This book is available for free as a PDF, at the link below.
It looks interesting. But now I have to decide whether to read this or to go straight for Mises’ “Human Action” – something I’ve been intending to read for a while now. I’d be interested if anyone has any comments on this book.
http://mises.org/etexts/Foundations.pdf
“A power over a man’s subsistence amounts to a power over his will”
Great quote for those who believe socialism and freedom are somehow compatible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_hamilton
I became an atheist about 10 years ago when I was 19. It was a fairly gradual process, I was basically a deist by the time I quit religion altogether.
Very basically, the clincher for me was when I got to the point of no longer being able to believe in God because if God did exist I thought that he must be evil. Why would God create people with the sole purpose of worshipping him to get into this heaven? God appeared to be a meglomaniac like Hitler or Stalin.
In fact, Lucifer (who I didn’t actually believe in) appeared more good than God by my evaluation, because Lucifer had the balls to stand up to the totalitarian God. There were many pertubations and illogical problems based on the ethical contradictions.
Interestingly for me, my girlfriend became an atheist primarily for problems she had with the metaphysical qualities attributed to God – ie: the cosmological arguments which Diana at NoodleFood has covered so well in her current podcasts on “Rationally Selfish Radio” http://www.rationallyselfish.com/blog/
Anyway several years later I came accross the philosopher Epicurus and the first formulation of “the problem of evil”. I often think of the problem of evil because it described the types of thoughts I was having at age 18-19. However, whenever I try to quote Epicurus during discussions, I usually forget the exact words, so I’m putting them on my blog in an attempt to memorise the quote:
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
— Epicurus
Philosophers would use this type of ethics based argument to suggest that evil itself doesn’t exist or to tackle the problem of defining evil. But for me, this type of argument was most powerful as a simple examination of the logical implications of attributing certain qualities (ie: perfection and perfect goodness) to the vaguely defined, concept “God”.
It’s a very rare event that I come across something intelligent in the mainstream media in respect to economics.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,26307631-2,00.html?from=igoogle+gadget+compact+news_rss
ONE of the most powerful figures in Australian finance wants the Federal Government to cut tax on savings to drive more cash into deposit accounts.
A CEO making a sensible statement. How refreshing. Although I don’t know why she needed to say “We are not going back to the world as it was before”. Although I don’t have any context to understand what she really meant, the brief media article (see link above) almost seems to imply pragmatism to economic principles. In reality, many economic principles identified hundreds of years ago work just fine and will continue to do so. They are not situation dependant and are applicable to humanity in any time period where politcs allows for the existence of trade. This is in fact one of the reasons the craziness that we continually witness amongst our politicians is so annoying. The information is out there, yet the economic fallacies keep persisting and keep being reinvented.
I’ve just done my tax return last week. Every single year I curse the government for penalising my attempts to be responsible and productive. Every year I waste at least 5 or so hours trying to work out capital gains taxes, employee share scheme projections, deductions and the like. Every year I owe extra money to the tax department simply because I’m being responsible and have some savings and investments. If I were a spend thrift, I’d have no worries. Our tax system clearly penalises productive people in a variety of ways.
It’s bad enough that the government is stealing my money without them wasting my time. In addition, they inevitably generate some emotional pain on my behalf as I am forced to examine overly complicated details and attempt to decipher tax legislation that I assess to be destructive, pointless, bureacratic and highly unjust. Bastards. If you work for the tax department, you’re certainly no friend of mine. So I was highly relieved to see someone in the mainstream media calling for tax cuts. It’s been a long time since I’ve heard of this once common call for tax cuts, and that in itself has been highly worrying to me.
“I think that all right-thinking people in this country are sick and tired of being told that ordinary, decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired… I’m certainly not! But I’m sick and tired of being told that I am.”
Monty Python
An Objectivist take on studying history.
Very interesting site: http://www.powellhistory.com/1hfa.html
Mp3 courses available.
I just discovered: http://www.climatedepot.com/ Climate depot.
They have an interesting article: http://www.climatedepot.com/a/3310/Losing-Their-Religion-2009-officially-declared-year-the-media-lost-their-faith-in-manmade-global-warming-fears
I hope they are right.
At the same website I came across the infamous Dr Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury claiming that “the Christian response to climate change is to immediately minimise any impact on the environment”. This is the same bloke that thought Sharia law was a good idea in the UK
The amalgamation of religious and environmentalist ideology is increasing although I think it has been quite common in Australia. Only in the USA is it common for Christians to be sceptical of environmentalism and when these two evils join forces, we’re all in trouble.
Michael Sutcliffe notes the Western Australian’s Liberal party’s plans to toughen cannibas laws:
The following is copied from the Discussion section on the ALS blog site:
“Another step backwards for Australia:
Tough new laws on cannabis use
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26195008-12377,00.html
I love this bit:
Under the second new law WA police will be given unprecedented powers to frisk people for drugs and weapons.
The new search law, to be introduced before Christmas, would mean police would no longer be required to prove grounds of suspicion in court.
Is there any such thing as unreasonable search and seizure in this country?
Here’s another article:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/10/11/2710753.htm
There really is some classic lines coming out of the WA Libs:
“It is giving quite extraordinary powers to police but police will operate under their own guidelines and protocols,” he said.
“It will not be abused.”
The Police Commissioner Karl O’Callaghan has welcomed the proposed new laws.
How people accept this I just don’t know. Nation of sheep. Really stupid sheep at that. I say let the wolves eat them.”
My own observations echo Michael’s:
Why doesn’t anyone in Australia care about this type of thing!
Where are the mainstream media articles about the anti-freedom nature of these proposals?
Why don’t people in this country have any understanding of the importance and necessity of freedom to human existence and prosperity?
Sometimes the problem of getting people to understand the importance of freedom really seems overwhelming. History and a majority of people are (and have always been) against those few who understand and fight for freedom.
But as pointed out to me by Ed Cline, you have no choice but to keep fighting for what you believe in. Every choice you make is either good for your life or bad. You have to keep choosing to live and fight because the alternative is the road to death.
In the comments of a Wednesday open thread on the Noodlefood blog, KPO’M mentioned the “cognitive dissonance” he has in respect to the band U2:
“………how do you handle the cognitive dissonance? In my case, I like U2. Although many of the lyrics have a Christian element to them (particularly from the Joshua Tree and Achtung Baby), and Bono annoys me sometimes with his political activism, I like the group’s musical style, and particularly The Edge’s minimalist style with the electric guitar.”
I think I know exactly what he means. Because I get turned off by hollywood actors all the time. The latest is the idiot Will Ferrell. I actually like his dumb comedies. But now that he has gone and done an ad supporting socialised health care, it’s a real turn off. Another example is Sean Penn. I like his acting in several movies, but what an idiot! He goes and visit’s Hugo Chavez and allows himself to be a poster boy for human life destroying socialism!
There are so many examples of hollywood celebrities who when it comes to politics simply spout some intellectually stunted lefty BS and effectively put an “I’m stupid” sign on their heads. This doesn’t mean they’re bad actors, but it’s still a real turn off. It could mean that they are more likely to choose to make movies with plots dominated by pragmatic or subjectivist type ideals, and that’s something I try to avoid.
If only actors just stuck to acting.
I wrote a reply to KPO’M’s comments that was effectively just a brainstorming session rather than any coherent point argument. However the main thrust of my thinking was that the art work is an end in itself and should be pursued with gusto, no matter the politcal views tacked on by the artist (which are secondary to the art itself anyway). Particularly with respect to music which is not objectively understood, I simply pursue music that attracts me.
However I liked and wanted to record a reply to KPO’M by William Stoddard who I interperet to be saying (basically) that it can be the passion itself that one is attracted to in an artwork – not so much the subject of the passion.
“And I think I’d say that what I look for in literature is not so much characters who are taking the right actions ethically. It’s characters who value something strongly . . . and something that makes sense to me at some level . . . and who are pursuing what they value with unusual integrity and persistence, despite the difficulties they face.”
Perhaps Bono appeals because he’s sincere, motivated, caring and dramatises his emotions effectively – even though Bono’s political views are immoral, logically contradictory and idiotic (IMO). Bono is quite likely passionate about his political views and they inspire his art. Perhaps this passion is conveyed effectively in the art and provides common ground between KPO’M’s sense of life and Bono’s.
When used to deprive someone of control over his life, liberty, or property, the role of physical force is to render the victim’s mind irrelevant. Coercive physical force targets the mind.
http://blog.paulmckeever.ca/2009/10/06/is-religion-anti-freedom/
This is an excellent article IMO. Particularly relevant to me after my discussions with Todd and Nuke on how I believe religion to promote anti-freedom ideology. (see http://blog.libertarian.org.au/discussion/ comments 161 – 184). My argument was basically that religion encourages and promotes tall poppy syndrome.
The article “Is religion anti-freedom?” focuses on free speech and the purpose of the protection of free speech. Paul explains why defamation and fraud are rightfully illegal. He also comments on the recent non-binding UN resolution “passed by the U.N. General Assembly which calls upon the world to make legal measures to require respect for religion, tolerance for religious beliefs and practices; laws to prohibit the stereotyping” of “sacred persons” and religions”"
Paul concludes by arguing that in order to protect religions from defamation (per se), “our governments would, in effect, be outlawing reason, rational action, and personal happiness” ……… “I therefore conclude that we need no law prohibiting the defamation of religion. No law can prohibit the impossible.”
Overall I found the article very interesting because the reasoning in the article is not common and not widely discussed in the wider community.
