Items Posted by Jim Kalb
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Sun Feb 1 07:13:19 EST 1998
Article: 11217 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: The World Wide Web of Distributism
Date: 1 Feb 1998 07:08:02 -0500
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 34
Message-ID: <6b1oj2$i9o@panix.com>
References: <34C4900E.3AB4@msmisp.com> <34CD06B6.2956CAEF@net66.com> <34CD09D5.CDE6F3E0@net66.com> <6alv2s$2dk@panix.com> <6aruso$69j@panix.com> <886198101snz@bloxwich.demon.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
In <886198101snz@bloxwich.demon.co.uk> raf391@hormel.bloxwich.demon.co.uk (rafael cardenas) writes:
>> You need some sort of socially authoritative view of things that tells
>> you what a good life is, other than getting whatever it is you happen
>> to want. If the latter is thought to be the good life then the common
>> good will be some combination of equality and maximizing gross domestic
>> product and you don't get distributism or indeed anything except the
>> type of thing we have now.
>An alternative view is that people feel that things ought to be getting
>_better_ for them; that the good life does not include just leaving things
>as they are.
I agree that maximizing equality and GDP once for all wouldn't work.
The good to be satisfactory must have an element of the infinite.
Indefinite enlargement is a secular infinite.
>It may not be what you want, but what advertisers or peer groups make
>you think you ought to want.
I would describe the latter as part of "whatever it is you happen to
want." The intended distinction is between what is good and what is
thought to be good or treated as good. Liberal political philosophy
refuses to make that distinction.
>the very deep hatred which Americans feel towards the 'welfare poor'
Is that supposed to be a factual reference? We can agree I suppose
that men reconstruct the world as a moral drama and cast others as
players in their favored story-line.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Every reform is only a mask under cover of which a more terrible
reform, which dares not yet name itself, advances." -- Emerson
From jk Sat Jan 31 06:32:41 1998
Subject: Re: consult
To: schmoore@shentel.net (Andrew Bard Schmookler & April Moore)
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 06:32:41 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <01BD2DB5.4AE516E0@pm04a15.shentel.net> from "Andrew Bard Schmookler & April Moore" at Jan 30, 98 07:26:22 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 1503
Status: RO
> "What questions do you think worth exploring --of the kind that will
> still be of interest after this particular situation is resolved--
> that are raised by the current Presidential Scandal Crisis?"
Nature of electronic media -- dissolves distinction between public and
private. National politics becomes the same as _Geraldo_. Also,
dissolution of distinction means that special qualities of private life
lost. Standards of marketplace, political arena etc. imported into
e.g. relations between sexes.
This may be too partisan -- Clinton's character. First PoMo president.
Charm and magnetism based on sensitivity to what others want to see in
him and indifference to truth other than the truth he wants to create
in the situation. That goes with a rather loose fit among the various
components of his character. Also with his uncontrollable impulses and
appetites and (so it is said) private rages. In the scheme of Plato's
_Republic_, bks. viii-ix, it corresponds to a transition between the
democratic man and the tyrannical man.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Every reform is only a mask under cover of which a more terrible
reform, which dares not yet name itself, advances." -- Emerson
From jk Sun Feb 1 06:55:12 1998
Subject: Re: consult
To: schmoore@shentel.net (Andrew Bard Schmookler & April Moore)
Date: Sun, 1 Feb 1998 06:55:12 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <01BD2E2D.4B2A20A0@pm04a15.shentel.net> from "Andrew Bard Schmookler & April Moore" at Jan 31, 98 09:47:42 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 3411
Status: RO
> "Standards of marketplace, political arena etc. imported into e.g.
> relations between sexes."
Today we have sexual liberation and feminism. (We have advertising and
lots of other things too, but at the moment I'm talking about moral
theory.)
Sexual liberation means that the relations between the sexes are
whatever the persons involved happen to agree to, which is the standard
of the marketplace.
Marketplace standards mean that sex can legitimately be understood as a
commodity. If all aspects of it are an object of unconstrained choice
and agreement then it's legitimately an item of trade. Trade requires
keeping partners at arm's length. To facilitate exchanges items of
trade are broken off from other things and packaged as standard self-
contained bundles. That's the significance of the Chief Executive's
preference for fellatio. That's what prostitutes like to sell, because
it's more easily understood as a separate item that doesn't involve the
whole person. It's also the significance of his preference for women
whom he need not take seriously. The tendency of sexual relations to
create personal relationships must somehow be suppressed for sex to be a
matter of absolute free choice. Engaging in such relations only with
women one holds in contempt is a solution to the problem.
Feminism means either the same thing, that relations between the sexes
should be purely a matter of the intersecting personal goals of the
parties, or that the personal is the political. The two differ as
capitalism and socialism. The accepted objection today to the
commodification of sex and consequent abuse of women (sexual liberation
of course also has other bad consequences) is based on the second kind
of feminism. It's the same as the socialist objection to capitalism,
that individualist freedom is an illusion because people are in
different positions that result in unequal bargains. The solution is
also the same, to reform the situation in which bargaining takes place
through ideological reeducation and government regulation, both based on
an analysis of human relations in terms of domination and oppression.
That solution, of course, has its own problems. The socialist approach
doesn't work well because it attempts to impose abstract general
standards on how people act that are insistently at odds with their
natural tendencies. It must therefore be either ineffectual or
pervasively tyrannical. The situation is worse in the case of
relations between the sexes than economics because supervision and
control is more difficult and the relevant considerations more subtle
and harder to measure. So the attempt radically to reform the
relations between the sexes on socialist lines (that is, on lines that
insist on primarily on equality and secondarily on freedom, both
defined _a priori_ and enforced through government and ideological
education) is basically going to result in failed relations. Nothing
that actually happens will comply with the official standards and
things will instead take place on the equivalent of a black market, in
a realm governed by no standards but blind asocial impulse, coercion,
manipulation, deception and betrayal.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Every reform is only a mask under cover of which a more terrible
reform, which dares not yet name itself, advances." -- Emerson
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Mon Feb 2 08:47:42 EST 1998
Article: 11242 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: The World Wide Web of Distributism
Date: 2 Feb 1998 08:47:30 -0500
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 61
Message-ID: <6b4ipi$lqq@panix.com>
References: <6aruso$69j@panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
X-Newsposter: trn 4.0-test55 (26 Feb 97)
dmdeane@netcom.com (David M. Deane) writes:
> : >Last I heard, Mr. Monaghan
> So where is he now anyway? And what happened to the other
> Monarchists/Integrists who started this newsgroup back in 1992?
Dunno. I looked in on bit.listserv.catholic a few months ago and
sighted Nils. He was being attacked because he "posted in
alt.politics.nationalism.white." (He had participated somewhere in a
thread on the Merovingian kings that was crossposted to a number of
newsgroups, including a.p.n.w.). It also didn't seem to sit well that
he said he didn't like democracy. People asked him whether that meant
he favored torture etc.
> it is rather disturbing to come back and find a.r.c. being dominated
> by libertarians and their welfare statist opponents.
So far as I know there haven't been any libertarians posting here
recently. The recent discussion started when I proposed that
libertarians were allies of the Right, basically on the grounds that
what's needed and possible is more like libertarianism with a few
modifications than the liberal welfare state with a few modifications,
and that if you have to have one or the other libertarianism is better.
That led to the implications of the redistributive state and the
relation of strict libertarianism to catastophes such as famines. The
discussion was carried on very badly, but that does not seem to me a
problem with the topic.
> My only point was that their was no necessary link with any particular
> religion; if the Mithraists or Neo-Platonists had won control of the
> Roman Empire they could have played the same role that Christianity did.
You missed the last discussion before the business about libertarianism,
the one about whether Christianity is necessary for a civilization like
that of Europe with a strong rationalizing and universalizing impulse.
The argument was that in the face of such an impulse the doctrines of
Creation and Incarnation are necessary to maintain the irreducible value
of the particular and so prevent univeral rationalistic tyranny.
> The more interesting question is whether this "socially authoritative"
> view need be a metaphysical religion - there are plenty of non-
> metaphysical religions (which are often thought of as anti-religous
> though there is no necessary reason for this being so).
The view must I think be something thought to precede all else that we
cannot fully comprehend and reduce to our possession. To me that means
a metaphysical religion or as close as makes no difference. Some people
are squeamish about such things because they don't want to be stuck with
something that tells *them* what to do in any serious and final way.
> My only caveat is that not all attempts to decentralize are the same;
> libertarians wanting to minimize the role of the state are
> understandable, but if one is worried about centralization one must not
> forget the centralizing tendency in capitalism.
Agreed.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Every reform is only a mask under cover of which a more terrible
reform, which dares not yet name itself, advances." -- Emerson
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Mon Feb 2 08:48:53 EST 1998
Article: 11243 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Limited Government
Date: 2 Feb 1998 08:48:45 -0500
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 16
Message-ID: <6b4irt$m2d@panix.com>
References: <34CE68D7.833@msmisp.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
X-Newsposter: trn 4.0-test55 (26 Feb 97)
dmdeane@netcom.com (David M. Deane) writes:
> But the argument can be made without the religious component, and
> should be for the benefit of those who will not listen to a religous
> argument.
I wonder in the end whether it can be. You can't beat a religion with a
non-religion. Welfare state liberalism is basically I think a religion.
There is no God so we will construct a Providence that will look out for
us and make us feel in relationship to an order of things that cares
about us personally; to deny the goodness of the project is ultimate
evil.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Every reform is only a mask under cover of which a more terrible
reform, which dares not yet name itself, advances." -- Emerson
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Mon Feb 2 08:51:09 EST 1998
Article: 11244 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Older Poor Laws versus Modern Welfare Laws
Date: 2 Feb 1998 08:50:12 -0500
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <6b4iuk$mbg@panix.com>
References: <6ask2r$nd4@panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
X-Newsposter: trn 4.0-test55 (26 Feb 97)
dmdeane@netcom.com (David M. Deane) writes:
> : >In reality the system is intended to benefit the administrators
> : Not consciously so, I think.
> Pardon my rhetorical shorthand; they benefit materially even if they
> are not conscious of it. Some must be conscious of it, though, or the
> level of vitriol against critics of the welfare state would not be quite
> so strong nor endure for so long in spite of the well documented
> failures of said state.
It's OK to speak of objective intentions of systems, but also worth
mentioning how they relate to the subjective understandings of the
actors.
I think the vitriol is mostly a sign of mindlessness attempting to
preserve itself and its sense of superiority. No doubt part of it is an
instinctive attempt to suppress an incipient consciousness of the
weakness of one's position. It's worth bearing in mind though that from
the standpoint of the spewers of hate critics of the welfare state do
indeed appear hateful.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Every reform is only a mask under cover of which a more terrible
reform, which dares not yet name itself, advances." -- Emerson
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Tue Feb 3 16:33:01 EST 1998
Article: 11253 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Neo-Luddites and their litterature
Date: 3 Feb 1998 12:20:08 -0500
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 30
Message-ID: <6b7jk8$be3@panix.com>
References: <6b5k72$t40$1@cubacola.tninet.se>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
X-Newsposter: trn 4.0-test55 (26 Feb 97)
"Pyar Durrani" writes:
> Peace be upon you!
Wa 'aleikom!
> Can anyone assist me in finding good and critical books or articles
> and magazines of a neo-luddite character, apart from the ones below
> that I already found?
As background Lao Tzu, Chuang Tzu and Rousseau's _First and Second
Discourses_ are good. Maybe you could find more recent things that
would be helpful by looking at what's been written on them. If you are
posting to alt.fan.unabomber you are of course aware of a
super-neo-luddite text that would perhaps be worth mentioning.
> Are there any traditionalist-conservative groups or magazines working
> with these questions? What about the attitude of practising
> Christians, Muslims, Jews and others, have they developed any
> techno-scepticism?
There are radical Mennonite groups, Amish and Hutterites, who live
technoscepticism. Roman Catholics and many other Christians are of
course technosceptics with regard to the creation of new human life.
And on my page http://www.panix.com/~jk/trad.html there's a link to an
agrarian page that should be worth looking at.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Every reform is only a mask under cover of which a more terrible
reform, which dares not yet name itself, advances." -- Emerson
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Tue Feb 3 21:36:33 EST 1998
Article: 11268 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Limited Government
Date: 3 Feb 1998 21:35:36 -0500
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <6b8k5o$ccq@panix.com>
References: <34CE68D7.833@msmisp.com> <6b4irt$m2d@panix.com> <886546851snz@bloxwich.demon.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
raf391@hormel.bloxwich.demon.co.uk (rafael cardenas) writes:
> > Welfare state liberalism is basically I think a religion. There is
> > no God so we will construct a Providence that will look out for us
> > and make us feel in relationship to an order of things that cares
> > about us personally
> "If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the
> poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven; and come and follow me.
> But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for
> he had great possessions."
I'm not sure of your point, so an explanation would be helpful.
The text shows that the Kingdom does not consist in economic prosperity
or security. Other texts could be cited to the same effect. The
parable of the lilies of the field is an example of one that clearly
does not have special application to the rich. More generally, the
Kingdom does not consist in the solution of the economic or political
problem, or in triumph over natural necessity. See Matthew 4:1-10 (the
temptation of Christ). So it appears as suggested that the welfare
state and Christianity are competitors. Your point may be that
Christianity has other competitors as well. No doubt, but I'm not sure
of the relevance (if that is indeed your point).
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Every reform is only a mask under cover of which a more terrible
reform, which dares not yet name itself, advances." -- Emerson
From jk Sat Oct 26 11:45:54 1996
Subject: Re: paul on woman;s silence (fwd)
To: di
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 11:45:54 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 1115
Status: RO
> At first, I tended to disagree, because you can have four or five
> partners in a single firm.
The situation changes I think if the partnership is intended to be very
durable (it takes a long time for all one's children to reach maturity
and get established in life) and must deal with open-ended and very
serious issues. When that's the case it seems to me that increasing
the numbers beyond two very quickly increases the need for explicit
command and obedience rather than consensus (with command at least to
some degree in the background) as the usual form of decisionmaking.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Yo Bob, mug a gumbo boy!
From jk Fri Jan 3 07:33:36 1997
Subject: Re: public schools and crime
To: r
Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 07:33:36 -0500 (EST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 2752
Status: RO
> Yet it is precisely the real medieval market, and its associated
> ideology of free and open competition between large numbers of
> equally empowered buyers and sellers, all with the maximum amount of
> available information, that supplied the model for the economists'
> theoretical market. If that system was as 'efficient' as economists
> claim, why did traders in the late medieval and early modern period
> gradually move away from it to alternative, less clearly competitive,
> more restricted methods of exchange (use of middlemen, networks of
> private contract, retail shops, hidden exchanges in large firms,
> etc.)?
A couple of possibilities that come to mind:
1. Better communications (perhaps because growth of towns and cities
made distances shorter) meant that a physical meeting of all buyers and
sellers was no longer needed. Market outcomes could be achieved
without a physical market.
2. Greater complexity of the economy meant that commodities
constituted a smaller portion of what was traded. Purchasing became a
more complex judgment, and it became more important to purchasers to be
able to compare all the possibilities (which could not be physically
gathered in one place) than to be able to inspect and compare qualities
and prices of the things that could be brought together in a local
market. Also, reputation of the seller became a more important issue
since value of goods could no longer be as readily determined by simple
inspection as in the case of commodities.
3. Physical markets are less convenient. To the extent you buy things
every day it's easier to go to the corner store. For producers it's
easier to stay in your shop or whatever and keep on producing than to
knock off work and take what you've got to market. The growth of the
commercial system at the expense of home production therefore means
less use of physical markets.
> The habit of economists of describing the larger commercial economy
> or some abstract part of it as a 'market', and then describing its
> differences from a real market as 'imperfections', and the
> historians' and propagandists' equation of 'capitalism' with
> 'markets', both appear on this view to be dangerously misleading.
I don't see why it's misleading to define "market" in an abstract way
as a situation of free contract, no legal restrictions on entry,
multiple buyers and sellers seeking their own advantage etc. A
physical market is a particularly clear instance in which that abstract
definition applies but it applies elsewhere as well and the point of
the economists is that there are things that happen wherever it
applies.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Lived on decaf, faced no devil.
From jk Fri Jan 3 16:56:59 1997
Subject: Re: books etc.
To: F
Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 16:56:59 -0500 (EST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 1661
Status: RO
> this is true, I think especially in the 'New Right' side of things.
> It's crazy! Some of these groups combine a soppy liberalness with a
> National Bolshevik message.
Soppy liberals have always been susceptible to the appeal of left-wing
violence, maybe national bolshevism is more of the same with the appeal
of the forbidden. Self-indulgence combined with love of new sensations
gets you odd places.
> I think they take the view that Christianity is somehow reactionary.
If you want to invent a world to your personal taste you're going to
want to invent a religion to go with it.
> reviews on the newsgroup and/or friendly journals?
Don't see why not. Sounds like a worthwhile project, actually --
people in the U.S. who don't much like establishment liberalism need to
know there are whole worlds of thought out there that somehow don't get
mentioned much. The a.r.c. resources lists have been one effort in
that direction, and a number of people have sent me notes saying how
helpful they've been. More I think would be better though.
> (e.g. Yesterday & Tomorrow, Usury by Belloc etc. etc.)
Sounds good -- the Usury should be interesting. More thought on
economics is needed -- it's always been a weak point of that part of
the right that does not take capitalism as its religion.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Lived on decaf, faced no devil.
From jk Sat Jan 4 08:29:48 1997
Subject: Re: public schools and crime
To: r
Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 08:29:48 -0500 (EST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 4154
Status: RO
> > 1. Better communications (perhaps because growth of towns and cities
> > made distances shorter) meant that a physical meeting of all buyers and
> > sellers was no longer needed.
>
> This factor did not come into play significantly, as far as inland
> communications were concerned, until the 18th century
It occurs to me that if transportation is very difficult there would be
few physical markets; ditto if transportation and communication is so
good that distances become almost irrelevant. In the times we're
talking about, the latter situation presumably could be found at most
in towns and cities. So if during this period country roads got worse
but towns and cities accounted for a larger share of the population it
would not be surprising if the number of markets declined.
> > 2. Greater complexity of the economy meant that commodities
> > constituted a smaller portion of what was traded.
>
> Again, this did not happen until much later (19th century).
There was no growth of manufactures until the 19th c.?
> For the great majority of purchasers there would be no way of comparing
> possibilities (except with the growth of published catalogues and national
> advertising, mainly not until the 19th century) outside the market.
People see what others have and ask about it. Or they go to a
specialized shop that carries goods of the same general kind from a
variety of sources. The greater the number of possibilities to compare
the harder it is to move the whole shop or even samples of everything
and someone with the necessary expertise from market to market. To
some extent competition becomes competition between shops rather than
regarding particular sales.
> The crucial difference, surely, is that in shifting from a public
> market to a system of private contract you restrict the information
> available to you. One party is almost always in a more knowledgeable,
> and thus more powerful, position than the other; usually, too, one
> party has a more urgent need to clinch the contract (i.e. some such
> contract, of which the one in question is in practice the only one
> available) than the other. The multiplicity of buyers and sellers
> is, at the point of contract, a fiction, since for the weaker party
> to exercise his right to choice in that circumstance requires much
> higher transaction and delay costs than simply moving to another
> stall in a public market. Nis choice is no longer (A,B,C, D, ... or
> Z) but (Yes or No). The lack of simultaneity means that feedback
> effects develop that are absent in a real market. The predictive
> unreliability of economists' abstract market models may be directly
> related to that.
So competition takes place because people tend to compare shops over
time rather than particular items immediately. They may for example
buy X at shop A and Y at shop B because they've found shop A better on
X and Y on B. The question it seems is the extent to which feedback
effects mean the results simulate those of physical markets well enough
to use the same fundamental analysis or whether some other theory works
better.
> In principle, you can always model the planetary system as a
> Ptolemaic system by adding more epicycles, but that does not mean
> that such a description is correct or, in the long run, useful, even
> if a correct description takes more intellectual effort to achieve
> (and certainly hasn't been achieved by anyone yet in the case of the
> free-enterprise economic system).
>
> Darwinists have been influenced by various ideas from market
> economics; but perhaps it is time that economists looked at
> ecological theory and the evolution of ecosystems through time (a
> free commercial economy has obvious parallels with a natural
> ecosystem).
No theory of society is close to perfect, so it's always possible that
a superior and radically different one will come along. An economy and
an ecology do seem analogous and it's certainly possible that something
in ecological theory would be useful in economics.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Lived on decaf, faced no devil.
From jk Sun Jan 5 03:45:01 1997
Subject: Re: public schools and crime
To: r
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1997 03:45:01 -0500 (EST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 2509
Status: RO
> Having rashly advanced the theory of another, I now foind myself
> obliged to defend it without the originator's extensive information:
> mea culpa!
I should thank you though for raising issues even though you aren't in
the position your friend would be in to settle them. I know next to
nothing about economic history and it's been interesting.
> I don't see, however, that an increase in the proportion of
> non-raw-material things would necessarily undermine a public market,
> at least before the onset of mass production.
Commercial transactions usually involve some mixture of market and
relationship. In the case of commodities in the modern sense, things
like wheat which are traded on exchanges, relationships don't much
matter. If the mix of goods moved away from such things toward things
that you'd prefer to buy from the same Quaker merchant your dad
patronized and whose kids your kids play with it would reduce the
advantage of markets in your sense.
> Agreed; my own view would be a suspicion that the time factor makes a
> crucial difference to the nature of competition as compared with the
> simultaneity of a market, and that a new theory should therefore be
> required.
Still you have people on both sides of the transaction trying to
maximize value and free to gather the information that helps them do
so. It seems that wholesale "markets" would simulate the outcomes of
physical markets more closely than retail; you have specialists on both
sides dealing with each other. So one issue seems to be whether
feedback or whatever would cause retail merchants to approximate honest
agents acting on behalf of their customers in buying things for them in
wholesale markets. The success of Quaker merchants suggests there are
at least some pressures in that direction.
> I suspect also that a major factor in reinforcing the shift is that a
> system of middlemen, partially replacing direct confrontation between
> producer and end user in a public market, may have increased the rate
> of profit: the intense competition of public markets should tend to
> squeeze profits and thus prevent the accumulation of unusual amounts
> of capital by businessmen.
But if it was easy to enter markets as a participant and prices were
lower in markets how did someone who wanted to raise his profits so he
could accumulate get everyone else to go along with the plan?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Lived on decaf, faced no devil.
From jk Mon Jan 6 20:41:32 1997
Subject: Re: public schools and crime
To: r
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 20:41:32 -0500 (EST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 2244
Status: RO
> If that's right, then where the specialists dealt with each other,
> they used a market or referred to one; but where the ordinary farmer
> or purchaser had to deal with the specialist, he was outside the
> market and thus at a potential disadvantage.
Presumably farmers, bakers and retail dealers in corn or whatever, at
least large ones who in effect could act as local market leaders, would
know the going rate for corn set ultimately on the exchanges. It would
be worth their while to do so.
> But the success of Quaker merchants was, it seems, precisely because
> there had been no such tendency before: and there were no Quaker
> merchants before the second half of the 17th century.
No Quaker merchants because no Quakers, I would think. Where there is
reliance, though, people look to whatever indications of reliability
are available. Quakerism if such exists, or if not reputation or what
have you.
> Convenience, perhaps, especially for large-scale agricultural
> vendors; if a corn dealer gets the local landowner with a big home
> farm to sell to him off the farm in bulk, for transport to a more
> distant urban market, he may be able to undercut smaller agents using
> the public market and after a while everyone else has no choice but
> to sell to him or to similar dealers.
The key seems to be whether on any large scale prices paid farmers
differed much from exchange prices as adjusted (for cost of
transportation, risk of loss, etc.) It seems to me "no choice" at a
particular moment doesn't necessarily mean "no choice" if there are
large and long-lived discrepencies.
> trade based on a putting-out system. What needs to be explained is
> why small rural weavers etc. did not take their cloths to market but
> instead became dependent on large contractors.
Guaranteed sale at a set price without the trouble of taking the stuff
to market and selling it there would be appealing for weavers. For
their contractors a settled source of supply at a set price could be
useful. Even today in the case of exchange-traded commodities
producers and users don't necessarily deal in the spot market.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: "M" lab menial slain: embalm.
From jk Fri Jan 17 09:05:41 1997
Subject: Re: Resource lists
To: j
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 09:05:41 -0500 (EST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 1252
Status: RO
> Ironically, John Luckasc explores this very theme in a book he wrote
> to refute Fukayama's premise in _The End of History_.
What's the name of the book?
> So you've read Kojeve? Do you read French, or were you able to find
> a copy in English.
English.
> I fear the future that awaits my two precious daughters.
It's a problem. What do you tell children to look forward to and work
toward when there's no an established pattern of life that makes
available in concrete form what people need? The only thing we really
have organized is the process of fitting people into economic
production and consumption, which is not the whole of life.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: O, Geronimo -- no minor ego!
From jk Fri Jan 24 09:22:17 1997
Subject: Re: Satanist 'Nationalists'
To: F
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 09:22:17 -0500 (EST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 2485
Status: RO
>we would be grateful if you could forward any information you have re.
>Satanist, dark pagans, New Agers etc. within 'Nationalist' groups.
>These could be new right, populist, neo-nazi, conservative, national
>bolshevik, strasserite etc. etc.
Views combining neopaganism let alone Satanism with nationalism and
strong government are rather exotic here. Such people do exist and can
probably be found by a web search. I don't know much about them
though. They very likely have links to foreign groups since it's not
the sort of thing an American would be likely to come up with on his
own. A couple of years ago I recall an American posted several
articles to alt.revolution.counter setting forth some theory that world
saviors could be produced by a magical technology involving the death
of the savior and his later reappearance, that Christ had really lived
150 years "B.C." and his public ministry etc. was an instance of this
technology, and that Hitler was another instance and would return in
triumph at some point in the future. I don't recall who the person was
or his affiliations if any.
Actually, the "right-wing" Satanists and New Agers I know of here are
radical libertarians. Among the Satanists I've run into Anton LeVay is
the favorite writer. I don't know if they have any organizations or
links to foreign groups -- the ones I know of seem to be homegrown
hobbyists.
I don't know if a libertarian can count as a nationalist in your view.
Maybe in America. Patriotism here has always included
constitutionalism, meaning severely restricted government power. The
American state has always been understood as utilitarian, consensual and
constructed, so people who believe life should be based on something
other than rational egalitarian hedonism almost always want to limit its
social role. People who combine libertarian and patriotic views here
are usually Christians though or if not that almost always believers in
a sort of social Darwinism. Hence the oddity of New Age Nazis from the
American point of view.
Sorry I can't give you more information.
On another matter -- I read _Survivals and New Arrivals_. I hadn't
read anything by Belloc before except some of his children's poetry.
He's really excellent and I would be interested in reviewing any newly
republished books of his.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: O, Geronimo -- no minor ego!
From jk Mon Feb 10 18:04:59 1997
Subject: Re: reply to Jim Kalb
To: F
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 18:04:59 -0500 (EST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 1445
Status: RO
> At the end of this illogical process man sets himself up as God -
> something that Freemasons and New Agers will readily identify with.
Americans do have a weakness for self-divinization or at least
pantheism and radical relativism, which amounts to the same thing.
We've had New Agers at least since the 1840s.
> > Sorry I can't give you more information.
>
> Not at all. But if you do ever come across anything, please do
> forward it.
Will do. The only other thing that comes to mind is a group called the
Processeans that used to beg for money on the streets of Boston and
other large Eastern cities (and for all I know elsewhere) in the early
70s. They wore black clothes and large wooden crosses and seemed to
have some theory about a union between Christ and Satan. I'm not sure
what political views if any they had. So all I can tell you now is
fragments. Who knows what will turn up though.
> Have you read anything by G.K. Chesterton? He too is a fine author.
> The two were once such good friends that they were known as the
> 'ChesterBelloc'. GKC's best book I've read to date is 'The Flying
> Inn' - a novel, very humurous with many hidden and not-so-hidden
> meanings and messages.
A couple of things -- _Orthodoxy_ and a few essays. He's very good but
I like Belloc's style better. More controlled.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Plan no damn Madonna LP.
From jk Tue Feb 18 11:02:18 1997
Subject: Re: Educational Standards
To: em
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 11:02:18 -0500 (EST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 1649
Status: RO
> Thank you very much for your input. So now what would you suggest to
> do about the problem? There must be something that people can start
> doing.
People won't be well-educated unless they care about becoming
well-educated. Parents have to care about it for their children,
teachers for their students, students for themselves. So you could
start by making serious thought and study part of your own life (it may
be already, of course). Read difficult books. Learn a foreign
language well enough to use it. Study a musical instrument. Join a
discussion group.
Find a particular intellectual interest and pursue it. The internet
has newsgroups, mailing lists and so on where you can make contact with
other interested people, join discusssions, and find out how people who
know more than you do look at things. The last is especially
important.
Apart from what people can do in their own case, most schools offer
opportunities for parent, student and general citizen participation.
It sounds like you're doing that.
As far as public policy goes, I think you're likely to find good
schools where there's a local authority that is responsible for
supervising the schools -- a school board or whoever -- that cares
about high-quality education and views its job as mostly a matter of
hiring a principal, giving him authority to run the show, and holding
him responsible for overall results. To my mind that means that state
and national programs and standards, large educational bureaucracies,
and so on are a bad thing.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Plan no damn Madonna LP.
From jk Tue Feb 18 20:10:09 1997
Subject: Re: resource list update
To: t
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 20:10:09 -0500 (EST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 1192
Status: RO
It's a difficult task. The idea of a war of cultural position seems
much easier if like its originator you have a comprehensive universal
philosophy intended to determine everything everywhere. That makes it
much easier to maintain a consistent and coordinated line among those
taking part. It also helps unfortunately if like the Marxists your
fundamental interest is power rather than truth.
Maybe that just shows life is difficult, though. The bad guys always
have advantages. People who prefer particularism to the New World
Order should certainly try to make common cause. Getting the word out
intelligently and effectively is important, and it's necessary to be
aware of the nature of power in the modern world and what influences
it.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Rise, Sir Lapdog! Revolt, lover! God, pal--rise, sir!
From jk Fri Mar 7 06:05:20 1997
Subject: Returned mail: User unknown
To: tu
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 06:05:20 -0500 (EST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 1630
Status: RO
> So, you think your ideas are righteous enough to impose upon not only
> those around you, but everyone? Sounds a little familiar. Something
> like that happened in Germany.
It would help if I knew what you were responding to. I don't propose
anywhere that I be made an absolute dictator whose ideas have the force
of law.
Germany was a case not of attempted righteousness but of the triumph of
the will. The will of the Fuehrer was the highest law. So it has more
in common with the liberal view that the will of every individual is
the highest law than with my view, that human will does not make moral
law.
> Before you stop reading, have you ever thought about what it means to
> NOT judge others and let God do His job, as they say?
The relationship between the Gospel and the social order is of course a
difficult one. Do you propose that all human laws, social standards,
etc. be abolished because they are of necessity judgmental?
> The yardstick which shall be used to judge you will be severely long,
> although I'm sure you started out with the best of intentions.
Here you seem to be judging me. Are you being consistent?
> How many "good" intentions have fallen astray? I can only ask that
> you perhaps think about using your unmistakable passion for positive,
> forgiving, constructive things.
I do my best. Unfortunately you have not pointed out any specific
problems.
> Passion is a good thing. What we do with it, however, is often not.
True enough.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Rise, Sir Lapdog! Revolt, lover! God, pal--rise, sir!
From jk Fri Mar 21 12:44:49 1997
Subject: Re: Cantuar & gays in US Seminaries -Reply
To: fl
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 1997 12:44:49 -0500 (EST)
Cc: anglican@du.edu, rsutter@du.edu
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 747
Status: RO
> Amazing, what a poor response we got from a man who had such an
> impact on the Church of England - and now this flood of messages once
> we move from the brain to the bedroom.
Hooker didn't devote himself to scholarly discussions of Aquinas, he
wrote about the hot issues of his time, things like the form of church
polity and how scripture should be read. It's not silly for sex to be
a hot issue -- it seems to me fundamental to human life, certainly no
less so than organizational hierarchies. Of course, we should try to
deal with bedrooms as faithfully and intelligently as he dealt with
organizational charts.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Depardieu, go razz a rogue I draped.
From jk Wed May 21 22:19:00 1997
Subject: Re: Belloc Books
To: j
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 22:19:01 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 2631
Status: RO
> Within the past couple of weeks, I've read a couple of books by
> Belloc that perhaps should be on the a.r.c resources list: Cranmer
> and James II.
I'll add them. Probably I should add more of Belloc as well.
> It's occurred to me that James II, as Belloc argues, really was the
> real British patriot, while WIlliam III was something of a "rootless
> cosmopolitan" and a tool of English plutocratic interests.
I know too little to say much. The Stuarts were bounced by the Brits
and then after the restoration it seems they never really got their
roots back. From the standpoint of the English they were foreigners
anyway.
> I've really enjoyed plowing through your home page. The stuff you've
> accumulated on Anglicanism is downright fascinating. I particularly
> enjoyed the stuff on Anglicanism written from a Greek Orthodox
> perspective. Interestingly enough, there is a rather substantial
> Eastern Orthodox contingent in the SL, mostly comprised of
> disenfranchised Episcopalians who, for one reason or another,
> rejected continuing Tradition Anglicanism. Moreover, there seems to
> be a rising interest in Orthodoxy among many other educated
> Southerners who either have grown disenhanted with mainline
> Protestantism or think evangelical Protestantism has gone too
> "mainline."
The CofE has just about disappeared and ECUSA is a horrible mess.
People want to stay part of the Church that's visibly been here since
33 A.D. but don't want to turn Papist. That leaves the EOs.
I'm of multiple minds. It seems to me the problem with the modern
world and especially America is that people have an authority problem.
If that's so, is squeamishness about the Pope a good thing? Also, EO
is exotic. Does that mean that people are looking for escape rather
than transformation?
On the other hand, no matter where you think the modern world went off
the tracks (unless you're Alain de Benoist) the EOs haven't gotten that
far yet, which is a good thing. Also, they're more practiced than
Westerners in maintaining the faith under grossly adverse
circumstances, which is valuable now and I expect in the coming years.
> I also aspire to write an essay along the lines of "The South as A
> Counter-revolutionary Movement." Got any suggestions?
The symbolism of the Battle Flag here and abroad.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Drab as a fool, aloof as a bard.
From jk Mon Jun 23 07:15:40 1997
Subject: Re: Warner-Lambert Feedback
To: HORNERC@mops.wl.com (Chip Horner)
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 07:15:40 -0400 (EDT)
In-Reply-To: from "Chip Horner" at Jun 16, 97 04:00:48 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 970
Status: RO
> Warner-Lambert believes that a diversity of types of entertainment
> and issues can be programmed on television. Our policy is basically
> to make evaluations on an episode by episode basis.
It seems to me something more than this has to be said about the
_Ellen_ situation. The significance of the episode was acknowledged
by all sides -- saying it was part of your policy of "a little bit of
this and a little bit of that" doesn't really cover it.
In addition -- "[o]ur policy is basically to make evaluations on an
episode by episode basis" may be an honest account of how you view your
actions. Its effect though is to disclaim responsibility for your
overall course of conduct. To act responsibly it is necessary to stand
back occasionally to look at the cumulative effect of decisions.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Whilst we are waiting we beguile the time with jokes, with sleep, with
eating and with crimes." -- Emerson
From jk Tue Jul 1 06:09:19 1997
Subject: Re: (no subject)
To: rm
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 1997 06:09:19 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 2802
Status: RO
> I am amazed at your prejucicial self-important theory that you have
> all the answers and that everyone else's answers are wrong.
How is this true of me more than you? You seem quite sure you are
right and I am wrong. Also, it's worth pointing out that my position
is only that the things people have generally thought and felt are
justified. It seems to me it is the opposing position, your position,
that is self-important.
> I know several gay couples whose relationships put most heterosexual
> relationships to shame. They would make much better parents than
> most of the people I know who have had children.
Speculation. More to the point, irrelevant -- I nowhere suggest that
the things that have traditionally been considered sexual immorality
have bad consequences in each particular case, only that their general
social acceptance has bad consequences.
> Although the society itself eventually fell prey to the outside
> negativity concerning their practices, the Oneida colony was a
> society in which children were raised, not by their parents but by
> the group as a whole.
A charismatic leader and a small self-selected group can do surprising
things. When their leader died the colony abandoned the practices.
There have been other examples in very recent times of the
extraordinary effect a gifted leader can have on a small group --
Jonestown and the Branch Davidians come to mind (as I understand the
matter the latter had its sexual oddities as well).
> The problems with teenage boys of single mothers are less related to
> sexual mores than they are to the fact that closed minded people look
> down on the single mother and she loses her support system. Without
> a support system, she cannot provide a stable enviornment financially
> or emotionally for her child.
What sort of support system could make up for the absence of a father
in the household? In any case, your view seems to require that a
decline in what you call closed mindedness and increased welfare
expenditures reduce bad behavior among young people. The reverse has
happened both in the United States and abroad.
> Rather than stand on your pulpit and preach the wrongs of having sex
> outside of the legality that is marriage, put your money where your
> mouth is and start feeding the hungry minds and bodies of the
> suffering children. You are as much a part of a problem as any
> person who doesn't follow your rules is.
You know nothing about what I do otherwise, so your objection seems
simply to be to saying in public that sex outside of marriage is bad.
I've presented my reasons for thinking the contrary.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Whilst we are waiting we beguile the time with jokes, with sleep, with
eating and with crimes." -- Emerson
From jk Fri Oct 24 20:29:14 1997
Subject: Re: misogyny
To: Pl
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 20:29:14 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 716
Status: RO
I've always loved Chuangtse. I don't think I could have gotten through
law school if I hadn't been able to read him while getting somewhat
drunk in the evening. Still, I prefer Confucius, who said that he
understood Taoist objections but was a man and couldn't separate
himself from human society, and Pascal, who understood both skepticism
and its impossibility.
Also consider Plato, who agreed with the Taoists that ultimate truths
could not be obtained through argument but nonetheless thought it
useful.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Every reform is only a mask under cover of which a more terrible
reform, which dares not yet name itself, advances." -- Emerson
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Fri Feb 6 19:19:30 EST 1998
Article: 11291 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Limited Government
Date: 6 Feb 1998 19:14:20 -0500
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <6bg90s$s4f@panix.com>
References: <34CE68D7.833@msmisp.com> <6b4irt$m2d@panix.com> <886546851snz@bloxwich.demon.co.uk> <6b8k5o$ccq@panix.com> <886802551snz@bloxwich.demon.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
In <886802551snz@bloxwich.demon.co.uk> rafael cardenas writes:
>I wonder how you would handle the post of a leftist who attempted to
>treat the Parable of the Talents in the manner above.
Still don't understand. If someone said "the Parable of the Talents is
not about approval of capitalism" I would agree.
>What the text says is that if that young man wished to be saved, he
>must abandon all his posessions and give to the poor.
Sure. It still lends no support to the welfare state.
>American Protestantism is a strange religion, even when it doesn't
>extend to paying gunmen and thugs to murder archbishops at Mass and to
>assassinate Jesuit priests.
There seem to be a lot of things that are obvious to you that are not
at all so to me. That's OK, of course, but if you simply presume them
in your posts there's no communication. I should add that you seem to
have no idea what my views are.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Every reform is only a mask under cover of which a more terrible
reform, which dares not yet name itself, advances." -- Emerson
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Sat Feb 7 06:26:37 EST 1998
Article: 11293 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Limited Government
Date: 7 Feb 1998 06:24:43 -0500
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 42
Message-ID: <6bhg9r$5dh@panix.com>
References: <34CE68D7.833@msmisp.com> <6b4irt$m2d@panix.com> <886546851snz@bloxwich.demon.co.uk> <6b8k5o$ccq@panix.com> <886802551snz@bloxwich.demon.co.uk> <6bg90s$s4f@panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
In <6bg90s$s4f@panix.com> jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) writes:
>In <886802551snz@bloxwich.demon.co.uk> rafael cardenas writes:
>>What the text says is that if that young man wished to be saved, he
>>must abandon all his posessions and give to the poor.
>Sure. It still lends no support to the welfare state.
Thought I would expand a little.
The principle of the welfare state is to guarantee to all a materially
secure and comfortable way of life. It views that guarantee or at
least the attempt to attain it as fully as possible as a fundamental
moral principle. Its orientation is thus toward the economic side of
life. A fundamental good is for everyone to be as rich as possible,
and the relevant moral issue is the fair distribution of that wealth.
It's worth noting that the welfare state accepts differences in income
and wealth as incentives, to encourage abundant production of the goods
and services it redistributes. So it would not be at all pleased if
prosperous people all suddenly decided they didn't care about making
money but wanted to pursue spiritual interests instead. After all, if
that happened where would the money come from to pay the bills?
The relevant gospel principle is that concern with wealth - the
economic side of life - makes it impossible to give oneself wholly to
love of God and neighbor. Those who have wealth become attached to it
and lose their singleness of heart. Therefore they would be better off
giving it away. If thy right eye offend thee etc.
I don't see much similarity between the principles. In fact, to me
they seem thoroughly opposed. My view of the matter may only
demonstrate how bizarre I am. Or I may be lying, and think the two
principles are identical or that the principle of the welfare state or
the gospel is something quite other than I say. If so, though, it's
not clear what point there is in discussing things. That's one reason
for the convention that in discussion one treats one's partner as if he
were sane, honest and well-meaning.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Every reform is only a mask under cover of which a more terrible
reform, which dares not yet name itself, advances." -- Emerson
From jk Tue Feb 3 16:45:08 1998
Subject: Re: Conservatism Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
To: j-s
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 16:45:08 -0500 (EST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 1148
Status: RO
> You probably don't remember this, but I talked to you a few years ago
> about this FAQ when you were developing it.
I recall your making comments. I seem to recall that you had a number
of them.
> My emphasis upon the skeptical origins of the defense of tradition
> and the status quo is deeply grounded in the conservative tradition.
> The first conservatives, Edmund Burke and David Hume, were skeptical
> conservatives. They defended tradition and the status quo, but also
> advocated moderate reforms. They were powerful intellectuals, but
> they were skeptical of man's ability of create his own philosophy out
> of abstract metaphysical concepts.
Burke and Hume seem rather different to me. Burke emphasized the
necessity of religion, he thought it fundamental to human life, and he
didn't try to come up with a theoretical perspective exempt from that
general necessity.
> Let me know if you want to talk about this in more detail.
Sure.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Every reform is only a mask under cover of which a more terrible
reform, which dares not yet name itself, advances." -- Emerson
From jk Sat Feb 7 08:04:28 1998
Subject: Re: Skeptical Conservatism
To: j-s
Date: Sat, 7 Feb 1998 08:04:28 -0500 (EST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 3020
Status: RO
> True, but have you read Burke's _Vindication of Natural Society_?
> The book draws heavily upon the writings of religious skeptics
Haven't read it. My impression had been that the book was an
intellectual exercise, a demonstration that if you assume skepticism
you're still led back to an existing order of things founded on loyalty
and faith, but an impression of an unread book can not of course be
relied on.
> My impression is that both of them were religious skeptics, but they
> both defend the belief in God as a socially useful construct.
As opposed to some other truer belief as to God and society held by
philosophers? As opposed to having no belief whatever as to the basic
nature of the world? I think that's false at least as to Burke. He no
doubt was a skeptic but then so was Pascal. As P. points out, the
problem is that human action is impossible without going beyond
skepticism to positive belief. Human action requires rationality, and
there is no rationality without beliefs as to the setting in which we
are acting. To say such beliefs are socially useful constructs doesn't
capture how necessary they are. It suggests that there are some men
(philosophers, say) who can rationally stand aside from them.
> There is a branch of conservatism which I think is clearly grounded
> in philosophical skepticism.
Conservatism is normally grounded in philosophical skepticism if
"philosophical skepticism" means the view that we don't have
demonstrative grounds for our beliefs. I'm not sure what follows from
that. Certainly having no beliefs at all is not what follows -- faith
for example makes no sense apart from philosophical skepticism. My
relation to the Pythagorean Theorem is not one of faith.
> Humans are not as smart and knowledgeable as we think we are and that
> is why we need to respect (although not revere) traditional systems.
Why not revere them? Burke certainly thought reverence was
fundamental. If something working for good exceeds all possible
understanding reverence is appropriate. For that matter, man is a
social animal, and if something makes you what you are and gives you
what you have in common with others reverence is appropriate. Without
reverence there is no sacrifice, because individual interests are the
only motive for action, and without sacrifice there is no society and
so no human life.
> give tradition the benefit of the doubt.
You seem to present tradition as something like folk medicine, one
source of ideas among others, to be compared with other things and
judged by the autonomous rational intellect, but with an additional
proviso that in the event of uncertainty tradition is to be preferred.
Strikes me as slow Jacobinism. I don't see where the loyalty and
submission to something held in common greater than ourselves comes in.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Every reform is only a mask under cover of which a more terrible
reform, which dares not yet name itself, advances." -- Emerson
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Tue Feb 17 17:56:53 EST 1998
Article: 11392 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Envy
Date: 17 Feb 1998 09:50:10 -0500
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 69
Message-ID: <6cc832$g4k@panix.com>
References: <34E8D2CE.6132@msmisp.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
X-Newsposter: trn 4.0-test55 (26 Feb 97)
Carl Jahnes writes:
> And as you say, if there are "two conceptions of the Democratic
> Party", then perhaps there is an "altruistic wing" of that party, which
> truly and honestly and as a matter of service only and not as a matter
> of power and advantage, aspires to use the centralized machinery of the
> state to serve the poor.
"Altruistic wing" suggests an identifiable group with long-term
cohesion and some organizational distinctiveness. I don't think such a
thing exists in the Democratic Party although I do remember Liz Holzman
back in the '70s talking about the "constituency of conscience."
There are obviously a several possible reasons for supporting the
Democratic Party (understood as the representative of big-government
liberalism):
1. Disinterested devotion to the public good. This is a factor, as in
the case of all political parties. The devotion is not always well-
informed or clear-thinking, but no large enduring enterprise dependent
on voluntary cooperation and contributions can do without it. I think
it plays a role in the way most people think about politics, but don't
think it's now the basis for factional organization.
2. Self-interest of various kinds. For example, the Democrats will
give me more money. I'm worried about something and the Democrats will
take care of me if it happens. I have weaknesses and the Democrats
forgive them and make up for them and say that everything's really the
fault of people without the weaknesses. I'm socially marginal and the
Democrats oppose the local traditional self-organizing standards that
make me so. I have vices, but being a Democrat is thought charitable,
and charity covers a multitude of sins, so it's an easy way to keep my
vices and restore my internal equilibrium. I'm a young man on the way
up and the Democrats connect me to the new universal rational order and
so enable me to look down on the small-minded established jerks who
surround me. I'm a lawyer, or a media person, or a social scientist,
or an educator, and the Democrats promote a social order that gives
people like me a prominent role. I'm a richie, and I want to buy off
resentment, and while I'm at it maybe make it harder for other people
to become equally rich. I'm an international businessman and I can
deal with people who know how to weaken local particularism and
strengthen central rationalized organization; there's room for a union
of forces.
> Let us also note that it is possible "guilt feelings" may exist in the
> hearts of those born to certain advantages, say propensity and
> opportunity to the Academic or Professional life
It's worth noting that liberal guilt is an essential part of liberalism
since a liberal society couldn't survive full implementation of its
declared principles. It can exist only by what it considers social
injustice. Those in control, who have large privileges they can't
justify to themselves, are naturally tempted to assuage their guilt at
the expense of others. Some may give into the temptation.
Another comment: F. Roosevelt used to talk about "malefactors of great
wealth," and in the '70s I think the Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer
talked about "making the rich squeal." That type of rhetoric seems to
have declined; instead we hear about racism, sexism and homophobia.
Possibly the movement toward a universal rational social order has
entered a new phase in which it is no longer concentrations of private
wealth that are seen as the main enemy, since they've accepted and are
increasingly integrated with the new system, but rather residual
attachments to local and traditional principles of organization such as
gender, ethnicity and religion.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Every reform is only a mask under cover of which a more terrible
reform, which dares not yet name itself, advances." -- Emerson
From jk Sun Feb 8 21:52:15 1998
Subject: Re: Skeptical Conservatism
To: j-s
Date: Sun, 8 Feb 1998 21:52:15 -0500 (EST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 6422
Status: RO
> You are establishing a false dichotomy between skepticism and faith.
> As Hume points out human action is not grounded upon reason or faith,
> but passion. Reason is useful to the extent that it helps us to
> satisfy and control the passions.
This view seems to assume that what is good reduces without remainder
to what is desired. I don't see why anyone should accept such a view.
It seems dogmatic and contrary to common experience and understanding.
For example, parents do not typically identify what is good for their
children with either what they happen to want, what their children
happen to want, or what the world at large happens to want. The good,
which is the rational goal of action, is a master principle that can't
be reduced to something less than itself. I don't think human action
can be understood without some such conception.
> However, there is a third choice between Pyrrhonism (i.e. radical
> skepticism) and religious faith. That third choice is what Hume
> called mitigated skepticism.
What's the justification of mitigating skepticism enough to believe in
say cause and effect, the veridical nature of memory, and the existence
of minds other than one's own, but not say in the intrinsic rationality
of the world, objective good and evil, and a God whose intelligence
causes that rationality and whose will determines that good?
In any event, Burke did not seem to favor mitigated skepticism as a
third choice between Pyrrhonism and religious faith:
We know, and it is our pride to know, that man is by his
constitution a religious animal; that atheism is against, not only
our reason, but our instincts; and that it cannot pevail long.
> Passion, the appetites, drives human action. Human action is not
> driven by reason or faith. Reason and faith only serve to guide or
> limit the passions and to adjudicate between them.
Pure dogma. What reason is there to believe it? If I am doing a sum
in addition it seems to me it is reason rather than passion that tells
me what to write down. Possibly you wrote the foregoing simply because
your passions drove you to do so. That's what you imply. Should I
take you at your word and read your email as a simple manifestation of
your particular emotional state?
> Burke clearly states that the problem with the Jacobins is that they
> are rationalistic and metaphysical as opposed to empirical and
> skeptical. If I'm a "slow Jacobin", then so is Burke.
He also complains they lack love and reverence. He protests that
On the scheme of this barbarous philosophy, which is the offspring
of cold hearts and muddy understandings, and which is as void of
solid wisdom as it is destitute of all taste and elegance, laws
are to be supported only by their own terrors and by the concern
which each individual may find in them from his own private
speculations or can spare to them from his own private interests.
In the groves of their academy, at the end of every vista, you see
nothing but the gallows. Nothing is left which engages the
affections on the part of the commonwealth. On the principles of
this mechanic philosophy, our institutions can never be embodied,
if I may use the expression, in persons, so as to create in us
love, veneration, admiration, or attachment. But that sort of
reason which banishes the affections is incapable of filling their
place. These public affections, combined with manners, are
required sometimes as supplements, sometimes as correctives,
always as aids to law. The precept given by a wise man, as well as
a great critic, for the construction of poems is equally true as
to states:- Non satis est pulchra esse poemata, dulcia sunto.
There ought to be a system of manners in every nation which a
wll-informed mind would be disposed to relish. To make us love our
country, our country ought to be lovely.
> I'm curious. How do you account for Burke's support for dozens of
> reforms in England over the years? How do you account for his
> support for the American revolution? There is clearly a classical
> liberal element in Burke and in conservatism. I know this sounds
> contradictory and heretical to many people, but its true.
To revere a traditional system is not to insist that each part of it is
sacred. The point of tradition is that it makes usable and knowable
things that can not be grasped otherwise, by explicit reason. So the
sanctity of particular traditions is typically not primary but
derivative. They can be changed when we are convinced the change would
better realize the good of the overall tradition.
While that good can not be grasped and realized in abstraction from the
tradition it is not wholly dependent on each part, any more than a
piece of music is wholly dependent on each note in the score. One can
add a cadenza, leave out a repeat or change the instrumentation
somewhat and it is still the same piece of music. That doesn't mean
that performance is a matter of the conductor or performer making the
music he thinks best but giving the benefit of the doubt to the
composer when he's uncertain.
> > I don't see where the loyalty and submission to something held in
> > common greater than ourselves comes in.
> This has nothing to do with conservatism. It sounds Maoist.
Loyalty and submission are Maoist? If sword, altar and throne are
Maoist then loyalty and submission are too, I suppose. I would have
thought the contrary, though. Mao was a Marxist, and the Marxists
aren't into loyalty and submission. That's always been their problem:
When the old feudal and chivalrous spirit of fealty, which, by
freeing kings from fear, freed both kings and subjects from the
precautions of tyranny, shall be extinct in the minds of men, plots
and assassinations will be anticipated by preventive murder and
preventive confiscation, and that long roll of grim and bloody
maxims which form the political code of all power not standing on
its own honor and the honor of those who are to obey it. Kings
will be tyrants from policy when subjects are rebels from
principle.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Every reform is only a mask under cover of which a more terrible
reform, which dares not yet name itself, advances." -- Emerson
From jk Mon Feb 9 14:37:42 1998
Subject: Re: Skeptical Conservatism
To: j-s
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 14:37:42 -0500 (EST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 1157
Status: RO
> You should read ... _Enquiry Concerning the Principle of Morals_.
> See Hume's _Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding_.
I've read both the above, but it's been 20 years. What I remember is a
debunking of rational categories like cause and effect and objective
good and evil (the fact/value distinction) based on a view of reason
that includes formal logic and not much else, together with a
psychological account of both belief and morals based on association of
ideas.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Every reform is only a mask under cover of which a more terrible
reform, which dares not yet name itself, advances." -- Emerson
From jk Tue Feb 17 11:19:01 1998
Subject: Re: [Fwd: from Ayn rand]
To: r
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 11:19:01 -0500 (EST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 2980
Status: RO
> The crime is the propagation of a widely accepted falsehood: the idea
> that love is selfless.
"Love is selfless" simply means that love pays attention to to what is
loved rather than he who loves. That doesn't strike me as a falsehood.
> Love, we are repeatedly taught, consists of self-sacrifice. Love based
> on self-interest, we are admonished, is cheap and sordid. True love, we
> are told, is altruistic.
Self-sacrifice demonstrates love, it's not its substance. To the
extent a man loves his children he asks what will make them and their
lives better, not what will make his own life better. If he uniformly
puts the latter question first and foremost it seems to me something
has gone wrong. Most often of course the two will be the same or at
least reasonably consistent but not always.
> Imagine receiving a card with the following message: "I get no pleasure
> from your existence. I obtain no personal enjoyment from the way you
> look, dress, move, act or think. Our relationship profits me not. You
> satisfy no sexual, emotional or intellectual needs of mine. You're a
> charity case, and I'm with you only out of pity. Love, XXX."
The card is odd because one who loves sees the good in what he loves.
He is drawn to that good and normally gets happiness from coming close
to it. The important point though is that the happiness is a
consequence. He doesn't love because of the happiness, he is happy
because of the love and the good that is its object. That's why love
remains love even when it causes more unhappiness than happiness. A
mother watching her child die of cancer does not stop loving the child
even though the relationship on balance causes her far more pain than
pleasure.
> A "disinterested" love is a contradiction in terms. One cannot be
> neutral to that which one values.
The point of speaking of "disinterested love" is that one's dominant
interest is the good intrinsic to what is loved rather than some other
good. If John loves Jane because she's pretty, well-connected and
socially deft and so advances his career and social standing and gives
a big boost to his image in his own eyes and the eyes of others it's
not disinterested love. If his love would survive poverty, illness,
disgrace, disappointment and so on, or if he would accept such things
if somehow it proved necessary for Jane's sake, then the phrase has
some meaning.
> It is the view that you ought to be given love unconditionally — the
> view that you do not deserve it any more than some random bum, the view
> that it is not a response to anything particular in you, the view that
> it is causeless — which exemplifies the most ignoble conception of this
> sublime experience.
My understanding of that view is that it is simply recognition that a
man has value just because he is a man. I don't see why that's the
same as the view that all men are equally good or equally worthy of
love or that love is causeless.
Jim
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Wed Feb 18 08:17:29 EST 1998
Article: 11401 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Envy
Date: 17 Feb 1998 21:39:28 -0500
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 62
Message-ID: <6cdhl0$obk@panix.com>
References: <34E8D2CE.6132@msmisp.com> <6cc832$g4k@panix.com> <887754205snz@bloxwich.demon.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
X-Newsposter: trn 4.0-test55 (26 Feb 97)
rafael cardenas writes:
> Who's left to support any other party? Platonic philosopher-kings?
It would be easy enough to come up with a list of self-interested or
public-spirited reasons to support any party.
> >residual attachments to local and traditional principles of
> >organization such as gender, ethnicity and religion.
> An alternative view is that the latter are attacked as a distraction --
> just as in Marxist demonology Fascists attack foreigners, homosexuals,
> etc. as a distraction.
Why believe that economics are the only consideration that has any
effect? (For an argument emphasizing the social, historical and
philosophical necessity of "inclusiveness" and PC see "PC and the
Crisis of Liberalism" at
http://www.cycad.com/cgi-bin/pinc/feb98/kalb-pc.html.)
> And it might be fairer to say that the new system is increasingly
> integrated with concentrations of private wealth, rather than vice
> versa.
It's not wealth simply that drives the new system but rather the forms
and sources of wealth characteristic of the system. To me that means
that the system comes first and the power of wealth is consequent. As
in the case of the French Revolution, the new system is not set up by
those who are already well off for their own collective benefit but by
adventurous classes for reasons not purely economic. Some rich people
gain, others lose.
The new system continues the long-term tendency for wealth to become
less individualized and concrete and therefore abstractly more
rational. More and more wealth is managed by professionals, who are
likely to have little involvement with substantive production, and
owned by pension funds and other financial institutions in the form of
increasingly abstract financial instruments. The power of
industrialists is going the way of that of landowners. Those who
profit most personally tend to be financiers, investment bankers, elite
lawyers and the like. The older business classes did manage to get
Mike Milken jugged, but no revolution goes to completion without its
fallen heroes.
> It was the discussions in the Trilateral Commission and similar organs
> of the 'liberal' ultra-rich, not the pontifications of left-wing
> academics and agitators, that got the new global system off the ground.
In recent years the contribution of the left-wing a & a's has been
social and cultural rather than economic. Social and cultural changes,
for example the delegitimation of ethnic and national loyalties and
standards, have been a necessary part of the new system. It's not the
big capitalists who established the principle that opposition to
immigration and to the transformation of women and men into
interchangeable productive units are moral outrages. As to economics
narrowly construed, state socialism didn't work as a method of economic
organization, so a different tack has become necessary to advance the
construction of the universal rational positivistic system.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Every reform is only a mask under cover of which a more terrible
reform, which dares not yet name itself, advances." -- Emerson
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Wed Feb 18 08:17:30 EST 1998
Article: 11406 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Envy
Date: 18 Feb 1998 07:26:09 -0500
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 45
Message-ID: <6cek11$pik@panix.com>
References: <34EA5814.6918@msmisp.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
In <34EA5814.6918@msmisp.com> cjahnes@msmisp.com (Carl Jahnes) writes:
>> Those in control, who have large privileges they can't justify to
>> themselves, are naturally tempted to assuage their guilt at the
>> expense of others. Some may give into the temptation.
>Do you think they may approve the disbursement of large grants to
>Social Studies Departments at universities, to subsidize the studies
>of privileged Academics who construct abstract symbol systems,
>mathematical formulas, which quantify how much happiness can be had in
>exchange for the expenditure of how much money? Would this be a means
>"they" have, those who possess these privileges they can't justify to
>themselves, of deflecting the evil-eye
Motives are ordinarily complex. One motive that plays some role in
most political activities is of course disinterested concern for the
public good. Another is the one you mention. Another that seems
particularly relevant here is the obvious one, that those able to
construct and apply such formulas can reasonably claim to be the
natural rulers, entitled to the enormous power needed to carry the
formulas into effect, as long as it is accepted that such formulas are
a statement of comprehensive justice.
The privileged naturally like their existing privileges, but they also
like to associate themselves with whatever looks like a new rising
center of power. One makes his superiority durable by allying himself
with what looks like the future. The French nobility, who left their
estates and social function to associate themselves with the Sun King,
came to support the Enlightenment. The same principle was at work in
both cases.
>I think these concentrations of private wealth fund the creation of
>symbol systems (see reference above) which obfuscate the exact location
>*of* this wealth, how "ownership" of this wealth can be dissipated to
>the maintainers of this system of privilege (politics) by means of
>regulation
It does seem that modern conditions dissipate ownership, not only
through regulation but also through institutional investment by pension
funds etc. and through the complexity of the arrangements that finance
modern business.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Every reform is only a mask under cover of which a more terrible
reform, which dares not yet name itself, advances." -- Emerson
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Fri Feb 20 08:56:25 EST 1998
Article: 11419 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Envy
Date: 20 Feb 1998 08:45:24 -0500
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 62
Message-ID: <6ck1dk$94i@panix.com>
References: <887754205snz@bloxwich.demon.co.uk> <6cdhl0$obk@panix.com> <887927118snz@hormel.bloxwich.demon.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
X-Newsposter: trn 4.0-test55 (26 Feb 97)
rafael cardenas writes:
> Would you call David Rockefeller, who established the Trilateral
> Commission, a member of the 'adventurous classes' and not 'already well
> off' at that time?
I would say that the TC has been far less a committee of the possessing
classes as such than of the interests and classes best positioned to
influence and benefit from world developments. It's intended to shape
the future more than defend the status quo. Its members of course are
already quite well off. The same could be said of most men with great
ambitions. DR's bank, by the way, was recently swallowed up by more
successful players, although the Chase name was retained due to its
prestige.
> > The power of industrialists is going the way of that of landowners.
> > Those who profit most personally tend to be financiers, investment
> > bankers, elite lawyers and the like.
> That is true. But you yourself, I think, reject the idea of a
> corporation (or a financial institution, or even the 'money market'
> generally), as an organism, which rejects and spews out anyone within it
> (however exalted) whose activities threaten its anti-human survival.
Not sure of the relevance or meaning. A corporation is a kind of
organism, the 'money market' far less so. The investment bankers who
design and market new financial products, services and investment
strategies for a living (to make tons of money, actually) really do
think of financial markets in impersonal mathematical classical-
economics terms.
> In my country immigration was encouraged by the Conservative
> government in the 1950s as a means of keeping down wage costs.
I won't argue the contrary, only that it's the moral dominance of
egalitarian ideology and not the power of businessmen who like low wages
that makes serious immigration control an untouchable subject. We can
agree that multinational business and modern marketing fit rather nicely
with PoMo liberalism. Both favor disintegration of given or ascribed
identities in favor of abstract rational systems of control and
manipulation.
My impression is that the difference between us is that you think it's
money that runs things and I think no, not overall and in the long run,
because economic power is a consequence of more fundamental
purposes and understandings.
> State socialism was never tried in the West. The Keynesian 'mixed
> economy', though it eventually became unstable, worked better
I was under the impression that in Western Europe including the UK a
number of large industrial enterprises were owned by the government. As
to the mixed economy, I would agree that it can work well for a while in
reasonably compact and cohesive countries. It has the usual flaw of
comprehensive systems of social management though, the comprehensive
separation of actors from the consequences of their actions. Hence the
instability as it becomes less and less clear who's entitled to what in
exchange for what.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Every reform is only a mask under cover of which a more terrible
reform, which dares not yet name itself, advances." -- Emerson
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Fri Feb 20 20:02:18 EST 1998
Article: 11422 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: A novel attack on liberalism
Date: 20 Feb 1998 19:48:46 -0500
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 88
Message-ID: <6cl89e$muk@panix.com>
References: <887933159snz@bloxwich.demon.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
Paul Treanor says:
> Liberalism aims at maximising interaction.
Seems an odd claim. In part of course it depends on what we're
comparing liberalism with. To the extent though that liberalism
emphasizes procedure and accepts property rights it limits interaction
or at least compulsory interaction to particular settings. Property
rights of course create a zone of privacy good against the world and not
just the government.
I would say that advanced liberalism tends to become more radically
egalitarian, as required by the basic liberal principle of value
relativism, and therefore less interested in procedure and property
rights. That doesn't seem Treanor's point, though. When continental
Europeans hear "liberalism" they seem to think of classical liberalism
and sharply distinguish it from socialism.
Incidentally, advanced-liberal egalitarianism tends to suppress
interactions with anything except universal institutions because if
they are permitted to have effects they create inequalities. Instead,
the primary interactions of each individual are with a bureaucracy
asserted to represent everyone collectively and with a universal market
purified through central bureaucratic supervision. I'm not sure how
that fits into Treanor's scheme.
> And while the idea of a pre-liberal state suggests lack of
> interaction,
Feudalism has lots of interaction. Personal loyalties and all. Ditto
tribalism.
Maybe a distinction could be drawn between the formal and therefore
somewhat narrow interactions of modern systems based on market and
bureaucracy and the less formal but more comprehensive interactions of
traditional, feudal and tribal systems. The former maximize the number
of interactions and their rational aggregation, the latter their
comprehensiveness. Or one could distinguish between interactions among
individuals and interactions with the world market or universal
bureaucracy. The problem I have with "maximizing interaction" as a
category of analysis is that interaction has many varieties and aspects
not all of which can be maximized at the same time.
> there is no political theory of structured non-interaction as a contrast
> to liberalism.
Democratic centralism? Rule by the vanguard of the working class? My
own neo-Levantine theory that foresees a future of weak despotism
combined with ethno-religious communalism?
> Psycho-socially, then, liberalism promotes interrelationship among
> humans, and willingness to place "network" above "self".
Also the contrary, grossly impulsive, self-seeking and radically
antisocial behavior. Value relativism makes all vanish into air, so it
becomes unclear whether I am everything and society nothing or the
reverse. Some act in accordance with one theory, others in accordance
with the other.
> If community among humans disappeared, liberal mechanisms could
> reconstruct it - by processes of coagulation and clustering in
> interaction.... Transmission of preferences through such systems means
> that the entire system must be dragged along before change takes effect.
The two sentences seem inconsistent. Do liberal mechanisms mean that
differentiation of preferences resulting in loss of community lead to
reconstruction of separate communities or not?
> In particular the market acts to preserve national values. (A company
> offering a national-flag-burning service would not last long in a
> solidly patriotic nation state).
True enough, if absolutely everyone were already reliably patriotic for
other reasons. I would have thought though that acting to "to preserve
national values" would somehow include inhibition of contrary values.
He's shown no mechanism for that.
> That said, what can be done, politically, to rescue innovation from
> liberal democracy?
I'm not sure what sense such a question makes apart from an account of
desirable changes. What does Treanor want? I get the impression that
he thinks it goes without saying. In 1998 though theories of the Good
*don't* go without saying.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Every reform is only a mask under cover of which a more terrible
reform, which dares not yet name itself, advances." -- Emerson
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Sat Feb 21 19:27:06 EST 1998
Article: 11428 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: A novel attack on liberalism
Date: 21 Feb 1998 19:24:44 -0500
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 49
Message-ID: <6cnr8c$i2u@panix.com>
References: <887933159snz@bloxwich.demon.co.uk> <6cl89e$muk@panix.com> <888095183snz@bloxwich.demon.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
raf391@hormel.bloxwich.demon.co.uk (rafael cardenas) writes:
> I think the point he makes (which comes out more strongly in the
> piece on the Internet as a liberal conspiracy) is that one can't
> _escape_ from the interaction, whether with the bureaucracy or the
> market: its claims are universal and therefore oppressive. No
> Robinson Crusoes are allowed, no independent cultures.
"Maximizing interaction" is just the wrong concept, though.
Independent cultures exist by virtue of intensive interactions within
boundaries. I don't think total interaction would be greater in a
world without boundaries than one with them. Actually, I'm inclined to
think it would be less. Man is a social animal. When I speak a
language I interact with the whole community of its speakers throughout
history and into the future. If that community is expanded to include
the whole world the language becomes a trade jargon or pidgen and
interactions using the language lose content.
Maybe there is an implicit liberal ideal of universal immediate
rational interaction perhaps most perfectly realized through a global
electronic market that instantly sorts, aggregates and matches all
desires and resources. A universal welfare bureaucracy would be
intended to do the same thing, only more equally but very likely less
efficiently. Maybe the greatest perfection could be attained if both
helped each other out in a mixed economy with antidiscrimination laws
etc.
To my mind though the problem is less too much interaction than type of
interaction. Abstract universal techniques of sorting, aggregation and
satisfaction of desire tend to destroy the organic unity of persons,
cultural formations, etc. To the extent organic unity, one's soul for
example, isn't destroyed it becomes isolated because unable to
communicate through existing channels that are set up to deal with
fragments of things, with generically specifiable desires or capacities
that can be aggregated with millions of similar desires or capacities
and handled accordingly. Hence the loneliness of man in liberal
society. Hence also the thought of Ralph Waldo Emerson, inventor of
liberal spirituality.
Presumably the problem is not only with liberalism but with all modern
that is to say universal and fully rationalized systems. All of them
aim to dissolve individual and cultural particularities without
residue. The concrete and unaccountable must be abolished. Fascist
and communist regimes had plenty of interaction, rallies, loudspeakers
and so on, no room for privacy, and aspired to absolute unity.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Every reform is only a mask under cover of which a more terrible
reform, which dares not yet name itself, advances." -- Emerson
From jk Sat Feb 21 09:01:01 1998
Subject: Vindication of Natural Society
To: j-s
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 1998 09:01:01 -0500 (EST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 572
Status: RO
Hello!
I've finished _Vindication of Natural Society_. It seems very closely
tied to a particular argumentative situation so it's hard to draw any
general conclusions from it. I don't see that it lends much support to
the view that Burke was a skeptic except to the extent one calls a
denial that clear demonstrative knowledge is sufficient for the
purposes of life skepticism.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Every reform is only a mask under cover of which a more terrible
reform, which dares not yet name itself, advances." -- Emerson
From jk@panix.com Sat Feb 21 13:09:55 1998
Received: (from jk@localhost)
by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id NAA24237;
Sat, 21 Feb 1998 13:09:55 -0500 (EST)
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 1998 13:09:55 -0500 (EST)
From: Jim Kalb
Message-Id: <199802211809.NAA24237@panix.com>
Subject: Old comments on old ajbird message
I composed the following shortly before ajbird posted his latest, and
posted it shortly before the cataclysm that wiped out all messages.
Ill-fated though it be, I'll post it again:
> consensual touching between two persons of the same sex, in the
> context of a loving and committed relationship is not addressed,
> by Jesus or anyone else, including Paul.
Actually, Jesus does address it, in the parable of the Prodigal Son
for example. Luke 15:20: "But when he was yet a great way off, his
father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck,
and kissed him." So it appears that if I affectionately put my arm
around my son's shoulders I'm OK from a biblical standpoint.
> "Burning in lust" doesn't sound much like loving to me, be it
> heterosexual or homosexual.
Quite true. So there seems to be nothing wrong with a loving same-sex
relationship as long as sexual desire is not relevant. The concern I
think is with the latter rather than the former. In general, Jesus and
Paul both seem suspicious of action based on impulses that in our
present state tend to become radically self-seeking and even obsessive
-- greed, lust, love of power. To my mind it makes sense to handle
such things by looking for the natural function of the impulses and
limiting their expression to situations that support that function.
With regard to heterosexual desire Paul's comment is "if they cannot
contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn."
Again, he thinks of sexual desire as a sort of burning. It appears
however that he wouldn't permit marriage to all cases, for example
in the case of a man sexually attracted to his father's wife. 1
Corinthians 5:1. Some heterosexual desires can be acted on, others
not.
Such distinctions make sense to me; sexual desire has a natural
function and can't be rejected categorically without the destruction
of the human race, which seems a bad thing. Depending on how it is
handled it can either knit together or disrupt the natural family
order. So what seem to be needed are standards for the expression of
desire that work it into a stable social and interpersonal order that
respects and supports its natural function. It is plain however that
the key is not whether a relationship is loving and committed, since a
man *should* have a loving and committed relationship with his
stepmother (and still more with his actual mother, his sisters, his
daughters, his students if he is a teacher, etc.).
Status: RO
From jk Mon Feb 23 07:36:16 1998
Subject: Re: Concentration Camps
To: r
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 07:36:16 -0500 (EST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 1127
Status: RO
> Hanna Arnedt who some say is the best chronicler of the camps, reported
> that an inmate asked a guard this question:
>
> Inmate "Why?"
>
> Guard "There is no why here."
>
> In other words, there is no reason why.
No reason as between guard and inmate, because the principle of the
camps was that the inmates were not part of a common moral order with
the guards by reference to which reasons could be given. That's
different from Kant's view since he believed in a universal moral order
that included all rational beings. Among the guards and the regime
there *was* a purpose to the camp, to get rid of people whom they
believed the world would do better without.
Have you read Kant? In his _Groundwork for the Metaphysic of Morals_
for example (it's a short book, less than 100 pages) he says we have a
duty to help others and at least an indirect duty to assure our own
happiness. He says a man is obliged to develop his own talents "[f]or
as a rational being he necessarily wills that all of his powers should
be developed, since they serve him, and are given him, for all sorts of
possible ends."
Jim
From jk Tue Feb 24 08:27:52 1998
Subject: Re: Vindication of Natural Society
To: j-s
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 08:27:52 -0500 (EST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 3609
Status: RO
Hello!
> Clearly, the book is designed to convince young religious skeptics
> (or agnostics) that they shouldn't be too skeptical towards
> government and tradition, i.e. they shouldn't become revolutionaries.
But he doesn't say "if you're a religious skeptic you should
nonetheless accept the established political order." Instead he seems
to say "if sweeping away the established political order and for that
matter every established political order gives you a problem you should
rethink your acceptance of the kind of skeptical argument that you've
come up with in the case of religion." It's not at all obvious to me
he's willing to leave religious skepticism just where it is.
> > I don't see that it lends much support to the view that Burke was a
> > skeptic except to the extent one calls a denial that clear
> > demonstrative knowledge is sufficient for the purposes of life
> > skepticism.
> I have read your sentence eight times and I am still not sure what
> you meant to say.
I meant that one could call someone a skeptic who says "There are
questions we must as a practical matter decide that can not be
demonstrated one way or another; simple examples are whether the
universe will continue to exist another 10 minutes and whether those
around me have an inner life rather like mine or are mindless robots
controlled by positronic emissions from Mars. On such issues
agnosticism is not really a possibility. We can have justified beliefs
and even knowledge on such things even though Descartes shows us doubt
is always possible."
> _The Vindication_ is clearly a skeptical book because it holds
> religion and civil society in doubt and then, in the end, vindicates
> them as necessary to human happiness. I also believe that the book
> is conservative because it defends the essentials of liberal British
> society.
I don't see where it vindicates them as necessary to human happiness.
It presents arguments to the effect that artificial society is opposed
to justice and happiness, presumably in parallel to arguments that
artificial religion is opposed to truth and happiness. It seems clear
Burke believes there is something fundamentally wrong with the
arguments but he doesn't say what that thing is. It might be that
religion and government are useful although false and unjust or it
might not. It seems sufficient to him to provoke the reader to rethink
his position. Even if he implied more of a positive view it wouldn't
be clear whether he was presenting the abstractly best reasons for
rejecting the arguments or the reasons most likely to appeal to those
pursuing a particular line of thought.
I suppose he might also have written _The Vindication of Artificial
Knowledge_ cribbing from Swift, various skeptics, the dependence of
organized learning on artificial society, etc. If he had would it have
been clear that the justification of the sciences in his view is
utility rather than truth?
Also, I also don't see anything particular in the _Vindication_ about
liberal British society.
> Did you enjoy the book at all? Did you read the Liberty Fund edition
> of it? They did a wonderful job with the introduction and footnotes.
I liked it. Even at age 27 he was a great rhetorician. Also, it gives
more depth of background to the conservative position for which he
eventually became best known. And I did read the LF edition. That's a
great publishing project.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Every reform is only a mask under cover of which a more terrible
reform, which dares not yet name itself, advances." -- Emerson
From jk Tue Feb 24 17:45:32 1998
Subject: Re: anti-feminism
To: c
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 17:45:32 -0500 (EST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 456
Status: RO
My own approach to these issues is mostly traditionalist but there are
certainly points of contact with ecoradicalism. Both perspectives
accept that there are severe limits to conscious rational control of
the world and so view the self-seeking technoradicalism that is behind
feminism and modern politics generally with horror.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
From jk Tue Feb 24 18:02:10 1998
Subject: Re: post-vivum
To: sch
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 18:02:10 -0500 (EST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 1372
Status: RO
> How was our on-air conversation with you? I thought it unfolded
> quite interestingly. One thing I'd like in particular to ask you was
> whether you felt you "got anything out of it," whether the
> exploration we did together gave you anything that you hadn't already
> had in your mind and that you find some value in.
I thought it went well. We got rather quickly I thought to a point of
difference we've touched on before, what the holes in the physicists'
picture of the world (e.g., consciousness, the reality of mathematical
objects, the objectivity of the good and its irreducibility to human
purposes, etc.) show about the world, and whether a crane based on the
physicists' version of reality is sufficient to make sense of things or
something more radical is called for.
"What if" games do shake up perspectives so they're fun to play with.
I had thought about the "no God" scenario (I become a Samuel Beckett
character) and the "impersonal God" scenario (I become a Taoist
recluse) but not about the Rabbi's "minimally interactive God" notion
and it was an interesting one to think about.
Look forward to future discussions. Hope the show went well otherwise.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Every reform is only a mask under cover of which a more terrible
reform, which dares not yet name itself, advances." -- Emerson
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Thu Feb 26 07:09:16 EST 1998
Article: 11446 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: REVOLUTION!
Date: 25 Feb 1998 17:56:20 -0500
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <6d27ik$6t8@panix.com>
References: <34F33CCF.68FE@earthlink.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
In "James C. Langcuster" writes:
>Joseph Molnar's book, Counter-revolution, also is superb.
Thomas Molnar's book of the same name may be more readily available.
What else should one read? There are lots and lots of things. Some
*very* random suggestions:
The Communist Manifesto
Georges Sorel, _Reflections on Violence_.
Carlyle's _The French Revolution_.
Burke's _Reflections on the Revolution in France_.
Voegelin's _New Science of Politics.
Books viii and ix of Plato's _Republic_.
On a topic like "the nature of revolution and revolutionaries" it pays
to read a variety of very different writers.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Every reform is only a mask under cover of which a more terrible
reform, which dares not yet name itself, advances." -- Emerson
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Fri Feb 27 06:32:43 EST 1998
Article: 11453 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Tea Party Time, PJB
Date: 27 Feb 1998 06:31:41 -0500
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 32
Message-ID: <6d686t$3m6@panix.com>
References: <34F556B0.315@msmisp.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
cjahnes@msmisp.com (Carl Jahnes) writes:
> > But the signatures that carry the threat are
> > those of 100 of America's corporate elite and
> > money power: the chairmen and CEOs of AT&T,
> > General Electric, General Motors, IBM, ITT,
> > Exxon, Chase Manhattan, BankAmerica and the
> > media mega-empires of Time Warner and Times
> > Mirror.
Good populist rhetoric, and I don't favor global financial management
either, but what is the threat?
The implied message I think is "we Presidents, Secretaries of State and
the Treasury, corporate big-whigs etc. know how all this stuff works,
and you little congressmen don't, so be good boys and get with the
program and give us what we say we need so everything doesn't get all
fouled up."
The men signing the letter really believe the world needs to be run by
them. It's just part of the law of nature. "Do it my way or there
will be problems" is sometimes a threat, but in this case I think it's
simple self-centered arrogance.
I can't help but wonder if Mr. Buchanan would do better giving his
readers analysis rather than talk of ultimata. He could still be as
unflattering to internationalist elites as he wants.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Every reform is only a mask under cover of which a more terrible
reform, which dares not yet name itself, advances." -- Emerson
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Fri Feb 27 14:14:07 EST 1998
Article: 11456 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Tea Party Time, PJB
Date: 27 Feb 1998 14:09:29 -0500
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 38
Message-ID: <6d7319$88d@panix.com>
References: <34F6B01E.5D42@msmisp.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
In <34F6B01E.5D42@msmisp.com> cjahnes@msmisp.com (Carl Jahnes) writes:
>> Good populist rhetoric, and I don't favor global financial
>> management either, but what is the threat?
>First of all, the threat is as Sam Francis analyzes it. Using the
>wealth of American Taxpayers to build the chimera of "world
>institutions" destabilizes the nation, the institutions by which
>justice is secured here in America, for the sake of a utopian
>internationaliste vision.
But that's the threat OF internationalist elites, not a threat BY
internationalist elites. The word "ultimatum" etc. makes it seem
Buchanan was talking about the latter.
>Second of all, the (implied) threat is that the quasi-sovereignties
>PJB mentions above will continue to export jobs and wealth to
>jurisdictions where they can control the law.
That would make sense if they were demanding changes in U.S. internal
law, but they're demanding U.S. support for their global financial
system. If the support isn't forthcoming they can't pack their bags
and go someplace else where the global financial system exists.
>I think he does a pretty good job as it is.
He does many good things. In this case though it looks like he's
trying to turn something into a barroom brawl. Maybe that's a good
idea in this particular situation. It seems to me though that popular
right-wing movements especially in the U.S. have been long on
semiarticulate feelings that something has gone wrong and on
expressions of outrage and short on reliable and useable analysis. The
consequence is that now and then people make a fuss about this or that
but the same general trend continues.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Every reform is only a mask under cover of which a more terrible
reform, which dares not yet name itself, advances." -- Emerson
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Sat Feb 28 05:44:18 EST 1998
Article: 11463 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Tea Party Time, PJB
Date: 28 Feb 1998 04:56:42 -0500
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 13
Message-ID: <6d8n0q$jnv@panix.com>
References: <34F556B0.315@msmisp.com> <888618284snz@bloxwich.demon.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
In <888618284snz@bloxwich.demon.co.uk> raf391@hormel.bloxwich.demon.co.uk (rafael cardenas) writes:
>So presumably the US should be thrown out of the UN, on the principle
>of no representation without taxation
I thought the US were paying quite a lot of their assessment, just not
all of it. $1 billion over 20 years is $50 million a year, which means
that if the assessment is more than $100 million (I would have guessed
it to be much more) they are paying most of it.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Every reform is only a mask under cover of which a more terrible
reform, which dares not yet name itself, advances." -- Emerson
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Sat Feb 28 05:44:19 EST 1998
Article: 11464 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Tea Party Time, PJB
Date: 28 Feb 1998 05:08:35 -0500
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 20
Message-ID: <6d8nn3$lhk@panix.com>
References: <34F556B0.315@msmisp.com> <6d7lre$9sa$1@netnews.upenn.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
In <6d7lre$9sa$1@netnews.upenn.edu> jcarney2@dolphin.upenn.edu (John Carney) writes:
>The ultimatum here is issued to Congress; members of Congress will
>"face the wrath of America's power elite." This simply means that the
>internationalists will put their considerable wealth and influence
>behind political campaigns to defeat isolationists.
That wasn't at all clear from the column, at least to me. Also, how
much giving to political campaigns has to do with grandiose issues like
the international financial system? Campaigns for congress are locally
based, and the people signing the letter don't have an effective way of
dealing with them that I know of. I suppose what the internationalists
have to offer is the general principle that if you fall into line with
the predominant forces your job will be easier, you'll get better
press, you'll look better, and in general you'll get along if you go
along.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Every reform is only a mask under cover of which a more terrible
reform, which dares not yet name itself, advances." -- Emerson
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Sat Feb 28 05:44:20 EST 1998
Article: 11465 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: A novel attack on liberalism
Date: 28 Feb 1998 05:42:23 -0500
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 35
Message-ID: <6d8pmf$ol8@panix.com>
References: <887933159snz@bloxwich.demon.co.uk> <6cl89e$muk@panix.com> <888095183snz@bloxwich.demon.co.uk> <6cnr8c$i2u@panix.com> <34EFF575.6A495E3D@net66.com> <34f63805.5276330@news.srv.ualberta.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
In <34f63805.5276330@news.srv.ualberta.ca> *tasquith@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca (Tom Asquith) writes:
>Free market liberalism as an ideology objectifies and reduces entities
>to commodities, but it doesn't reduce everything to money (that step
>still requires a person to engage in).
This to me is the key point in comparing libertarianism and welfare
state liberalism, if those are indeed the choices presented for overall
social organization. In the case of the former it is possible for
something other than the universal rational hedonistic system to exist.
It is necessary as well, since all rational beings agree that the
market does not provide for all human needs.
>If we take WC as given, then there is a problem in the establishing of
>welfare at that particular level.
A matter of stages. You start with imposing certain social welfare
rights as a condition to trade benefits, impose stricter conditions in
the case of regional economic groupings, and work up from there. Mass
immigration, instant broadband communications, education policy, the
growth of trade and transnational organization and time will do the
rest by eliminating local particularities. All that seems plausible to
me if it's accepted that both WC and the welfare state can be stable
long-term. What precisely will be the problem?
>there is something repulsive in such a notion (perhaps a little too
>distant from the communities--in short, it would be pogey without the
>heart).
Unlike welfare in a country of continental size with hundreds of
millions of multicultural inhabitants and more arriving all the time?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Every reform is only a mask under cover of which a more terrible
reform, which dares not yet name itself, advances." -- Emerson
From jk Sat Feb 28 08:49:14 1998
Subject: Re: Concentration Camps
To: r
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 1998 08:49:14 -0500 (EST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 1404
Status: RO
> Kant was claimed that no one could be a rational being as there is no
> such thing as an objective fact.
If no one can be a rational being how can there be pure and practical
reason for Kant to write books about?
> And, if there are no facts that are "real" there can be no morality.
I'm inclined to agree. In talking about what Kant thought, though, the
question is whether *he* agreed. He thought morality was fundamentally
rational and formal, not based on facts. He also thought that his
system gave us facts that are real enough for practical purposes (they
are the same for all of us, we can rely on them to stay as they are and
not change just because someone starts thinking about them
differently). His views might have been wrong, but whether he was
right is a different question from what he believed.
> The camps were designed to teach this lesson.
The camps didn't express the view there is no morality, only the view
that morality is not universal, that Aryan morality is different from
Jewish morality and there are no obligations between those who are part
of one and those who are part of the other. That latter view is the
very opposite of Kant's view.
> I read Critique of Pure Reason. That was enough. Metaphysics comes
> before anything else.
Basic principles logically come before everything else but that doesn't
mean we come to understand things that way.
Jim
From jk Sat Feb 28 16:56:26 1998
Subject: Re: Vindication of Natural Society
To: j-s
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 1998 16:56:26 -0500 (EST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 3453
Status: RO
> "If after all, you should confess all these Things, yet plead the
> Necessity of political Institutions, weak and wicked as they are, I
> can argue with equal, perhaps superior Force concerning the Necessity
> of artificial Religion; and every Step you advance in your Argument,
> you add Strength to mine. So that if we are resolved to submit our
> Reason and our Liberty to civil Usurpation, we have nothing to do but
> to conform as quietly as we can to the vulgar Notions which are
> connected with this, and take up the Theology of the Vulgar as well
> as their Politics."
>
> The point of this quote, which I think summarizes the whole book, is
> that religion and the state are supported on very weak grounds. We
> should be skeptical of them. But, they are necessary. Therefore,
> the wise young man should adhere to them and protect them. It is a
> tradionalist and a conservative conclusion, but it is based upon
> skeptical premices.
"Necessity" is a strong and not a weak ground. The issue seems to be
how far the necessity extends. He presents arguments that political
institutions are unjust and destructive, but evidently feels he can
presume his collocutor in spite of all argument will remain convinced
of their necessity -- presumably, for the purpose of securing whatever
political justice and benefit is attainable to us. The corresponding
argument as to religious institutions would be that we need them for
securing the greatest good available to us in religious matters. I
don't see why that good would not include the greatest religious truth
available to us in the form in which we are capable of attaining it.
It's worth noting that he speaks of submitting "Liberty and Reason" to
institutions, and taking up the common "Theology." If you accept
something and that's the best thing you can do then it seems to me you
accept that thing. Do it or don't do it. What are the grounds for
thinking he says to himself "well, the real me doesn't really accept
any of that mumbo jumbo even though I can't propose anything better or
even as good and it's useful to keep the people in line"?
The following paragraph, the last in the book, may support your
reading. On the other hand it may support a differentiation between
the noble writer, who seems to feel that none of the things he valued
in life was really worth much and so is quite content to die, and
Burke, who seems to feel otherwise. To the extent it supports your
reading I would take it as a moral refutation of the noble writer's
skepticism -- his skepticism makes life seem worthless, but we know as
well as we can know anything that life is not worthless.
> I'm enjoying our discussion.
It's interesting stuff. I'm rereading Burke's _Reflections_ now. I
think there he more clearly takes the view that English political and
religious institutions are the form in which Englishmen best attain
justice and truth. They're not merely useful.
A lurking issue I think is whether faith is an intellectual virtue as
loyalty is a social virtue. The true liberal perhaps says neither is a
virtue while the true conservative says both are. Hume may be an
intermediate case, one who says loyalty but not faith is a virtue. It
seems to me Burke is not such a case.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Every reform is only a mask under cover of which a more terrible
reform, which dares not yet name itself, advances." -- Emerson
From jk@panix.com Sat Feb 28 17:02:35 1998
Received: (from jk@localhost)
by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id RAA01932;
Sat, 28 Feb 1998 17:02:35 -0500 (EST)
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 1998 17:02:35 -0500 (EST)
From: Jim Kalb
Message-Id: <199802282202.RAA01932@panix.com>
To: jk@panix.com
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: The morality of the welfare state
On February 28, 1998 at 16:20:39 Jim Kalb wrote:
In Reply to: The morality of the welfare state posted by on February
25, 1998 at 15:29:55:
> it is Church's responsibility to point out the responsibilities of
> the governing authorities, especially when those responsibilities
> are being neglected... The governing authorities are, after all,
> answerable to God for fulfilling the role and mission for which He
> has appointed them... See the Catechism of the Catholic Church's
> commentary on the Seventh Commandment.
Paragraphs 2423 ff. give some general principles that laws and systems
should take into account however appropriate. It seems to me that a
government that plays a far more limited role than the one customary
today could satisfy the principles depending on the moral
understandings behind it. Certainly I see no implication that the
government should undertake comprehensive direct responsibility for
the well-being of each individual, which seems to be the principle of
the welfare state.
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Sat Feb 28 22:59:46 EST 1998
Article: 11475 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Tea Party Time, PJB
Date: 28 Feb 1998 22:58:07 -0500
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 15
Message-ID: <6damcf$osn@panix.com>
References: <34F556B0.315@msmisp.com> <888618284snz@bloxwich.demon.co.uk> <6d8n0q$jnv@panix.com> <888710956snz@bloxwich.demon.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
In <888710956snz@bloxwich.demon.co.uk> rafael cardenas writes:
>> >So presumably the US should be thrown out of the UN, on the
>> >principle of no representation without taxation
>What do you do to a member of a club who only pays half his
>subscription, even though the clubhouse is falling down and other
>members of the committee are paying in full?
Simply not a case of no representation without taxation as stated.
Which other country has paid more than the U.S.?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Every reform is only a mask under cover of which a more terrible
reform, which dares not yet name itself, advances." -- Emerson
Do let me know if you have comments of any kind.
Back to my archive of posts.