On conservative and libertarian stupidity

[Simple Minded]

well that percieved relativity thing is real and bites you quite fast.

the first handful of dual income couples lived quite rich, then the housing market adjusted and we are now in an almost compulsory dual wage slavery hell hole, so the aggregated behaviour of the other bastards is a highly relevant aspect of our economics.

very true in some areas over here, other places, dual income is all about avarice.

[Simple Minded]

JBP should have titled the book 12 Rules for Not F**king Up Your Life (as well as the lives of all who come into contact with you)!

Better, I agree. Or "12 Tips for a Happier Life". Or is that too sugary. "12 rules for life" sounds way too serious. It associates with the 10 commandments and darkness that is never so dark and light that never is so bright. (looking right into the bright sun I think as/was popular among some Veda yogis believed to enhance spiritual vision of sorts, but all it does is impairing your visual sense experience or go really blind and have others take care of you afterwards)

You mean bland rage like "boo hoo hoo, noddy just posted something on line I disagree with," or "waaauuggghhhh Napster is using big words I can't understand," or blind rage like " The !@#$%^&*#^%@ the *&^%$# nail gun just shot a *&^%$# 3.5" spike into my femur!"

Blind rage... is blind. It doesn't know of any reason. There might not even be an actual cause! Don't forget that causation as a concept exists primarily in the mind. We don't know what causes our conscious mind to arise from our physical-causal brains so we are stuck there I would say though that if a proven non-conscious zombie gets into a blind rage like a true walking dead.. we still might have a good example of it. But those zombies actually exhibit more human behaviors that normally appear to require a conscious mind. Which is why they just keep multiplying. Just a little zombie-bite and you're done too. But as long as it hurts you are fine.

True nuff. But as the pod people told us in the Invasion of the Body Snatchers' movies, paraphrased, "If ya wanna be happy, ya gotta be one of us!"

Billions of people can't be wrong?

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

so the aggregated behaviour of the other bastards is a highly relevant aspect of our economics.

Indeed.

It's baked into the cake and the problem is how to negotiate and organize with it in mind.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

It's not just the economy...and it's not stupidity or voyeurism or even nosey meddling most of the time....it's sort of the junction where the self-harm angle collapses cause there are all sorts of impersonal factors at play.

isn't the corner of Self-Harm and Impersonal Factors where all the prostitutes hangout?

yes, and that corner is quite obtuse when looking at all the angles as a whole

[noddy]

so the aggregated behaviour of the other bastards is a highly relevant aspect of our economics.

Indeed.

It's baked into the cake and the problem is how to negotiate and organize with it in mind.

my sense of humans is that they need to feel they are a comfortable magority or that organisation is an impossible task and paranoia reigns.

obviously a healthy amount of humans are comfortable with being a minority, many even seek it out with ventures to strange lands.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

so the aggregated behaviour of the other bastards is a highly relevant aspect of our economics.

Indeed.

It's baked into the cake and the problem is how to negotiate and organize with it in mind.

my sense of humans is that they need to feel they are a comfortable magority or that organisation is an impossible task and paranoia reigns.

obviously a healthy amount of humans are comfortable with being a minority, many even seek it out with ventures to strange lands.

Brings to mind what Lord Acton says about Jacques Necker in his Lectures on the French Revolution, "He was the earliest foreign statesman who studied and understood the modern force of opinion; and he identified public opinion with credit, as we should say, with the city. He took the views of capitalists as the most sensitive record of public confidence."

And the reign of opinion, "In September 1789, the liberty of the press was only four months old, and the reign of opinion was beginning on the Continent. They fancied that it was an invincible force, and a complete security for human rights. It was invaluable if it secured right without weakening power, like the other contrivances of Liberalism. They thought that when men were safe from the force above them, they required no saving from the influence around them. Opinion finds its own level, and a man yields easily and not unkindly to what surrounds him daily. Pressure from equals is not to be confounded with persecution by superiors. It is right that the majority, by degrees, should absorb the minority."

[Simple Minded]

Brings to mind what Lord Acton says about Jacques Necker in his Lectures on the French Revolution, "He was the earliest foreign statesman who studied and understood the modern force of opinion; and he identified public opinion with credit, as we should say, with the city. He took the views of capitalists as the most sensitive record of public confidence."

And the reign of opinion, "In September 1789, the liberty of the press was only four months old, and the reign of opinion was beginning on the Continent. They fancied that it was an invincible force, and a complete security for human rights. It was invaluable if it secured right without weakening power, like the other contrivances of Liberalism. They thought that when men were safe from the force above them, they required no saving from the influence around them. Opinion finds its own level, and a man yields easily and not unkindly to what surrounds him daily. Pressure from equals is not to be confounded with persecution by superiors. It is right that the majority, by degrees, should absorb the minority."

Great quote. Thanks for posting. When we're safe from above, the only thing we have to fear is tyranny from the masses.

[Parodite]

Actually my thumb is becoming a masochistic exhibitionist lately and would have loved to supply the world with a major opportunity of online Schadenfreude.

There's another yuge philosophical question here, that I note you are dancing around. What would your thumb do if left to it's own devices and not oppressed by the rest of your body? Would it be gay, straight, black, white, vote for Nexit, atheist, confess it's Climate Change Sins, worship Greta Thunberg as the next Jesus, etc.?

Parodite, did you ever consider letting your thumb type some posts rather than being overtly oppressive? Perhaps some body parts are best kept away from a keyboard, but you might want to give your thumb some free reign.

Let my phalanges go

I definitely think a "thumbs-up" is not what it seems to be. Clearly an oppression tool of the phallic patriarchy. Also the "sticking your nose into other peoples business" needs a review. Both nose and thumb (and probably the middle finger) have to be metoo-ed and be given new masters/mistresses. The thumb-down mode is preferable under all circumstances as a good insurance policy.

[noddy]

the 2 great empires of western history, the roman and then the catholic, both offered more than they took for the first half, then suspiciuosly took more than they offered in the late stages.

lots of revisionist folks have wondered if that was really the core of the collapse of these instutions and all the other stuff is but minor details.

what is the core of the arguments between the libertarians and the progressives ? well, its that ratio - the progressives see that we need more back from the system that so much is put into. The libertarians see that their is little point putting so much into it when you get nothing back.

thusly the triangle is formed.

[Parodite]

It occurs to me that not only are the Repubs driving up the national debt as much as the Dems have been doing (and as such share the same stupidity), they are also blind to the fact that their banking system is a Communist Bolshevik Syndicate (tm) with the FED operating like the Communist Party's Central Committee.

They can go on lambasting all they want the evils of Socialism, the "taxation=theft" mantra, how gvt should be small and how individual rights and responsibilities should be leading... all the good stuff that comes with a free market economy. But they are blind to the commie-bankers that rule their business class. Why commie? Because they do give out free lunches, spend money that isn't there. And by socializing the losses (bail outs) and cashing in on the profits when made, they do what all Commies in power do. To all the debt slaves eager and willing, from credit card junkies to entire Gvt's balancing on the edge of bankruptcy.

Easy to slice-up those financial monopolies by setting a max size for banks, and increasing the amount of equity each bank is required to possess as a buffer to cushion the downs during economic cycles. Plus replacing the bad incentives with healthier ones like CEO's being obliged to have their private equities exposed (enough) to the same risks they expose the money of their customers/investors to. But it ain't happening because the debt-proletariat is entertained and distracted with a rudimentary democratic process. Nobody will complain until it does crash bigly again.

[Parodite]

The communist FED started printing big money again. As I understand it, "quantitative easing" operates as a tax on savings. In other words, billions are being stolen from our savings accounts. Just like the Bolsheviks coming to take half of your stored farming yields and sending it to their hungry cosmopolitan centers of power.

XRQecD-Gopg

[Nonc Hilaire]

Agreed. I think change is coming quickly based on the inverted yield curve and the ongoing repo market disaster.

[Mr. Perfect]

It occurs to me that not only are the Repubs driving up the national debt as much as the Dems have been doing (and as such share the same stupidity), they are also blind to the fact that their banking system is a Communist Bolshevik Syndicate (tm) with the FED operating like the Communist Party's Central Committee.

They can go on lambasting all they want the evils of Socialism, the "taxation=theft" mantra, how gvt should be small and how individual rights and responsibilities should be leading... all the good stuff that comes with a free market economy. But they are blind to the commie-bankers that rule their business class. Why commie? Because they do give out free lunches, spend money that isn't there. And by socializing the losses (bail outs) and cashing in on the profits when made, they do what all Commies in power do. To all the debt slaves eager and willing, from credit card junkies to entire Gvt's balancing on the edge of bankruptcy.

Easy to slice-up those financial monopolies by setting a max size for banks, and increasing the amount of equity each bank is required to possess as a buffer to cushion the downs during economic cycles. Plus replacing the bad incentives with healthier ones like CEO's being obliged to have their private equities exposed (enough) to the same risks they expose the money of their customers/investors to. But it ain't happening because the debt-proletariat is entertained and distracted with a rudimentary democratic process. Nobody will complain until it does crash bigly again.

Democrats run the House

[Nonc Hilaire]

Democrats run the house, and the bankers run both parties.

[Parodite]

ivHgi791pHY

Here Leo shines. This should send a shiver through your spine if you are a die-hard rugged individualist libertarian

[Typhoon]

A review of how Atlas Shrugged has fared with the passage of time.

True Blue - Hutchinson | Atlas Has Developed Spinal Injuries

Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged” was published in 1957, yet its atmosphere is that of the late 1930s (when much of it may have been in first draft). Trains are the overwhelmingly dominant means of transportation and coal the main source of energy; everywhere outside the United States is run by dictatorships and the overall impression is of Art Deco rather than the brutalism of the 50s. Moreover, her businessmen are impossibly noble, with even the largest companies (run by good guys) dealing fairly with suppliers, competitors, employees and the public. Yet the overall zeitgeist of the book, with a mighty economic power running down slowly and inexorably until it comes to a standstill, feels remarkably appropriate today.

While I found The Fountainhead* interesting, I could not finish Atlas Shrugged. Too didactic.

*The film version of The Fountainhead* with Gary Cooper and Patricia Neal is an unintended comedy due to its earnestness.

The director, King Vidor, should not have allowed Ayn Rand anywhere near the set and perhaps the script.

[noddy]

all theories which only work for a percentage of the personality types and then ignore the rest are generally unworkable.

which is why muddling mediocrities with short term problem fixing are the political system that works.

until it doesnt.

[Typhoon]

all theories which only work for a percentage of the personality types and then ignore the rest are generally unworkable.

which is why muddling mediocrities with short term problem fixing are the political system that works.

until it doesnt.

Probably.

I would argue that the belief that human nature and society are a "clean slate" that can be shaped at will has resulted in the death of more people than any other belief.

[noddy]

all theories which only work for a percentage of the personality types and then ignore the rest are generally unworkable.

which is why muddling mediocrities with short term problem fixing are the political system that works.

until it doesnt.

Probably.

I would argue that the belief that human nature and society are a "clean slate" that can be shaped at will has resulted in the death of more people than any other belief.

right, every other personality needs to be changed to my favourite type of personality.

on the flipside of that- pre globalisation, that process had made all the different cultures and nations in the first place.

most tribes - and nations in europe/asia are suspiciously homogenous by "global city" standards.

[Typhoon]

all theories which only work for a percentage of the personality types and then ignore the rest are generally unworkable.

which is why muddling mediocrities with short term problem fixing are the political system that works.

until it doesnt.

Probably.

I would argue that the belief that human nature and society are a "clean slate" that can be shaped at will has resulted in the death of more people than any other belief.

right, every other personality needs to be changed to my favourite type of personality.

. . .

This article, although it deals solely with the extreme left rather than the right [who only differ in the details of their extremism], elaborates on your point.

The Critic | Infiltrating the Far Left

[noddy]

shudder.

[Parodite]

09maaUaRT4M

[Parodite]

The conservative and libertarian movements in the US seem dead, which makes it difficult to do stupid things, that's a plus. Some predict a big mid-terms victory for the Repubs, but I doubt it. Some gains but nothing massive.

In Europe neural and moral gangrene has set in. The decay started some decades ago when that old demon called European Empire resurrected itself once again, just when Europe appeared to finally get its act together as a neighborhood of independent and democratic nation states. Euro and EU ended that dream very quickly, and WEF is just another symptom of same. Putin does us all a big service, since he reminds everybody that modern western hubris is just make-up people wear on their faces.

The forces of randomness are at the gate. Conspiracies, real and imagined, multiply like fleas. That things get out of control might actually be good news. Messiahs always come like thieves in the night. Demons tend to hide under our own beds, we know them all too well. Better bet on the Unknown.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

A review of how Atlas Shrugged has fared with the passage of time.

True Blue - Hutchinson | Atlas Has Developed Spinal Injuries

Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged” was published in 1957, yet its atmosphere is that of the late 1930s (when much of it may have been in first draft). Trains are the overwhelmingly dominant means of transportation and coal the main source of energy; everywhere outside the United States is run by dictatorships and the overall impression is of Art Deco rather than the brutalism of the 50s. Moreover, her businessmen are impossibly noble, with even the largest companies (run by good guys) dealing fairly with suppliers, competitors, employees and the public. Yet the overall zeitgeist of the book, with a mighty economic power running down slowly and inexorably until it comes to a standstill, feels remarkably appropriate today.

While I found The Fountainhead* interesting, I could not finish Atlas Shrugged. Too didactic.

*The film version of The Fountainhead* with Gary Cooper and Patricia Neal is an unintended comedy due to its earnestness.

The director, King Vidor, should not have allowed Ayn Rand anywhere near the set and perhaps the script.

I am reminded of this blog post:

In my view, Ayn Rand was a brilliant novelist.

Most literature buffs disagree with this; indeed, most would probably say Rand was a terrible novelist. I think the reason for this is not that Rand was objectively terrible, but rather that the overwhelming majority of literature fans (especially, e.g., students and professors of literature) fall within a certain range of tastes, which are connected to their general personality traits. This is a selection effect, i.e., only people with a certain psychology choose to become literature experts.

[Aside: Notice how literature people also tend to be rather overwhelmingly leftist and anti-capitalist. In this case, you can’t claim that this is because of their expertise, since expertise in literature has no evidential relevance to economic and political issues. It is, rather, because most people’s political orientation is dictated by their broader personality traits and emotional attitudes, and the traits and attitudes that lead people to want to be literature experts strongly overlap with those that lead people to hate capitalism. Some of these traits and attitudes also determine their taste in novels.]

Rand intentionally wrote a particular kind of novel, which literature people happen not to like; thus, no matter how good the novels are within that category, most literature people will hate them.

And what category was that? You might call it “the propaganda novel” (where “propaganda” is of course used in a purely descriptive sense, not as a term of abuse). They are novels designed to advance a philosophical worldview, and to do so in a clear, forceful, and (to those who might be receptive to that worldview) inspiring manner. They are not subtle, nor are they supposed to be. They are supposed to dramatize Ayn Rand’s worldview.

Leaving aside (for now) the question of whether Rand’s worldview is right, is this a worthy goal for a novel? Well, consider all the novels whose central goal is to provoke a feeling of horror (horror novels), or wonder (science fiction and fantasy), or excitement (action novels). Communicating one’s philosophy is at least as worthwhile and reasonable as those goals. Whether this counts as “literature” or not is neither here nor there.

Given that this is in principle a worthwhile thing to do, and given that that is the type of novel Rand set out to write, her works have to be judged by the standards of that genre. By those standards, she succeeds about as well as anyone has ever done. Can you think of another novel that has created as many devoted followers of a philosophical movement as Atlas Shrugged?

Many people would like to do what Ayn Rand did — many would like to communicate their ideas to people all over the world, and many would like to write bestsellers. Some of the world’s smartest people have tried to do those things. Almost none of them can do it. If you or I try to do what Rand did, we will not succeed. So let’s admit that Rand had an exceptional talent for that kind of writing.

That said, I understand very well what some people hate about her writing. It is very heavy handed, black-and-white, and often angry and deliberately insulting towards people with different ideas. These characteristics, however, are part of how Rand succeeded. If she had communicated her ideas in a manner that most literature fans would like, then you would have never heard of her and we wouldn’t be talking about her now.

Rand’s most subtle novel, by the way, was her first: We the Living. It is the only of her works that features a socialist character who has integrity. It’s also far less popular than her more propagandistic novels.

In sum: Ayn Rand set out to do something that is in principle worthwhile, that hardly anyone is capable of doing, and she succeeded better than just about anyone ever has. That requires enormous talent.

[Typhoon]

Fair enough.
However, I'm certainly no literature expert and I have no idea are the "overwhelming majority of literature fans" range of tastes.

Yet I still found The Fountainhead an inspiring read and Atlas Shrugged a boring one.

I do know that the detective genre is much derided and dismissed by the literati,
yet in my view, of the writers in the English language that I have read to-date, Raymond Chandler ranks as one of the best.