when I throw a teacup at a wall, said teacup will break.
These ‘beliefs’ or lack thereof refer to critical preferences (or lacks thereof) for certain theories about reality. If the theory is just plucked out of someone’s arse, I would say it is not a critical preference. Support for Lunar Cheese Theory is not, I would argue, a critical preference. I would say the same regarding god.
Untestable would have been better than unprovable. Sorry, that was sloppy.
These are great discussions and perhaps what I enjoy most on Samizdata. If my mind was less muddy, I’d be all over this thread but instead I will try to manage a single point.
Much of contemporary science posits random as opposed to chaotic elements to explain unpredictable outcomes, IE quantum uncertainty. Random is non-determinist, chaotic is determinist but is too complicated of a process to predict with available data, technology and theories. The problem with positing ‘random‘ as opposed to ‘determinist of as yet unknown means‘ AKA ‘chaotic‘ is that if it is random, no further understanding is possible and therefore it is not pursued. Almost all previous reconciliations of erring religious beliefs to demonstrable science have been driven not by those faithful to the contemporary beliefs but by internal and external iconoclasts.
If in fact it is chaotic, things like better sensors or more processing power can push back the wall of chaotic incomprehension and the unknown becomes explicable to greater degrees.
With the working hypothesis of ‘chaotic‘ it is rational to continue the investigation. With the hypothesis of ‘random‘ the only next step is to stop the investigation and begin with the creation of theories explaining the perceived random behavior. The distinction between hypothesizing ‘random‘ or ‘chaotic‘ is not aesthetic, it is relevant both materially and epistemologically.
‘God‘ is the epistemological equivalent of positing ‘random‘ and Perry’s (and my own) approach of ‘critical rationalism‘ are the equivalent of positing a chaotic, determinist but not yet predictable by human means, unknown that is yet be uncovered and explicated. I even carry my foundational framework to the extreme of ‘pan-critical rationalism‘.
The critical rationalisms gain knowledge through the continued positing and falsification testing of ideas and the scrupulous avoidance of accepting faith based beliefs as truths. I’ve discussed in threads long past the distinction between accepting something as overwhelmingly probable and accepting something as certain. Certainty brooks no comparisons to alternatives. Only probabilities of varying degrees are open to comparison with alternatives. Certainty can only be gained through faith. Certainty cauterizes further inquisition. Starting down this thread just a little way, the commentariat discussed the topic at some length. I won’t rehash my arguments here, they were quite well challenged there.
‘determinist of as yet unknown means‘ would should read ‘determinist but as yet unpredictable‘
I’ve always felt libertarianism and the US constitutional ideal was very much a product of white men with a certain background and shared culture. It could only be maintained as long as their demographics and shared culture existed. Libertarian concepts and ideas may be appreciated by other races and cultures, but never wholesale.
I don’t see Japanese being fans of minarchy, for example. For some reason, the conditions that allow the principles of freedom and liberty seem to be limited to those of Anglo heritage.
The Founders couldn’t have known that their ambitious project would be undermined and destroyed by their original sin: slavery. Not only did it precipitate a crisis that enabled Lincoln, it also created a demographic time-bomb that could be exploited by enemies.
That is an interesting observation, TWG, and probably fairly accurate. Regardless of the structure of government, we (as a species) do seem to function best within relatively homogeneous groups having shared values and culture. Multiculturalism is a demonstrably failed experiment.
It also suggests that we in North American would have all fared better had the southern states been permitted to secede peacefully. Dividing the US into two (or more) separate nations today would probably be best for all concerned. The Confederacy was merely ahead of its time.
Perry,
An assertion regarding the unknowable cannot be made on the basis of empirical evidence, which is why the scientific method does not at all rely on the idea that not everything can be known.
You seem to misunderstand. I’m not contending we do more than theorize about the nature of reality. I’m contending we humans are not capable of theorizing much at all.
For instance, gravity is not a cause of the ball dropping. Gravity is a term we use to describe a phenomenon that we observe.
Faith is not theory.
There are many ways truths may be intuited.
Men (even Enlightenment philosophers using science) cannot discover causes of material phenomena; men uncover facts about material phenomena. If it were otherwise, there would be no problem of induction but only the solution of induction.
Deductive reasoning trumps inductive reasoning every time… eventually.
You’re right that belief is not a critical preference. You are wrong if you think that man can live without belief grounded in faith.
Again, I “know” the moon is not made out of cheese mainly insofar as I believe authorities who tell me this.
Midwesterner,
Interesting.
I’m reminded of the old quip about how a scientist is a mountain climber. With every new discovery he makes it past another massive boulder and discovers a priest who has been there all along. “Keep climbing and you will never summit this mountain”
The other side, though, is not that the unknown does not (appear) to become explicable to greater degrees, but rather that there are certain aspects of reality impervious to scientific inquiry.
TWG,
This.
It does not rely upon it but it does deal with it. Fortunately that does not prevent meaningful theories from being formed/falsified.
Some things can be ‘guessed’ and then the guess tested by thrashing/pattern matching or whatever, but often intuition is another way of saying “I have no theory so I will go with what makes me feel better or makes my head hurt less”. An awful lot of intuitive notions end up getting their throats cut by William of Occam when you look more closely at them.
We all have others we trust to some extent, but it seems you are a particularly trusting soul, given your enthusiasm for handing power over yourself to others. But then that is just my theory 😉
Snorri Godhi,
The rabbit hole it is then.
Truth is inherently so.
It seems to me that Agrippa’s trilemma is a handy way to characterize the inherent pitfalls one encounters by rejecting the truth of universals – in this case, in trying to construct a moral code (that is both viable and benevolent).
As something of a fanatic I stumbled upon just such a moral code – a code of conduct inherently viable and absolutely benevolent – out of a supremely stubborn quest for the true moral code. The realism and goodness of truth never fails to impress.
Accepting universals lends a particular credence to the original truth of the Creator. Let’s investigate why this is.
In a certain sense the Creator is the universal universal – the inherent origin from which all reality stems. Make no mistake – this is Plato’s sacred One that is the only thing he refused to put in writing. Given the unified and singular essence of the origin of all that is, one may deduce that reality unfolds in a centrifugal, entropic manner as time passes. The disorder wrought by time, in other words, is inherent.
Any code of conduct is only good or true or right inasmuch as it contributes to the eternal goodness of the centripetal force in the universe. The wellspring of socially centripetal consequences in the world is obedience. Well-meaning libertarians recoil at this word, but insofar as the life, liberty and property of man has been safeguarded, it is primarily obedience – obedience to authority, obedience to the credible threat of force, obedience to one’s conscience – that has rendered such an end.
In assuming that things are as they ought to be, things become closer to how they should be.
In assuming that power is perceived as it ought to be, power is realized with less severity and less frequency.
In assuming that influence is distributed as it ought to be, action to modify the distribution of influence is undertaken with less severity and less frequency.
Agrippa’s trilemma is born of reason, but it’s faith (in authority) and not reason that forms the final path to a moral code.
Getting back to the discussion-
God is all-powerful.
The American President is all-powerful.
Therefore, the President is God!
Problem solved.
Shlomo, you misquote the second paragraph of the DofI in order to give it meaning which is not necessarily there. Arguably that meaning is there but that you chose to misquote it means I can only ascribe ulterior motives.
Shlomo, my apologies. I misinterpreted your phrasing. I withdraw my previous post.
No problem. Just wondering, though – DofI means what exactly?
That is correct: it is born from an exploration into where reason leads. In showing that it leads only so far, it exposes the limits of reason.
That is no escape from the trilemma: it is dogmatism.
BTW an example of (quasi-)infinite regress came to mind. I mention it because it also shows the limits of biological foundations for ethics (which i assume is what Matt Ridley is seeking, but i might be wrong).
I’ll illustrate the principle with a Socratic dialog:
Theo-con: we must follow natural law because God wills it: it’s Divine Command.
Snorri: but why should we follow Divine Commands??
Theo-con: because if we don’t, we go to Hell.
Snorri: but why don’t you want to go to Hell?
The last question is rhetorical: nobody wants to go to Hell, but this preference is based on a strong moral intuition, rather than objective facts. (All preferences ultimately are.) It is this moral intuition that stops the infinite regress.
Now another Socratic dialog:
MR*: we must follow Natural Law because it is in our genes.
Snorri: but why should we follow a law that is in our genes?
MR: because if we don’t, our complex society cannot survive: our genes co-evolved with our society.
Snorri: but why should we care whether our society survive?
Again, the last question is rhetorical: only a few fanatics want our society to collapse, but the preference for our society to survive is based on a strong moral intuition, rather than objective facts. Again, it is this moral intuition that stops the infinite regress.
* given that i do not remember reading Matt Ridley’s writings on morality, any resemblance between MR and Matt Ridley is purely coincidental.