As I was researching today for my thesis in the Croatian Fraternal Union's "Zajednicar" weekly newspaper from 1951, I came across an article named, "The Big Lie." In it, the CFU-as was common practice at the time-attempted to denounce Communism. The editor included a quote by GE Chairman Philip Reed on how the general public could be sold the "Big Lie" of Communism. I thought it was interesting that you could just as well use the "Big Lie" concept for modern day statism and positive law, rather than Communism. Keep in mind the "big lie" of statism when reading the quote and think of how well it matches with the ignorance of the masses:
"Tell a Big Lie to millions of people, tell it over and over without bothering about facts or logic, without regard to how preposterous or ridiculous or vicious it sounds at first, and pretty soon it acquires status of fact with those unhappy people who are not in a position to check the facts. Pretty soon even the injured and slandered parties, who know better, are panicked into fighting The Big Lie or negotiating over it, just as if it were the truth. Actually, this is the old concept that the end justifies the means, no matter how immoral the means may be."
Spot on. Spot on.
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Thursday, November 4, 2010
What is legislation?
This is from Lysander Spooner's "Natural Law"...
What, then, is legislation? It is an assumption by one man, or body of men, of absolute, irresponsible dominion over all other men whom they call subject to their power. It is the assumption by one man, or body of men, of a right to subject all other men to their will and their service. It is the assumption by one man, or body of men, of a right to abolish outright all the natural rights, all the natural liberty of all other men; to make all other men their slaves; to arbitrarily dictate to all other men what they may, and may not, do; what they may, and may not, have; what they may, and may not, be. It is, in short, the assumption of a right to banish the principle of human rights, the principle of justice itself, from off the earth, and set up their own personal will, pleasure, and interest in its place. All this, and nothing less, is involved in the very idea that there can be any such thing as human legislation that is obligatory upon those upon whom it is imposed.
What, then, is legislation? It is an assumption by one man, or body of men, of absolute, irresponsible dominion over all other men whom they call subject to their power. It is the assumption by one man, or body of men, of a right to subject all other men to their will and their service. It is the assumption by one man, or body of men, of a right to abolish outright all the natural rights, all the natural liberty of all other men; to make all other men their slaves; to arbitrarily dictate to all other men what they may, and may not, do; what they may, and may not, have; what they may, and may not, be. It is, in short, the assumption of a right to banish the principle of human rights, the principle of justice itself, from off the earth, and set up their own personal will, pleasure, and interest in its place. All this, and nothing less, is involved in the very idea that there can be any such thing as human legislation that is obligatory upon those upon whom it is imposed.
Friday, October 29, 2010
Monday, October 25, 2010
I Disagree about Agreeing to Disagree
Most of the things about which I argue have definitive truths. In the past year or two I've been reading like nutscrazy all things Austrian economics and libertarian. I think I've finally found the truth of economics and human action. So, when these things come up in conversation and one of my opponents decides to quit because of complete logical annihilation, an "ok you win" never really comes. Instead, a "we'll just agree to disagree" comes.
What?
Agreeing to disagree means that there are two equally valuable opinions that each carry some sort of subjective valuation. But, say we're talking about math. You can't just say that two plus two equals five and we'll just "agree to disagree." When we're talking about objective, value-free truths, one is simply suggesting that we quit the debate before we've found and understood truth. Instead of admitting, "ok, you are correct," most of the time people are too caught up with ideology instead of seeking truth.
Now, say we're debating about some subjective thing, like fingernail polish. "Scotty, I like pink on your nails," one might say. "No," says Sam, "I like purple." Now, this is a situation where agreeing to disagree is perfectly legitimate. Each person comes from a different perspective and each have separate preferences.
So, Scott, what are you saying?
Agreeing to disagree only works when it involves subjective value! This is a hallmark of economics. We can agree or disagree that Pat Toomey or that other guy has a nice smile. But it is a TRUTH that when he enacts a policy, any policy, it involves forcing someone to do something other than how he would ordinarily act in the process of using means to achieve sought-after ends. Or, we can say that this coffee is too hot. Or maybe it's too strong. These are subjective valuations. But, what is TRUE is that when government intervenes in one's life, it necessarily makes some people do stuff they do not want to do, and rewards others.
Now, we can agree to disagree with this logical deduction, but you're wrong.
What?
Agreeing to disagree means that there are two equally valuable opinions that each carry some sort of subjective valuation. But, say we're talking about math. You can't just say that two plus two equals five and we'll just "agree to disagree." When we're talking about objective, value-free truths, one is simply suggesting that we quit the debate before we've found and understood truth. Instead of admitting, "ok, you are correct," most of the time people are too caught up with ideology instead of seeking truth.
Now, say we're debating about some subjective thing, like fingernail polish. "Scotty, I like pink on your nails," one might say. "No," says Sam, "I like purple." Now, this is a situation where agreeing to disagree is perfectly legitimate. Each person comes from a different perspective and each have separate preferences.
So, Scott, what are you saying?
Agreeing to disagree only works when it involves subjective value! This is a hallmark of economics. We can agree or disagree that Pat Toomey or that other guy has a nice smile. But it is a TRUTH that when he enacts a policy, any policy, it involves forcing someone to do something other than how he would ordinarily act in the process of using means to achieve sought-after ends. Or, we can say that this coffee is too hot. Or maybe it's too strong. These are subjective valuations. But, what is TRUE is that when government intervenes in one's life, it necessarily makes some people do stuff they do not want to do, and rewards others.
Now, we can agree to disagree with this logical deduction, but you're wrong.
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Letter to Washington Officials Association Executive Board
This was in reaction to: http://www.king5.com/sports/Refs-say-theyll-keep-using-the-pink-whistles-105577103.html
Dear Mr. Berg,
I recently became aware of the controversy over the Washington football officials and their using pink whistles to officiate a game. It is simply absurd that these referees may be punished for their act of benevolence. The Washington Officials Association should be embarrassed and ashamed that the organization would even think of implementing such a penalty on these referees. The organization's name would be tarnished, and the act simply does not represent values for which the association should be a model. I ask that you reconsider these potential punishments and, instead, praise these fine men for their generosity.
Sincerely,
Scott N. Duryea
Greenville, NC
Dear Mr. Berg,
I recently became aware of the controversy over the Washington football officials and their using pink whistles to officiate a game. It is simply absurd that these referees may be punished for their act of benevolence. The Washington Officials Association should be embarrassed and ashamed that the organization would even think of implementing such a penalty on these referees. The organization's name would be tarnished, and the act simply does not represent values for which the association should be a model. I ask that you reconsider these potential punishments and, instead, praise these fine men for their generosity.
Sincerely,
Scott N. Duryea
Greenville, NC
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
the American Religion
Some representative of the ECU student body sent a message to various administrators apologizing for chanting something against NC State during the start of the national anthem. This person even apologized to "every American, particularly those who defend our flag at the risk of their own lives and their families' well being."
1. This is a statement that assumes that all military action that has ever been in the name of America is because it "defends our flag." Newsflash, it hardly has ever been that, maybe with the exception of World War II. But even that was a result of WWI, which was unnecessary.
2. I'm sick of the worship of all things American. I now sit for the national anthem because I, for one thing, do not worship any coercive force we call a state. To pledge allegiance, or to sing a hymn for the nation, is supposedly to pay respect for things that America stands for. Will someone tell me what America, some non-existent being, stands for? The flag, a piece of colored material, is an icon that represents America. America instigates aggression, destroys our currency, and prevents us from actually owning ourselves. Is that what I should worship? Americans grow up in public schools being taught that we need to blindly worship all things American. America is nothing but a figure of the imagination that distracts us from the reality of political corruption, positive law, and state coercion. As long as someone says anything is in the name of America, it is immediately justified.
Call me a bigot, call me anti-American or whatever. But some people look past illusions and seek truth, how humans act outside of state coercion. Oh, and by the way, the pledge of allegiance was written by a socialist, trying to get Americans to pay undue allegiance to the government. I guess it worked.
1. This is a statement that assumes that all military action that has ever been in the name of America is because it "defends our flag." Newsflash, it hardly has ever been that, maybe with the exception of World War II. But even that was a result of WWI, which was unnecessary.
2. I'm sick of the worship of all things American. I now sit for the national anthem because I, for one thing, do not worship any coercive force we call a state. To pledge allegiance, or to sing a hymn for the nation, is supposedly to pay respect for things that America stands for. Will someone tell me what America, some non-existent being, stands for? The flag, a piece of colored material, is an icon that represents America. America instigates aggression, destroys our currency, and prevents us from actually owning ourselves. Is that what I should worship? Americans grow up in public schools being taught that we need to blindly worship all things American. America is nothing but a figure of the imagination that distracts us from the reality of political corruption, positive law, and state coercion. As long as someone says anything is in the name of America, it is immediately justified.
Call me a bigot, call me anti-American or whatever. But some people look past illusions and seek truth, how humans act outside of state coercion. Oh, and by the way, the pledge of allegiance was written by a socialist, trying to get Americans to pay undue allegiance to the government. I guess it worked.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)