People arguing love to throw around the expression “common sense” but due to the many differences of opinion we can safely say “There is nothing more uncommon than common sense.” Most people tend to think that their opinion is common sense – because how could it not be. It is a mostly meaningless term that sounds good superficially. We can very well throw in some meaningless quotes about if from a quick internet search like Common sense is nothing more than a deposit of prejudices laid down by the mind before you reach eighteen, which is probably not an actual quotation anyway, but what would be the point?
Just as meaningless and ill-defined as common sense, and equally chucked about in debate, is the notion of common good, which, again, superficially sounds nice. I mean what kind of antisocial monster is against the common good, the good of all? Well me apparently. Hitler and Stalin and Pol Pot on the other hand were all for the common good…
Never forget the amount of totalitarianism, war, genocide, eugenics and other unpleasant bits of business that were committed in the name of “The Common Good” TM, because, being so unclear but pleasant sounding, it was always used by the ruthless to manipulate the masses into action. Just because your idea of common good seems, to you at least, shiny and pink and cool and innocent and well-meaning, it does not mean it is. And you should not try to impose your particular opinion as common, especially not at the point of a gun.
One cannot objectively and universally define the common good, even vaguely so. As such, it is a term that superficially sounds good, while its meaning can be manipulated in a probably myriad of ways in the interest of whoever wants a bit of the old power. I find few concepts as pernicious and dangerous as the common good, due to the very fact that is sound “right” to so many, and a cursory look at history will find many atrocities justified by it. This is especially true when actions are undertaken now for some common good which will arrive at an unspecified date in the future. Such a vague future achievement is often called upon to excuse use of force today.
Each human being is subjective. Each has a subjective view of his own good and of the good of society. There is quite rarely a wide consensus on this. How could there be? Some believe you can extrapolate a common good from millions of different subjective views on good, but then again some are often assholes.
Some of you may stop and wonder at this moment. Pie, you will say, you support ideas of objective morality, although that is also subjective, just like good. I do, but I see a difference between the two. My objective morality, what should be the basis of the law, is just a subset of the entire moral/ethics conundrum and is based on what seems to me a clear fact – that human beings are individual, independent beings. When these beings interact, conflict arises and it needs a way to be resolved, and the actual rules of conflict resolution should be as objective as possible. Because they are not about one person, they are about all people. And for me, something along the lines of the NAP are as good as it gets. This is why I am a libertarian.
The concept of common good is different. It has more complex moral judgements inside it that go beyond conflict resolution. It has specific goal of outcomes of multiple aspects of life. It imagines a certain world in which people behave a certain way, have access to a certain lifestyle, and do certain things. But when you look at it a little deeper, though you may be inclined not to as it takes time and there’s something rather good on TV – shows are getting crazy good lately, there is no clear notion of what common good might be, and even if you knew, it would be hard to predict if some policy or other would advance this „good”.
The so-called arrogance of the so-called elites, one of the things populist ideologies often exploit, is that they know better what is good for everybody, which is, obviously, horseshit. Maybe some don’t know what is good for them, whatever this may mean, but it’s their right to decide. One of the most insulting things politicians say of people who do not vote for them is that they vote against own interests, as if, for example, when you are not rich, it is always your interest to get hand-outs from others. Who knows what is best? I sure as hell don’t, probably not for me and certainly not for others, and I like to think I am above average in intelligence and information. How does a bureaucrat – who is most likely not above average intelligence – know better? Because, make no mistake, this is what the common good most often gets down to, government imposed things. Furthermore how can someone be considered incapable of choosing what is good for themselves, but at the same time perfectly capable of selecting the best politician -which also advocates for some definition of good or other?
This problem with “good” has been amply demonstrated through history, form heretics persecuted by religion, dissidents by politics; commitment or lobotomy in case of many psychological problems. Women were sterilized for the good of themselves or society by moralizing judges in the United States and elsewhere, women and children separated from families and stuck in orphanages and workhouses. People seem to think society evolved and this can no longer happen; or that if they are in charge, this would not happen; and I am supposed to take their word for it, or something. To be honest, I’d rather not take the chance. Remember, just because you want the best doesn’t mean you know what that is. Empathy is good to a point, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. You may want to help but make things worse.
From a liberty standpoint, being a serf to the common good, to society, rather than to an individual, is still being a serf. That is what collectivist and people talking about the common good refuse to understand about libertarianism. Self-ownership is, for all intents and purposes, a much more objective measure than common good. Because self-ownership has clear boundaries and a clear definition- own your body as long as you respect the fact that others own theirs.
“I hold it to be the inalienable right of anybody to go to hell in his own way.” Robert Frost
The Mayans knew what they were doing….
the alt text was lost in translation but it was there when I submitted
It’s there if you inspect the image properties.
Building the common good, whether you want it or not, Romania edition
Nothing more important for the common good than the sun rising.
The problem is we call it ‘alt text’ but the alt field doesn’t turn into tooltips, the ‘title’ field does.
well I put it where I always have and back in the day it worked
Preview and double-check everything more often than you expect to need to.
Or ask someone else to give it a squint. For the common good, and all.
Something, something, the HTML committee has nothing better to do than to change the meaning of things in the standard
No, back in the day we fixed it for you.
The tip is to not put it in the field that says “Alternative Text,” but rather the “Image Title Attribute” field.” -Someone On Here
or I just give up on the concept no one notices anyways
Oh, yes they do. I’ve been alt-text shamed.
Me.
Alt-text is for screen readers or text-only browsers. We have been using the incorrect term the whole time.
FIXED.
You need to put it lower down, in the Advanced Options.
I’m still struck by the tragedy of the commons. The question of “common” anything breaks down when we start to decide who owns what or has a right to what.
As a manufacturing sharp and a breather, air quality is the most interesting battleground. I don’t expect common sense to have much to do with handling that particle tragedy.
I’m still struck by the tragedy of the commons. The question of “common” anything breaks down when we start to decide who owns what or has a right to what.
Why i’m struck by is the amount of people who use it to then justify intervention in areas where ownership is easily establish-able. I’ve been in many arguments with people who do not understand the implication of the tragedy of the commons, where they use it to argue for more public ownership rather than less. But what they really mean is, we need to cede ownership of this to the Government who will then exclude any use of it to anyone who might be nearby or local and give it to politically connected people who share my views.
see: US Land Policy in the West
that particle tragedy
Your action was observed.
oh, wow: and a typo at that
funny how words have meanings
/proudly not hiding behind HM’s apron for a brief moment
Claims that something is commonsense is privileging that idea and declaring that it is off-limits to questioning. This is frequently used by the intellectually-lazy and intellectually-dishonest.
Same with “common good” — all that means is that the person using the phrase thinks that he thinks that goal ought to be paid for by everyone.
…ought to be paid for by everyone else.
Fun with Progs:
“What kind of way is that to organize society?!”
Your premise is wrong. I do not wish to organize society.
Read that screed posted by extremist, alt righter, who goes by the nom de guerre ‘fourscore’. Not too bad. Shorter 4score: taxation is theft. The social contract was hilarious.
Some good ass links this morning too, Props on the Swiss/HM crossover.
Also, nice article Pie, not much I can add to it, except that much like common sense, turns out the common good is usually no good for the common people.
So much this. For example – “how can you be against free food for children,” which is the opening gambit for arguing for free school lunches for all schoolchildren, regardless of ability to pay. Because, you see, if anyone is seen to pay for his lunch with cash as opposed to using a voucher, then it shames the poor children.
Great article. I think you can have “common good” in some ways, but only in a very defined and narrow sense. For example, a set of “meta-rules” limiting how far any group can push their agenda with regard to others probably produces a net benefit for everyone. But, that’s rarely what advocates of the “common good” have in mind.
I have liberty and negative rights and justice for conflict resolution as benchmarks. This covers most things. I have no need of things like common good, or say meritocracy or social whatever.
The “problem” with the life, liberty, and property formulation is that it “only” provides the foundation for people to voluntarily build all kinds of structures on top of. But, then some dastardly devil comes along and makes “too much” money, or subverts some “moral” rule or code, or sells products that are “bad”, etc. The people who think utopia is always one new rule away will never be content with negative rights as the only universal code.
I am well aware. But contrast all the bad products with all the wars and the graft and the brutality I don’t see how one chooses the latter. Unless one is delusional enough not to understand that all those things come as a package and you cannot have a massive concentration of power that does ll the things you want and nothing you don’t want
How opposed are people to the other parts of the package, anyway? Speak out against war and your coddling terrorists or Russians. Speak out against the graft and you want babies to starve in their dilapidated orphanages. Speak out against the brutality and you want grandmas dying of lung cancer because they were tempted by black market cigarettes.
I have liberty and negative rights and justice for conflict resolution as benchmarks.
Agreed. But, there is an actual advantage to people adopting such notions. Any given player might be better off ignoring them. But, everyone agreeing to adopt them reduces the risk of living among other people to an extreme amount. In that sense, I think it creates a common good distinct from the individual goods of anyone involved.
If we agree not to bash one another on the head and take one another’s stuff, each of us gives up the momentary advantage of not getting the extra stuff in favor of the ongoing advantage of not having to be on perpetual guard against somebody with a club looking to bash us in the head.
The problem with the utilitarian argument is that it then leads to questions of what defines utility and how do you measure it. “Clearly” people are not getting full utility in capitalism, because the rich are too powerful or they’re frustrated by the rat race or what have you. “Obviously” we could improve utility by giving more targeted handouts and other welfare benefits to alleviate all this suffering people have. etc.
The “new” libertarian brand seems to be about tacking all sorts of new utility-enhancing measures on top of the liberal foundation. The problem is that, when push comes to shove, they seem to value their defined measure of utility over the life, liberty, and property of all.
I define utility by my ability to tittifuck Emily Ratakohoweveryouspellthat
You joke, but that’s not all that far off from how warlords throughout history defined utility. Thus the question of utility requires a more precise definition, and in so doing fails to capture widespread agreement.
Fair enough. But, aren’t you sort of hinting at the same issue I’m raising (“when push comes to shove, they seem to value their defined measure of utility over the life, liberty, and property of all”)? Yeah, maybe you can change the rules to make people better off without making others “more worse off”. But, what’s the price of that? You’ve just altered the rules to let people use the state as an instrument of organized plunder. Crossing that line, cancelling that “meta-rule”, alters the nature of the game in a way that now means everyone else gets to use the state as their instrument of plunder. That seems a net loss.
The greatest difficulty one has in arguing against the state as spoils system is that people will say “but, it works in ____” where ____ is some country that they’ve never been to or only visited. And lots of people are amenable to John Maynard Keynes’s “in the long run, we’re all dead” line of thinking (never mind that we’re in Keynes’s “long run” since he’s long dead). How do you build a lasting foundation when people don’t actually care about the welfare of others tomorrow?
Ok, but this is not common good. You can say individuals will prosper under liberty.
And what’s the decision to allow others their liberty? I’m sure, in some cases, it’s strictly a moral one. But, I suspect it mostly gained any sort of widespread currency because people realized that it was better for everyone, themselves included, not to risk being on the losing side of that fight for liberty.
Yes but common good is seen as greater the the sum of individuals to the point that individuals may be sacrificed. And i opose that concept.
That’s true. “Common good” is generally the rallying cry of those who would destroy the standards that keep us from descending into a Hobbesian war of all on all.
I have liberty and negative rights and justice for conflict resolution as benchmarks.
Those are the foundation, but meaning comes from context. The meaning those terms will have, and their implementation, will depend ultimately on some kind of societal consensus.
Man is a social animal. You cannot entirely shed the need for some consensus outside of your own head on what is right and good and proper. IOW, while the concept of “common good” is easily abused, it cannot be entirely dispensed with. There’s even a version of it in our Constitution – “general welfare” was originally intended to mean, not transfer payments from the rich to the poor, but those things which benefit more or less everyone.
Like Roadz!
A lot arguments about these things boil down to one of the following,
– Well, maybe you know what’s best for you, but lots of other people don’t, so the government has to do what’s “best” for the majority
– Well, everybody I know agrees that this is good, so therefore it’s in the “common” good
– Sometimes individuals have to be told what to do by the government, just like how parents tell their children what to do
– The government has done some other things well in the past, and the private sector has done some other things poorly in the past, so therefore the government is the right avenue to solve this problem
– The government could have prevented this thing from happening, but was stopped by people who don’t want it to
Sometimes individuals have to be told what to do by the government, just like how parents tell their children what to do – this is insanely stupid though
The government has done some other things well in the past, and the private sector has done some other things poorly in the past, so therefore the government is the right avenue to solve this problem – the reverse was true much more often
Indeed, but formulating these counterarguments is difficult and, of course, subjective.
If you say “I am not a child and the government is not my parent”, you’ll get rebukes like, “well should you just be able to kill people then?” Respond with something like “no, I shouldn’t kill people, and that is because it is wrong not because the government says so” and you get stuck in the government=morality trap.
Point out private sector successes, and they’ll be reduced to “well, the government was really responsible for that”, while government failures will get brushed off as “well, the wrong people were in charge” or “well, if only the government had more power, that wouldn’t have happened”, etc.
Well you cannot counter willfully stupid arguments, I give you that
Without individual failure, there is no liberty.
Every power grab the government makes is justified with anecdotes of failure. We take a nickel from everyone to solve the problems of a few a million times over. We never stop the programs, we only add to them as their ineffectiveness becomes apparent.
Upon first reading, I’m impressed. I’ll try to reread more deeply when I break for lunch after a while (i.e. when I don’t have to pretend I’m working.) My other gut reaction is that what I’d most like to read from you next – your bio tagline notwithstanding – is your autobiography.
“The details of my life are quite inconsequential…. Very well, where do I begin? My father was a relentlessly self-improving boulangerie owner from Belgium with low-grade narcolepsy and a penchant for buggery. My mother was a 15-year-old French prostitute named Chloe with webbed feet. My father would womanize; he would drink. He would make outrageous claims like he invented the question mark. Sometimes, he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy. The sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament… My childhood was typical: summers in Rangoon… luge lessons… In the spring, we’d make meat helmets… When I was insolent I was placed in a burlap bag and beaten with reeds — pretty standard, really. At the age of 12, I received my first scribe. At the age of 14, a Zoroastrian named Vilmer ritualistically shaved my testicles. There really is nothing like a shorn scrotum— it’s breathtaking… I suggest you try it”.
That sort of thing 🙂 ?
Uhhhhh…. sure?
It’s terrifying that you concocted that in four minutes
I’m actually impressed.
His google fu is recognized.
UCS confirmed as the only person who saw Austin Powers. Don and Ozymandias are hereby relegated to the penalty box. Dr Evil is part of our freakin’ pantheon o’kay!
I will go to da box, for two minutes by myself, and feel shame.
copy paste is not that hard
Perfect.
I’m…not quite sure I was prepared for that…
Now that I think of it, though, it seems to ring a tiny bell. Since you have it in quotes, source please?
For the record, I judge all autobiographies against the benchmark of “Tristram Shandy.”
The life story of Doctor Evil from Austin Powers
Here you go.
In the broadest philosophical sense, there are really only one of two ways to organize a society: either one believes (a) that all people are imbued with unique, equal, moral dignity, or one believes that (b) some animals are more equal than others and get to tell the “lesser breeds” how to live their lives “correctly.” i.e. “For the common good.”
The people that founded this country chose (a) and tried to build a govt that was structurally and practically limited from becoming (b). The Progs are hardcore (b) people and always have been, whether it was the temperance movement, eugenics, abortion, minimum wage, and on and on. Legal positivism, deconstructionism, post-modernism, “climate crisis!!!” etc. are all just the intellectual justification for what they want: to control other people’s lives.
Yeah, plan A didn’t really work.
Oh well. Maybe our great great great grandchildren will get it right next time.
I disagree. It worked wonderfully at turning a completely wild piece of land into the world’s greatest superpower in less than two centuries. Setting side that as a measuring stick, and bracketing by when it went sideways, I’d say it worked wonderfully well until the 16th and 17th Amendments. Sooo… 130 years of pretty respectable freedom and liberty, far better than anything that had existed before it, for certain. Those two amendments fucked us in ways no one could have imagined at the time, although I suspect some people had high hopes – and it worked like magic over the long haul.
And before someone pipes in with slavery, please, I didn’t say perfect. The Constitution was written on a blank slate, either. We (the colonists) were coming from a host of other traditions that included slavery as a way of life. It was a poison inside the Republic that the early framers were certainly aware of and even made repeated attempts to abolish or limit its spread. Ultimately it took a war to sort it out, with its own unintended consequences.
It is telling that every argument about liberty and the American experiement eventually devolves back into something to do with slavery. Yet, every other system tried has slavery in one form or another (Cuba/North Korea is Castro/Kim family’s plantation; in the USSR, “we pretended to work and they pretended to pay us”; China’s system is so popular they have to kill and repress people to keep it; feudalism was slavery with the pretense of mutual obligation; take one vote outside the elite orthodoxy and the social democracy of Europe starts falling part; etc.).
Agreed. And almost invariably the (b) people also believe that they personally are the ones who know better and they should be the ones telling the lesser people how to live.
“I hold it to be the inalienable right of anybody to go to hell in his own way.”
You said it, Bob.
Nice job, Pie. Nothing there I can argue with.
Between you and Fourscore, this is turning out to be a real “fuck off, slavers!” week. And I love it!
Indeed. It is nicely encapsulated as one of our Iron Laws too, “you’re not free unless you’re free to be wrong”. But there are a lot of people who are really concerned that you’re allowing yourself to go to Hell.
I prefer “you’re not free unless you’re free to be an asshole. But just because you are free to be an asshole does not mean you should be”. The idea is that many people defend the right to be wrong. But it is important to defend the assholes
The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one’s time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.
—H. L. Mencken
Props to kbo for the Iron Law shoutout. Beat me to it.
As appropriate for fuckoffslaver.com
Speaking of common sense, or the lack thereof-
We had a contractor fatality at one of our sister plants last week.
A crew come in to do some sandblasting work on the electrode clamps on the furnace. The plant is down, but the furnace is still hot. The contractor has a hood that he wears with a forced air supply to keep him cool. He brings in a unit that has blower and a filter system to supply his own air. This particular company has been doing this job weekly for years.
The blower unit has an issue with the filters, and the contractor can’t get any air into his hood.
Without notifying anybody, the guy goes looking for an alternate air supply. He finds what he believes to be a compressed air line and tries to hook his hose into it. The fitting won’t mate up, because they are incompatible. After working on it for 22 minutes, the guy with a liberal usage of duct tape, managed to connect his line well enough to get some air flow. He goes up on the furnace and his partner turns on the air supply.
Only it wasn’t air. It was nitrogen. The guy passed out out of view of his partner and asphyxiated.
Jesus. Dumb.
He didn’t ask?
Apparently not. The guy was the son of the owner of the company too.
So he hooked himself into a random hose that didn’t fit, while working in a place that runs a wide variety of machinery, not all of which was designed to have organics integrated into the system…
I work in a cube and even I realize how stupid that is.
Pretty much. Even if it was compressed air he hooked into, that wouldn’t have been good. Compressed air has oil in it. Probably wouldn’t kill you, but not a good idea either.
There are all kinds of piped gasses on the furnace he could have gotten into. Take your pick-
Nitrogen
Air
Argon
Natural gas
Oxygen
And that is just the gasses.
There are also lines out there that transport powdered lime and granular carbon. I imagine a face full of either of those two substances would be highly undesirable.
Yikes! How do you bring yourself to keep showing up at your own company after that?
Well, he’s dead, so he’s not going to be showing up any more.
Or are you talking about the father/owner?
The latter.
Pedant. (And I say that with all due affection.)
I laughed
You’re only encouraging him.
I don’t care how tight your operation is, it is never a match for the stupidity of human beings.
RIP. That’s no way to go,
There are far worse things that can happen just sandblasting, let alone in a foundry.
Indeed. About 5 foot from where where the guy tied into the line, there was a sticker that said in green letters, ” nitrogen”
“It’ll be fine. Nitrogen’s like 78% air.”
That’s by volume; 81% by weight, I believe
Are you sure of that? Oxygen is heavier than nitrogen and is 21% of the atmosphere.
Check calibration on your joke-o-meter. It was a “last words” thing…
A big part of my job is measuring by-products of combustion (aka pollution). Engineers keep things in the same units, so for say a boiler, you have lbs/fuel and lbs/dry-air (if you can visualize what a pound of air looks like), so that gave me a flashback.
/pedant off
if you can visualize what a pound of air looks like
Easily done. “A pint’s a pound the world around”.
15 cubic feet (UCS-approved unit of measure) is super-close to 2x2x2 . . . of air
Damn. Darwin Award-level dumb. I feel for those who had to deal with the aftermath.
out of view of his partner
I need to brush up ’cause I don’t know: how is supplied air work any different from enclosed space work with its direct line of sight requirement for your buddy?
It’s not an enclosed space, just a very hot area. Had it been an enclosed space, there would have been a litany of other safeguards in place.
The hood he was wearing with the supplies air, was for keeping the guy cool while he worked on top of the furnace.
As far as I know, there really is no procedure for use of cooling air. In a hot enviroment.
I was careless: you clearly wrote that the air was for comfort.
I remember getting a ride home from a girl in high school who’d borrowed her dad’s beater pickup. There were a bunch of us crammed in the cab. We stopped for gas and she kept saying that there was something wrong with the nozzle. She couldn’t get it to fit in the tank right and it kept turning off. Undeterred, she eventually got enough gas into the truck to get us all home.
Truck wouldn’t start, of course. It was a diesel.
It’s easier to flush a truck’s fuel system and ressurect the machine than to raise the dead.
If it’s My air, I want to be damn sure what I’m hooking it up to.
Well, I mention it to point out that even when you create an interface that you *think* will prevent misuse, people are smart enough to figure out the wrong way to use it anyway.
I keep coming back to this: human nature and communication problems are always the challenge. I can size equipment with ease; it is the true grasp of the needs and the opportunities for misunderstanding that is difficult.
After almost 30 years of designing processes and the instructions that are a part of me, I’m still amazed at the the interpretations and mistakes that can occur. I won’t say I am a master of poka yoke, but I”m pretty good. The answer, of course, is to eliminate people from every possible part of the process.
I have been fixing industrial machines for about 12 years. If it is possible, an operator will do it.
We have a joke about this in the military – things being “Marine-proof” but there is no device, no process, no safety rules, tool control, order from the Old Man himself, NOTHING that can make safe a handful of Lance Corporals…
And if booze is anywhere nearby or available – Fuhgeddaboutit.
The answer is that it takes judgment to live. If you are in a foundry you are in an environment where everything that is happening is massively outside human survival parameters. Judgement tells you to ask about everything you are unsure of. It also says, if the nozzle does not fit your suit, maybe that is a hint that it is dispensing something that you don’t want in the suit.
I think I’ve told this story before:
My step dad noticed that the gas tank on his farm was getting empty quicker than he thought it should. The next time the fuel truck came he had the guy put diesel in the tank instead.
A few weeks later he noticed his nephew’s car stalled by the side of the back road.
I had a friend who put diesel in his fathers brand new Lexus hybrid suv. It did not like that. My friends daily driver was diesel and habit is a bitch
Speaking of European food…
Small Island Of Uncultured Savages Rejects America’s Gracious Attempt To Introduce Them To Good Food
On a quick scan, thought-provoking as always. And a counterpoint to an article I have been mulling over, about the blind spot in libertarianism. Namely, libertarians tend to see the world in narrow, economic/transactional terms, and overlook or underplay the essential social nature of the human animal.
Will read more carefully when time permits.
Namely, libertarians tend to see the world in narrow, economic/transactional terms, and overlook or underplay the essential social nature of the human animal. – i dont see that at all in my article. There is nothing limiting things to economic transactions
Will read more carefully when time permits.
I think where I am coming from is that man exists in society, and no society can exist without some consensus on what we might as well call the “common good”. Haven’t had a chance to really work it through, though. We may just be working different angles on the same position.
without some consensus – well the consensus is getting mighty small in the society we live in…
The free exchange of goods (your goods, my cash) establishes a common good between us. If one is not willing to pay for the goods with one’s own money it is not a common good.
I think that may be a result of libertarians having a distinction between A) moral laws that humanity should follow, and B) what should be stamped out by force of law.
The fatal flaws of both conservatives and progressives (who differ only in which groups of people they favor over others).
1) Society is real. Wrong. There is no such fucking thing as society. “Society” is the illusion that occurs when you take a view of life from 50,000 ft and lose track of the 7 1/2 billion or so living, breathing individuals who work in semi-cooperation, at least most of the time.
2) Society has rights. Wrong. An illusion can have no rights.
3) The rights of society are superior to individual rights. Wrong. The non-existent rights of an illusion can never be superior to the rights of individual people.
4) Government exists to create a better society. Wrong. Society is a fucking illusion. What you really want is the power to fuck over people you don’t like for the benefit of people that you do like.
There is no such fucking thing as society.
Have to disagree. People live in groups; we don’t wander the savannah as isolate predators. To function, those groups have some kind of organization, some kind shared understanding among their members. At that level, society is as real as anything that is immaterial.
Now, if you want to argue that nothing is real that isn’t material, that’s a different rabbit hole.
Humans are pack animals. We form associations with other people and agree to cooperate for common goals. We form families, clans, tribes, etc. All those are relatively small organizations that don’t push people outside the monkeysphere.
Organizations larger than that need to impose order to keep things functioning. A large business is not a social organization. It is a top-down hierarchy with rules and restrictions imposed on the people that work there. But, at least, the association with a business is voluntary and one can leave if one desires.
Governments are not social organizations either. Nor can one escape the government by any means short of moving out of the jurisdiction. The idea that society is “everyone that lives here” for any given city, state, or nation is nonsense.
so you are saying social organizations have issues of scaling
I am saying that people have evolved to interact cooperatively with as many people as they can keep track of in their head.
Everyone else is just “other people”.
People use “society” as a way of implying you have both a connection to and responsibility to “other people” that you have actually no real connection to.
Society defined as an abstract term for people living together is a thing, although I am not sure it exists as an object or a living being exists. it is just a description of something. Most do not see it this way so it ascribes rights, responsibilities, actions etc to a descriptive term. In this way you could say the galaxy has rights…
I’m taking Kinnath’s assertion that society doesn’t exist as saying that society exists in a way similar to abstractions in programming or legal fictions; they don’t exist, but they allow us to deal with complex issues. It would be far more time consuming to deal with the actual objects and functions behind an interface in a program rather tan dealing with the interface itself, and most if the time it works. It would be horrendously difficult to determine negligence without the fiction of a reasonable man to help courts make their determination. Problems creep in when we start to ignore the fact that these cognitive conveniences don’t actually exist in their own right; “the map is not the territory” being a common admonition amongst programmers. When we take the leap from society being a convenient way to group people and describe shared attributes and emergent phenomena to society being an entity in and of itself, we get problems.
THANK YOU!!! This is one of my hobby horses. “Society” is shorthand for millions, if not billions, of amalgamated interactions. Society is not a real, independent thing, but rather a leaky abstraction at best. It has no rights, it cannot be harmed by individuals’ actions, and neither I nor anyone else owes society a damn thing.
To debate RC Dean’s point, a common culture, or shared understanding, is critical for effective interaction of individuals, and (as I noted above) the amalgamated result of all those transactions can be called “society”, but society isn’t the cause – it’s the result. The lack of common cultural understanding, and the effect that has on many interactions between individuals who lack that common understanding, can be viewed as a “breakdown in (civil) society”, but that’s only visible at the 50,000 foot level. The actual negative effects occur between individuals (or small groups), and that’s where the pain occurs. The “societal” view is just the collective view of all these fractured interactions.
between individuals
I hinted at this earlier. My view was similar in that any action between people that doesn’t involve property is hard to characterize morally. If you’re not stealing my stuff or harming my person, it’s hard to say there’s a foul; if you did steal my stuff, then what difference does it make if there is some society, some umbrella . . . why do I need context to simply call out theft or assault?
To debate RC Dean’s point, a common culture, or shared understanding, is critical for effective interaction of individuals, and (as I noted above) the amalgamated result of all those transactions can be called “society”, but society isn’t the cause – it’s the result.
I would agree, with this caveat*: Society is not only the result of prior history, but sets the course or boundaries of future interactions. So in some sense it is also the cause of the interactions among individuals within the group. I think society (or the community, if you prefer) can indeed be harmed by an individual’s actions, where those actions harm others in the group, or when they attack or undermine the consensus. For example, when an individual opens the town gates to invaders, who proceed to enslave the townspeople and burn their town, then society/the community has absolutely been harmed by an individual. Even if you try to reduce this to harm done by one individual to another, I think you have to ignore that those individuals see themselves as members of a community, and that damage to one member of a community does (or can) have knock-on effects harming other members or even the community itself.
*Also, I would quibble with your use of “transactions” to describe all human interactions (if that is what you meant).
knock-on effects
What do you think of sentencing hearings? Ceteris paribus, should the murderer of a hobo get a different sentence than the murderer of father of six and deacon in his church? Does this question imply a grasp of the notion of knock-on effects?
First, the easy one – “transactions” may not have been the best word. Interactions is better.
As for the society/community thing: in your example, the damage done by the individual to each harmed individual can be summed up as harm to the community, but it’s an aggregation of numerous individual harms, used as a shortcut to simplify the discussion IMNSHO. Granted that the reaction of the harmed individuals can alter the culture, and insomuch as that makes the culture worse (less trust, etc.), you could again consider that a damage to the society, but it’s still a summation of many small individual harms done to each individual member of the group. I don’t see any of this as a significant counterargument that society exists independently of the individuals.
One of my most hated examples of Prog-logic is the “Corporations are a legal fiction; Corporations are not people and should have no rights” followed by all kinds of assertions about why we have to do something for “society.” It’s an amazing bit of cognitive dissonance.
Yet corporations are actual things, the combined efforts of their owners, and should have the exact same rights as their owners. I have some issues with how corporate governance works in America these days (corporate boards and management seem to think they are the owners, which leads to some Bad Things ™ ), but that doesn’t change their fundamental nature. “Society”, OTOH…
Another bit of cognitive dissonance is when they argue that corporations “aren’t people” and have no rights, but they would ferociously object if you insisted that Donald Trump should put a gag order on the corporation that runs the New York Times.
Seems that some corporations are more equal than others.
just trying to be helpful but
cognitive dissonance is the emotional breakdown one has when he can’t reconcile his thoughts once he recognizes the inconsistencies: my father beats me, but I love him, so I’ll just sit over here in the corner and drink because I can’t even explain why I’m this way.
Above, we merely have a couple of examples here of wildly inconsistent thoughts: hypocrisy or stupidity are at play, yes, but no dissonance felt
that is to say: it is amazing that some people can hold some thoughts simultaneously without suffering cognitive dissonance
/engineer type
Don, I always understand cognitive dissonance to be defined as “the state of having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes, especially as relating to behavioral decisions and attitude change;” while the more complete theory of cognitive dissonance includes feeling uncomfortable about the dissonance, but perhaps I am incorrect.
Good article Pie.
I don’t know what’s best for you and you don’t what’s best for me. Therefore it is best if we just don’t tell each other what to do.
It’s a simple concept that most simply can’t grasp when it is applied to the state.
So
AttackRacist Watch is apparently a thing, and it is in no way creepy and Orwellian.Related.
“Public Service Media Group”
aka otherwise-unemployable assholes.
“You’ll never be lonely at Racists Only Dot Com!”
As I read this, I couldn’t help but hear “the greater good” over and over.
Maybe I’m seeing what I want to but I thought The Tree Flavors Cornetto Trilogy has an individualist streak a mile wide.
I think it’s pretty explicit in the third movie.
And Crusty isn’t even here
“Common good” works as a concept in groups small enough to define it amongst themselves, or in larger groups connected by some underlying moral or ideological principle. So at the family or perhaps tribe level, or among religious or political groups with a single unifying principle. For nation states of half a billion people it’s of little utility.
I can see this has already been covered extensively upthread. I am very insightful.
Still, you put it well.
How ’bout some Texas style: Gov Abbott notes that, if the House flips, “the ability to override local rogue ordinances will become impossible.” In other words, Texas is all about independence and local option except in the cases where it’s not. Of course the Lege knows better than Denton what is best for Denton. I’m not taking sides; I’m just pointing out that you side with your neighbors until you don’t, and then you go looking for a larger quorum to override what you couldn’t win locally. The question of property or freedom seldom comes up, only majorities and legitimacy.
The only disagreement I’d have with this argument is that if the state were only preventing local governments from impinging on the rights of the governed, then state overrides are appropriate (at least in Texas, since cities and counties are not independent entities, but departments of the state government with limited independent lawmaking).
And in the anti-fracking case, you’d be right that the Lege was saving Dentonites from other Dentonites; again: I don’t necessarily object.
But that’s neither here nor there. The general point of the Lege is to tell people what they can’t or must do simply because their society was insufficient to the task: almost all legislation restricts freedom . . . and my point is that that’s what the Lege is for: overpowering the society that one can’t manipulate otherwise. The cases where the Lege is guaranteeing freedom are so rare as to justify its dissolution entirely.
There’s been a lot of discussion of would-be moral betters who want to impose their vision of the good life on everyone else. And that certainly is a real thing. I think it also helps to consider the opposite side of the same coin, those who believe there’s a responsibility of the rest of society to bear the consequences of people’s bad decisions. And even some libertarians fall into this trap. But, the two instances are, as I note, not exactly different. A society that socializes the consequences of people’s poor decisions is just as much destroying the feedback loop of individual conscience and decision-making as the society that forbids people their individual decisions.
Another great article, Pie.
I’d like to add my appreciation as well. Keeping a motley collection of individuals on the subject (for their own good, of course) is a feat to be proud of. Hats off to Mr Pie!
The very idea of any “common good” or “common sense” is collectivist by nature. Collectivism is destructive and evil, so it’s no surprise that such concepts lead nowhere good.
Sort of related;
Dilorenzo’s “Hamilton’s Curse” makes the argument that the general welfare clause was most likely put into the constitution at Hamilton’s insistence, knowing that it could be broadly interpreted to justify anything a statist could dream up. General Welfare and Common Good are more or less the same idea. Collectivism is evil, that is all.
Interesting OT topic of conversation I thought of the other day. How libertarians regard Tulsi Gabbard right now VS. how many of them treated Rand Paul in 2015. Glaring hypocrisy? Nuanced understanding? I’m really not sure where I fall.
**I wanted to wait until TGA was around but whateve’s**
Socons are out of the libertarian club presently. Rand Paul is a socon. Tulsi Gabbard is not. Easy peasy.
Certainly true of beltway types. What surprises me is the Mises people who can’t say anything bad about her who promptly dumped Rand Paul when he advocated for pretty much the exact same foreign policy (that same policy being insufficiently anti-war).
I don’t necessarily side with Paul, but I think I know his principles. I can trust him because I know what he means even if I don’t agree with him on many points.
I can’t side with or trust or even characterize Trump or Gabbard because they have no knowable principles. Random swings and actions and utterances leave me baffled, and, since I have no urge to project onto either my projections, I must simply walk away shaking my head.
I think Tulsi is principled (from what I’ve heard and seen but I freely admit to not have followed her closely). She seems to have a principled stance on foreign policy, WOD and free speech. In that regard I agree with her and respect her. But that seems to be where our overlap in principles end and even if she is good on those issues I’m not sure I could ever support her in spite of the other ones.
I’ve heard the argument that Tulsi might be a good choice since she can get stuff done on foreign policy by herself, but most of the socialist stuff wouldn’t be able to happen without Congress. Still, I’m not sure that’s a gamble I want to take.
Besides, I’m still not 100 percent sure that she’s actually going to end the wars. Democrats are good at putting on a peacenik facade just to get into office.
She seems to have a good handle on why regime change is both stupid/immoral and counterproductive. As Scott Horton pointed out she’s still pro-WOT, which was Rand’s great sin in the eyes of anti-war libertarians.
I don’t know if I could hold my nose for a gun-grabber as I believe that to be the natural right ion which all others are set.
I’ve heard the argument that Tulsi might be a good choice since she can get stuff done on foreign policy by herself,
You mean, like Trump has pulled our troops out of the Middle East? The Deep State includes State and the Pentagon, and has shown they can and will #Resist a President who doesn’t tow the All War All The Time lion.
most of the socialist stuff wouldn’t be able to happen without Congress
A Dem Congress would sign off. Want to bet we’d have a divided government throughout her term as President?
And with Obama showing how to weaponize the administrative state, there’s at least some of her agenda (gun control) that she could push pretty far without Congress if she wanted to.
All I know is that I voted for Paul in the primary and I’m considering voting for Gabbard in next year’s primary (though probably not in the general.) Happily, in Ohio you need not “register” a party affiliation – you just request one or the other party’s ballot or an “issues only” ballot, if applicable.
That’s a good position to be in, if I were an OH resident I’d probably do the same. I switched my party affiliation from LP to R so I could vote Paul but he ended up dropping out before I got the chance.
I did not vote for Paul and I will not for Gabbard.
I hear there is good money to be made in hacking elections
why do you think I keep posting here?
Your a Russian Bot?
The Russians are a smokescreen to hide who is really behind it all.
You know who else hid behind a smoke screen?
also (((the))) are also a smokescreen. Just in case you were wondering.
Ancient Dacian Struldbrug conspiracy! I knew it!
Plan a visit to Chicago at the appropriate time next year and you can vote for who you will.
I want to mention on the society issue is that is is still a descriptive term for a large number of people, even if they are tied by some consensus or common culture or whatever. It is still not a real palpable thing. This is why it should be seen separate to a real palpable human. Which should not be sacrificed against their will for some abstract goal of an abstract society. This does not mean it is not important. But it also does not mean that it is driven by some greater good / purpose than whatever the various people in it strive for. Society just is. It is people. It does not have rights, purposes, end goals, directions etc. I off course want society to be in a certain way and I wish more people wanted the same. But not for a greater purpose. For the good of me as I define it and my family friends friends and neighbors and random people and even tulpa.
Individuals are social, they form families, friendships, companies, barbershop quartets, the loyal order of the buffalo, whatever. This is not for society, or for a common good. It is just what people do.
Last winter on my way to work I pushed a car stuck in snow. I did not have to do that. i could have gotten dirty. I certainly did not think of society or common good, just to help the poor stuck bastard. I did think that I would hate to be in his place, and would want help myself if I was. I did think it is generally a good thing for me to do. No society or common good entered into it.
And while I want as many people to do good, it is bullshit hypocrisy to pretend I care for them or society anywhere near as much as for my close ones, and most who do are full of shit and signaling. Progs pretend the weight of the world rests on their shoulders. Bullshit.
Nonsense upon stilts. Mutual benefit is “common good” by any other name, and it is the sole reason that every living thing on this planet that forms social groups, forms social groups.
it is certainly not
Lets try wikipaedia
“In philosophy, economics, and political science, the common good refers to either what is shared and beneficial for all or most members of a given community, or alternatively, what is achieved by citizenship, collective action, and active participation in the realm of politics and public service”
10 people can have mutual benefit. no common good involved
This is basically a semantic sleight of hand though, that was my original point. “That which is beneficial for most or all members of a given community” is going to overlap almost entirely with “mutual benefit” in a small group; else the group probably wouldn’t have materialized.
well it is not usually referring to a small group. It is referring to a country
I think “general welfare” was originally intended to mean something like “broadly mutually beneficial”.
That wiki definition is half nonsense: “what is achieved by citizenship, collective action, and active participation in the realm of politics and public service” easily includes abuses by governments that no moral or rational person would regard as mutually beneficial or “good”.
The issue with scalability, I think, is that the larger the group, the smaller the category of things that are broadly mutually beneficial. I doubt this category ever reduces entirely to zero (prohibitions on murder, for example, are always in the common good regardless of how big the group), but it can get really damn small.
this sums it up perfectly
with all the obvious implications
Well as i said before liberty and negative rights would cover those broadly mutually beneficial things
And I say this being probably a less “extreme” libertarian than most of you and I have, in other articles, said there is such a thing as “common affairs” where groups of people need to find solutions. Justice being one clear example. I am not an anarchist, but I see government as a descriptive thing and generally a tool of organizing large groups. And while I have ideas on this organizing, I will not invoke the common good as a justification.
Despite joking with HM I am still a Minarchist and don’t even insist on absolute minimums. I’m fine with roads.
the pic of her nude brushing her intern’s hair is hawt
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/22/katie-hill-denies-improper-relationship-054313
*googles*
You’re wrong.
well, i’m old so YMMV
For the lazy
(moderately NSFW – the teats are blurred out)
I’ve seen better, I’ve seen worse.
OK, having seen that…if those two didn’t have something going on, they’re from a very different cultural background than I am.
Her husband “beats her” so she brushes interns’ hair in the nude to cope.
And she’s putting her naked ass on the furniture. Barbarian.
Didn’t I see it reported as fact the other day that She, her husband and the staffer had a three way thing going on?
That pic reminds me of the pics of ne monkey picking lice out of the hair of another.
the teats
I, for one, like ye olde spelling.
“I’ve seen better, I’ve seen worse.”
+1. Still would though.
What the hell is it with Democratic women in Congress. It strikes me that they seem to have an unusually high rate of cheating on their husbands.
If he’s getting a taste, is it really cheating?
Your knowledge about women is…..lacking.
It’s not surprising.
Imagine a woman who thinks men are scum who keep women down. Imagine the type of man who would marry such a creature. Imagine how much respect such women would have for those men.
Of course they cheat. You get what you tolerate, and their husbands are quite clearly willing to tolerate any humiliation.
Ah, what goes around cucks around then.
https://www.oregonlive.com/crime/2019/10/federal-appeals-court-upholds-no-fly-list-designation-for-4-people-who-filed-lawsuit-in-oregon.html
Death of the Republic, Part XVII
What a crock of horseshit. How is a government punishment for noncrimes considered even remotely OK?
How is a government punishment for noncrimes considered even remotely OK?
Its for the common good?
The common good is going to be the death of us all.
Simply put, the courts are out of control.
OK, having seen that…if those two didn’t have something going on, they’re from a very different cultural background than I am.
She just needed something to do while she was waiting for her clothes to dry.
More on court ordered trannies:
“Expert witnesses testified to a child’s inability to full comprehend the potential side effects of such therapy, such as permanent infertility, inability to ever naturally engage in sexual relations, and a decreased lifespan.”
Seems totally safe and ethical.
https://hotair.com/archives/ed-morrissey/2019/10/22/texas-jury-father-cant-stop-chemical-castration-gender-change-seven-year-old-son/
I read some more on the case and supposedly the mother was grooming the kid for a change in sexual identity when the kid was three. This really is a travesty.
This is the part where I raised an eyebrow.
Surely she *must* have argued against this claim at the trial, right?
Did the kid provide any statement or was he interviewed?
Not sure, was reading at lunch, there are a few links to articles, tweets, and an interview with the father here:
http://acecomments.mu.nu/?post=383893
Both the mother and judge deserve to rot in the seventh circle of hell. I can’t even be Glib about this. Pure fucking evil.
Both the mother and judge deserve to rot in the seventh circle of hell.
I would only add, “without delay”.
And when Luna kills xerself at 19 because her mother completely fucked up her head with the state backing her up will any of the people cheering this on reflect on it for even one second? My guess is no.
The jurors on the McMartin preschool case…do you suppose any of them have remorse?
I don’t know. Hopefully? At least those folks can get some restitution (albeit no justice). This poor little boy can never get his dick back.
Every death of a transgender person is just blamed on “our violently transphobic society”, so it will just make them push harder to normalize this “treatment” on more children.
Jesus. That literally made me sick to my stomach just reading it. That poor child.
The father should draw attention of Trump. Trump can break the media silence. It will also increase Trump’s popularity.
That’s a good point. Thanks to the State his only other recourse would be to go full Killdozer.
“I felt the most fulfilled when I was physically helping people”
https://nypost.com/2019/10/22/adult-film-star-opens-up-about-leaving-mormon-church-for-porn/
Boy is she ever physically helping people.
“My brother said, ‘I will definitely never watch your porn, but you seem happier than ever, so I support your decision.’”
Ummmm…..
I think that means “Please introduce me to some of your coworkers.”
I would hope “I will definitely never watch your porn” could have gone without saying.
Haha, sounds like doth protest too much…
with today’s proliferation of compilation videos, there’s no way he won’t see at least a small sample of her work.
/researching
meh, her stuff is unremarkable and likely not in any compilation vid.
I think she’s helping a lot of people help themselves, anyway.
Thanks for the article, Pie. Food for thought.
Also, Fourscore, I forgot to praise you also for a job well done. Just jumped in off topic and forgot because I’m a discourteous person.
And while I want as many people to do good, it is bullshit hypocrisy to pretend I care for them or society anywhere near as much as for my close ones, and most who do are full of shit and signaling. Progs pretend the weight of the world rests on their shoulders. Bullshit.
The weight of the world, as in the onerous task of deciding how other people will be dragooned into helping the disadvantaged.
Common good can be surmised by practical outcomes. Historically what has aided the common good the most? Turns out strong protections of the inalienable rights of the individual contributes to the common good more than anything else.
^This^ The government that governs best , governs least.
^This^ indeed. When you protect the rights of the individual you protect the rights of the group or groups they belong to by default.
Along these lines, I have been playing around with a hypothesis as to why the concepts of individual liberty took root in the west in general, the anglo-sphere in particular, and the United States in even more particular.
I picked up a special edition of Scientific American regarding human origins for a flight a few weeks back. In it was an article that posited that humanity has introduced a cultural feedback loop of sorts into natural selection. Meaning, that not only was ability to physically survive a factor in the ability to pass on our genes, our highly social nature (excluding present company, of course) made the ability to demonstrate cultural/social fitness a primary element in mate selection.
Given these social selection pressures, cultures that value self-sufficiency are more likely to amplify and produce more individuals with that, or any other, character trait. Addtionally, the European settlers of the post-Columbian Americians self selected for those with an individualistic disposition. Add in the environmental pressures that faced colonists upon arriving in an untamed world, set to bake for several dozen generations and you have a recipe for a country of ornery indiviuals that have a tendency towards a dislike and distrust of and towards authority.
This isn’t a “genes are destiny” argument, obviously there are a great many factors that shape individuals and culture at large that extend beyond heritable traits, but I think it is an aspect to consider.
Just something I have been chewing on.
intriguing question
Isn’t it the other way around: asocial types can prosper in the bosom of civilization because it’s big and overlooks them while socializing is necessary in the wild for the best chance at communicating risk, food opportunities, and coordinating defense?
Perhaps there is some sort of cycle that goes between trends toward individualism and collectivism. Both of which have a degree of utility in regards towards individual survival.
Also, the groups of poineers generally require some sort of hierarchy to survive. In those circumstances, the independent-minded leaders tend to find their way to the top. Thus they become the defacto Alpha that is likely to be considered a prime breeding partner and it would follow that others that have similar traits would benefit by being seen as a desireable partner as well.
Just spitballing here.
I used the “self-selection” argument in a book.
Right on. Was did you use it as an element of a pioneering culture?
No, actually, it was in a head-to-head competition of management styles. The corporate hammer is an ADHD- and OCD-addled artist contrarian and general rabblerouser who believes that “his” type was self-selected and is what made America great. He is lecturing the CEO, who is an uptight, stoic cat herder. Her riposte is that his vision of America is a Darwinian utopia, but how can HIS type exist without HER type?
In short, they’re both right, but the two types are interdependent. He needs her. She needs him. But both MY point (the author’s point) is that both types self-selected to come here and breed, which is what made America great.
Someone once pointed out to me that the people who founded this country were malcontents.
I think it’s probably a little of that. I think Western culture formed the underlying “infrastructure” for the rise of the Anglosphere and the U.S. That said, pretty much most of Europe was pretty much a shithole except for their proximity to a few powerhouses. The cultural infrastructure was necessary, but not sufficient.
The interesting thing is, as far as I can tell, it really didn’t start in England, but the Netherlands. Basically, they were able to throw off Spanish rule and decided to leave one another alone (well, in relative terms, not anything near what we would recognize as liberty). And that got them rich. Much richer and much more broadly rich, than their neighbors. Really, as not much more than a historical accident, the English killed off one of their monarchs and decided to replace him with the nearest relative, who just happened to be married to a Dutch royal. The “everybody leave everybody else alone” policy was imported with them. That policy mingled with a few historical factors in England to form traditions that got them even richer than the Dutch. In the process, these policies and traditions became, conveniently, principles and ideas. America is basically a country founded on those ideas.
Good point regarding the Dutch influance. They were one of the first European nations to have some sort of representive body. As, you say it wasn’t anything near what emerged here a couple centuries later.
I will be stealing that concept of cultural infrastructure. I like the way that frames the concept.
That was for the thread upstairs.
I oop
T’was a good article though.
A couple of other thoughts:
The Christian belief in free will and moral agency is a cornerstone of the Western culture, without which there could be no moral/religious/cultural basis for individualism.
The centuries-long struggle between the Catholic Church and Western European monarchs led to the idea that some things were outside the scope of the government.
Absolutely. I just wonder to what degree mate selection, genetics etc. were influenced by the culture and vice versa.
The Christian belief in free will and moral agency is a cornerstone of the Western culture, without which there could be no moral/religious/cultural basis for individualism.
That’s a huge part of the cultural infrastructure I was referring to. Again, though, it was necessary, but not sufficient. You look at Spain or France, certainly very Christian countries (and the same can be said of various Protestant areas of Germany; so it’s not a Catholic thing) and you don’t see the same thing.
More people should be thinking about “necessary but not sufficient”. I constantly run into people who think if they have something that’s necessary, then they have all they need.
Thanks Pie. I always enjoy these. You put clear words to my disjointed thoughts. They also always trigger a the sort of thoughful converstion that makes this place so great.
Also, the groups of poineers generally require some sort of hierarchy to survive. In those circumstances, the independent-minded leaders tend to find their way to the top. Thus they become the defacto Alpha that is likely to be considered a prime breeding partner and it would follow that others that have similar traits would benefit by being seen as a desireable partner as well.
Just spitballing here.
This seems like the proper article to drop the response I got from my Senator regarding 2A issues.
“Common sense”. ?
I stopped reading after the first paragraph when the term ‘common sense’ made its appearance.
And there it is.
Yup.
No right is absolute goddamnit!
Ignore everything before “but”.
“Shall not be infringed …(unless it’s common sense for the common good)”
Scranton should have consumed him and his whole family prior to their running for public office.
I believe in the First Amendment. But,
No, you don’t.