First, the Anti-Federalists predicted that the federal government the Constitution created would increase its power until states were merely secondary considerations. Second, that this powerful federal government would be too big and distant for the people to effectively control, and thus vainglorious men of ambition and avarice would control it to enrich themselves off the common people.Third, that it was unwise to govern a diverse and large population from a remote and distant government that would hold such immense power over the daily lives of common people, and, as a result, politics would become something more primitive than civilized, characterized by constant discord and fighting as different factions tried to control the lives of their fellow citizens.
1. Let us agree that no framework of interpretation can be demonstrated conclusively to be correct.
2. Let us proceed to rely on a framework of interpretation that explains all social phenomena in terms of the concepts of race, gender, privilege, and power.
I recalled hearing this as “The mass of men long not for liberty, but for a just ruler.” The original is Sallust: “Few men desire freedom, the greater part desire just masters.”
Multiculturalism eliminates any shared sense of rules beyond an ever increasing tangle of bureaucratic doctrines. The administrators who sent him to a detention center were almost certainly following strict rules about how to respond to students bringing unidentifiable electronic devices into school — those rules having been created by hysterical liberals terrified by the acts of terror committed by youths addled by prescription drugs and seeking a glorious death with huge media attention.
In order to make room for Ahmed, Jamal, J’miriquoi, Running Bear, Jorge, and Moonbeam, we subject all of them — including lil’ Johnny the racist cracker — to the same set of regulations, because we see all of them as potential malefactors to be treated uniformly by a blind system.
Latest hullaballoo: Curtis Yarvin (aka “Mencius Moldbug”) was invited to give a presentation on his new computer system Urbit to the Strange Loop tech conference. Then some of his ideological enemies (actually literal Communists) found out, objected to his political views, and he got banned from the conference.
I did consider not linking this since it’s so obviously toxoplasma, but I was convinced to do so by this letter where the conference organizer states he’s never read any Moldbug himself, but decided to cave to the ban request because otherwise politics overshadow the conference, which was supposed to be about tech.
This kind of crystallizes a pattern I’ve been noticing recently where some social justice activists use a tactic along the lines of “Nice institution youse gots here, shame if somebody were to politicize it”.
I sympathize with the desire to give into that to avoid trouble, but I think maybe the only way to avoid enshrining that kind of heckler’s veto always working is to make it clear that the choice to give in will also be politicized.
Maybe if organizers know that banning all insufficiently-leftist-people and not banning all insufficiently-leftist-people will both result in politicization and Internet firestorms, they’ll say “screw it” and just follow their principles.
Via Slate Star Codex. Apparently you’re not allowed to speak about anything at all if you don’t have The Right Political Opinions At The Right Time, especially when the #hashTagMob start bullying and heckling. The best response to the #hashTagMob is to double down and invite *more* people they disagree with. Giving in gives them the ability to say “See, we were right!” and then they’ll do more of it. Once you pay extortion, you never get rid of the extortionist.
I really do not understand why people think that democracy is so great. Its chief advantage is that it provides for peaceful transitions of power. I continue to believe that markets, imperfect as they often are, produce better outcomes than voting.
I come to appreciate this view more and more. Democracy, even Republic, is not necessarily so good for decision-making. There’s a lesson here for managing projects and organizations as well.
In Nigeria and Iraq, Muslim armies are selling women as slaves. Iran hanged a woman for fighting off a rapist. ISIS was more direct about it and beheaded a woman who resisted one of its fighters.
But we don’t have to travel to the Middle East to see real horrors. The sex grooming scandal in the UK involved the rape of thousands of girls. The rapists were Muslim men so instead of talking about it, the UK’s feminists bought $75 shirts reading, “This is what a feminist looks like” which were actually being made by Third World women living sixteen to a room. This was what a feminist looked like and it wasn’t a pretty picture.
The same willful unseriousness saw Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a survivor of genital mutilation and an informed critic of Muslim misogyny, booted from Brandeis by self-proclaimed feminists. Meanwhile the major feminist cause at the moment is Gamergate, a controversy over video games which can be traced back to a female game developer who slept with a video game reviewer. Professional feminists have spent more time and energy denouncing video games than the sale and rape of girls in Nigeria and Iraq.
That is what feminism looks like and there is something seriously wrong with that.
Feminism as currently constructed is not about “treating women as people” or even “equality” — it is about privileged Western women gaining power over privileged Western men. Via Sultan Knish: The Unbearable Lightness of Feminism.
FP: You make the shrewd observation of how political correctness engenders evil because of “the violence that it does to people’s souls by forcing them to say or imply what they do not believe, but must not question.” Can you talk about this a bit?
Dalrymple: Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small. In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.
Emphasis mine. Via FrontPage Magazine – Our Culture, What’s Left Of It.
The bulk of homeownership expenditures go to the top fifth of households by income, who typically could afford to purchase a home without subsidies. According to estimates by the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation, more than three-fourths of the value of the mortgage interest and property tax deductions goes to households with incomes of more than $100,000, and close to a third goes to families with incomes above $200,000.
Yet another reason to start stripping back entitlements, including things like mortgage interest deductions. Via Chart Book: Federal Housing Spending Is Poorly Matched to Need — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities where there is a pretty chart. Hat tip to Arnold Kling where the comments are enlightening.
(I’m sure there is a real name for the fallacy.) One sometimes hears, often in political arguments between opposed views where someone attempts a moderated stance, that “the truth lies somewhere in the middle.” This may or may not be true; if one side is saying the equivalent of “2+2=4” and the other is saying “2+2=5”, then the answer is not “somewhere in the middle.” Likewise, if one side is saying the equivalent of “2+2=5” and the other is saying “2+2=6” then the answer is still not somewhere in the middle.