MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Prince Philip: farewell to the stiff upper lip – spiked

Posted by M. C. on April 17, 2021

You don’t have to be a fan of the monarchy – and we at spiked are not – to mourn the passing of the character represented by Prince Philip. ‘Everyone has to have a sense of duty’, he told an interviewer in 1992. ‘A duty to society, to their family.’ Too many in high places, it seems, only have a duty to themselves.

The very thing Prince Philip’s generation esteem as a mark of character – the so-called stiff upper lip – is presented by Markle as a cause of mental ill-health.

https://www.spiked-online.com/2021/04/17/prince-philip-farewell-to-the-stiff-upper-lip/

Tim Black

Tim Black

He understood what today’s celebrity royals do not – the importance of public duty.

Plenty of observers have remarked that Prince Philip’s death marks if not the end of an era, then at least its imminent passing.

After all, the Duke of Edinburgh was of that generation that came of age in the chaotic aftermath of The War to End All Wars, lived through and fought in the war that followed, and approached the rebuilding of a devastated postwar society phlegmatically, determinedly.

His was a unique experience, of course. A descendent of the near incestuous monarchic dynasties that were crumbling at the beginning of the 20th century, he was a very particular product of imperial disintegration and ruling-class disorder – a fact registered in the tallish tales around his infancy, from the kitchen-table birth and his rushed, smuggled exit from Corfu in an orange crate, to his orphan-like youth at Gordonstoun.

Still, as particular as his experience was, there was something inescapably general about it, too. And it is because of this that his death marks the imminent passing not just of his era, but also of the general character forged and cultivated during that era. One defined by a broad Stoicism. By a sense of duty. And by a sense of the importance of self-control. As Tory grandee Nicholas Soames put it this week, Philip was ‘the epitome of the stiff upper lip’.

But so were many others of Philip’s generation. Because maintaining a stiff upper lip, remaining in control of one’s emotions, especially in public, was long considered by many to be a mark of one’s character. It was something to be cultivated, worked on. Because it meant that one was able to act according to something beyond one’s own impulses. It meant that one was committing oneself to something – a duty to others, perhaps, or to an idea or a cause – over and above one’s feelings. To not be in control of one’s emotions, to succumb easily to tears or anger, was the mark of a lack of character, a sign of immaturity.

But no more. The character valued and cultivated by those of Philip’s generation has now been turned inside out. Maybe this has been a long time coming. To be in control of one’s feelings was readily demonised first in high-cultural and then countercultural circles from at least the interwar years onwards. It was seen in the psychoanalytic jargon of the time as a sign of ‘repression’, an indication of the excessive pressure exerted on the individual by the public, social world. Yet it does seem that the thorough devaluation of self-control – the loosening of the stiff upper lip – is a more recent phenomenon. Its decline has accelerated in recent decades, just as notions of public duty and formality have fallen away.

Princess Diana is an obvious reference point. As she struck out from the royal family during the early to mid-1990s, her studied mode of emotional disclosure, letting most if not all of it hang out on TV, resonated. She appeared vital where the formality and self-control of the royal family seemed stale, stuck in the past. There had of course been an abortive attempt to bring the royals closer to the public, in the shape of the The Windsors, a 1969 BBC fly-on-the-wall documentary – something that Philip was said to be a driving force behind. But while it exposed the barbecue and TV-watching mundanity of the royal family’s private life, it left their emotional interior untouched. There was no ‘diary room’, no straight-to-the-camera confessional. And this is what Diana offered two decades later: the tearful, manipulative confessional. Her posthumous coronation as the Queen of Hearts left the actual queen, steadfastly performing her public role, looking cold and, well, heartless.

It seems that hers and Philip’s grandchildren have picked up where Diana left off. In 2017, Princes William and Harry even called for us to question whether the ‘stiff upper lip’ is still relevant. As William put it, ‘Catherine and I are clear we want both [our children] George and Charlotte to grow up feeling able to talk about their emotions and feelings’. He even hailed the ‘generation coming up who find it normal to talk openly about emotions’.

And then there’s Meghan Markle, who, as spiked editor Brendan O’Neill put it, is ‘always seeking new opportunities for self-expression, virtuous preening, “emotional growth”‘. As she told an interviewer in 2019, ‘I really tried to adopt this British sensibility of a stiff upper lip. I tried, I really tried. But I think what that does internally is probably really damaging.’

It is such a telling charge. The very thing Prince Philip’s generation esteem as a mark of character – the so-called stiff upper lip – is presented by Markle as a cause of mental ill-health. As is everything that goes with it: a sense of one’s public role; a belief in serving something other than one’s feelings; a commitment to the shared, public exterior, beyond one’s emotional interior. All are denigrated in this new ’emotionally literate’ world. They’re reduced to a straitjacket on what O’Neill calls the need for ‘incessant self-revelation’.

You don’t have to be a fan of the monarchy – and we at spiked are not – to mourn the passing of the character represented by Prince Philip. ‘Everyone has to have a sense of duty’, he told an interviewer in 1992. ‘A duty to society, to their family.’ Too many in high places, it seems, only have a duty to themselves.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

WHICH Scientific Consensus? – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on April 17, 2021

Pseudo-scientific?

You bet! The Scientific Method absolutely requires opposing opinions in order to function. If there aren’t any or they’re suppressed for any reason, you can be just about certain it isn’t real science.

So the pseudo-scientific “tell” is that we don’t hear from those 58,000 doctors and scientists daily. They’re the tip of the true consensus iceberg.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2021/04/l-reichard-white/which-scientific-consensus/

By L. Reichard White

I bet you’d be surprised to discover the overwhelming true scientific consensus is that the official COVID-19 narrative is, shall we say to be polite, “flawed.” If we weren’t being polite, words like “bogus,” “dishonest,” “fake,” “malarkey,” “nonsense,” “B.S.” might show up.

The evidence for that true scientific consensus — as opposed to the “flawed” one you hear incessantly from Main Stream Media (MSM) — comes from but is not limited to these 13,986 medical and public health scientists and these 42,587 medical practitioners. As of April 11, 2021, that’s 56,573 scientists in all and growing. This doesn’t include the additional three-quarters-of-a-million+ concerned citizens, who, along with the scientists, all signed The Great Barrington Declaration, dissing the flawed official COVID-19 narrative.

And there are also other groups such as the 1,500+ members of the World Doctor’s Alliance who are telling us to STOP the biggest health scam of the 21st century.

That’s more than 58,000 scientists, doctors, and an additional 3/4 million concerned citizens, but forget the concerned citizens for now.

So why haven’t you heard from the 58,000+ dissenting doctors and scientists? In fact, since we’re supposed to “follow the science,” why haven’t you heard from them every day?

Either by design or by opportunism — “Never let an emergency go to waste,” — the folks who want to control everyone either created or grabbed COVID-19 as a golden opportunity.

Using the deep-state use-and-control-media techniques exposed by left icon, Prof. Noam Chomsky in his aptly named classic, “Manufacturing Consent,” the flawed pseudo-scientific narrative we’re exposed to hourly was fertilized and nurtured into existence by what appears to be a handful of well-connected refugees from the Club of Rome.

This was done in hopes of, well, manufacturing our consent – – – to unconstitutional government measures such as “lock-downs,” appropriate for prisons maybe, but not for a free people under legitimate governments.

Once that pseudo-scientific seed took root, it was passed on to the P.R. disinformation workers and megaphoned into the culture, just as Prof. Chomsky outlined, by a complicit MSM. These days, that includes a complicit facebook, Google, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, and I probably missed a few.

And so we begin to ass-u-me the manufactured pseudo-scientific narrative and the consensus it implies are real, and then confirmation bias takes over.

Pseudo-scientific?

You bet! The Scientific Method absolutely requires opposing opinions in order to function. If there aren’t any or they’re suppressed for any reason, you can be just about certain it isn’t real science.

So the pseudo-scientific “tell” is that we don’t hear from those 58,000 doctors and scientists daily. They’re the tip of the true consensus iceberg.

See the rest here

L. Reichard White [send him mail] taught physics, designed and built a house, ran for Nevada State Senate, served two terms on the Libertarian National Committee, managed a theater company, etc. For the next few decades, he supported his writing habit by beating casinos at their own games. His hobby, though, is explaining things he wishes someone had explained to him. You can find a few of his other explanations listed here.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | 1 Comment »

Joe Biden’s Demonic Phase | Kunstler

Posted by M. C. on April 17, 2021

Three weeks ago, Ol’ White Joe called Vladimir Putin “a killer.”  This week, Ol’ Joe called Vlad on the phone and suggested a friendly in-person meet-up in some “third country.” In the meantime, Ol’ Joe essayed to send a couple of US warships into the Black Sea to assert America’s interest in Ukraine, the failed state whose American-sponsored failure was engineered in 2014 by Barack Obama’s State Department. Turkey, which controls the narrow entrance to the Black Sea, was notified that two US destroyers would be steaming through its territory. Hours after the announcement, the US called off the ships. Then, hours after Ol’ Joe proffered that summit meeting, his State Department imposed new economic sanctions on Russia and tossed out a dozen or so Russian embassy staff. How’s that for a coherent foreign policy?

https://kunstler.com/clusterfuck-nation/joe-bidens-demonic-phase/

James Howard Kunstler

Joe Biden’s party must be thinking — if you call it thinking — that being psychotic isn’t enough… it’s time to go demonic! How else to explain the supernatural doings of the folks in charge of things in our nation’s capital. The casual observer might suppose that these things are spinning out of control, but you also have to wonder how much Joe Biden & Company are spinning them that way. Are they looking to start a war, for instance?

Three weeks ago, Ol’ White Joe called Vladimir Putin “a killer.”  This week, Ol’ Joe called Vlad on the phone and suggested a friendly in-person meet-up in some “third country.” In the meantime, Ol’ Joe essayed to send a couple of US warships into the Black Sea to assert America’s interest in Ukraine, the failed state whose American-sponsored failure was engineered in 2014 by Barack Obama’s State Department. Turkey, which controls the narrow entrance to the Black Sea, was notified that two US destroyers would be steaming through its territory. Hours after the announcement, the US called off the ships. Then, hours after Ol’ Joe proffered that summit meeting, his State Department imposed new economic sanctions on Russia and tossed out a dozen or so Russian embassy staff. How’s that for a coherent foreign policy?

What’s going on in Ukraine, anyway? The US and NATO have prompted Ukraine to move troops and tanks toward the ethnically-Russian breakaway Donbass region. Russia countered by massing 100,000 troops on Ukraine’s border. Though supplied with Western armaments, Ukraine’s ragtag and incompetent army has no ability to control the Donbass, nor do either NATO and the US have any real will to interfere there with their own troops — the logistics are insane. Mr. Putin’s elegant solution: evacuate the three-plus million Russians stuck in Donbass into Russia — which needs labor — ceding the empty territory to foundering Ukraine — soon to be an ungovernable post-industrial frontier between East and West. For a rich rundown on these matters, read Dmitry Orlov’s mordant disquisition on the subject: Putin’s Ukrainian Judo.

The lesson there is that the US has absolutely nothing to gain from continuing to antagonize Russia, and that the mentally weak Joe Biden is merely projecting the picture of a weakened and confused USA by keeping it up. Of course, a closer read might be that these hijinks are meant to distract from the more serious and consequential breakdown in relations between the US and China, currently engineered by the blundering team of Sec’y of State Antony Blinken and National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, who went to Alaska recently to tell the Chinese delegation that they were morally unworthy of conducting trade negotiations, thereby torpedoing the trade negotiations that they went to Alaska to conduct. Smooth move fellas.

Unlike Russia, with its eleven time zones, which actually does not want or need any more territory, China is surely making hegemonic moves all over the place, not just around Hong Kong and Taiwan but in Africa and South America, while it strives to build the world’s largest navy, exports gain-of-function viruses, replaces the US in space exploration, and excels at weaponizing computer science. China’s weaknesses are a lack of sufficient domestic oil supply and food, which its current moves aim to correct. It was on its way to turning the US into a raw materials and food-crop colony when Mr. Trump came along and tried to put a stop to that. And now Ol’ Joe has cancelled that remedial action — after being on the receiving end of Chinese financial largesse in four years out-of-office. Nothing to see there, folks, says Merrick Garland’s Department of Justice, while in possession of Hunter Biden’s laptop, with its trove of incriminating memoranda.

On the domestic front, Joe Biden’s government only seeks to turn American life inside-out and upside-down, with the move to make the politics-neutral District of Columbia into a state, strictly to furnish two more senators for the DNC, and to pack the Supreme Court strictly to advantage the same DNC. Those Bills are being rushed through the House committees but something tells me they will die in the Senate. One also must wonder what exactly the rush is all about. I’ll tell you: something is up in the shadows. Something is lurking out there that is going to bring down Ol’ Joe Biden as an illegitimate chief executive. Could be some new non-ignorable evidence of his China grifting activities, or new non-ignorable evidence about the dubious ballot-tally in last November’s election. Could be something else.

Contrary to just about everybody I communicate with, I remain convinced that former US Attorney for Connecticut, now Special Prosecutor John Durham is still putting real cases together, and I suspect that his cases exceed the narrow spotlight of the origin of the Steele dossier, and I expect that indictments will be announced soon in a way that will shock the nation. Just sayin’… though nobody else is….

Meanwhile, the Wokester branch of Joe Biden’s party makes hay with the ambiguous killings of two more criminal suspects-of-color: first, Daunte Wright of Minneapolis, busy ignoring the open warrant out for him in failing to answer a previous warrant for his role in the 2019 aggravated burglary (that is, with a firearm) of a woman. He was out on $100,000 bail, but it was revoked in July 2020 when he got caught in possession of another gun. In the commotion of his resisting arrest, he got shot, tragically for officer Kim Potter, who somehow mistook her handgun for a taser. She is now teed up on a manslaughter case, while the Wright family is teed up for an $XX-million personal injury lawsuit settlement courtesy of ambulance-chaser Ben Crump. The city of Minneapolis is teed up for a municipal auto-da-fé of lootin-burnin-and-riotin in the name of “justice” — and the Derek Chauvin trial has not even concluded.

Secondarily, out comes the chest-cam video of Chicago police officer Eric Stillman shooting thirteen-year-old junior gang-banger Adam Toledo, in possession of a handgun, in a 3 a.m. chase down a West Side alleyway. So, Officer Stillman is teed up for some sort of career-ending action and Chicago is teed up for another round of lootin-burnin-and-riotin — sure to spread to other cities all over the country as the Woke vengeance campaign moves into its Satanic phase.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Political Economy of Fear | Mises Institute

Posted by M. C. on April 17, 2021

https://mises.org/library/political-economy-fear

Robert Higgs

[S]ince love and fear can hardly exist together, if we must choose between them, it is far safer to be feared than loved. 

— Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince, 1513

All animals experience fear—human beings, perhaps, most of all. Any animal incapable of fear would have been hard pressed to survive, regardless of its size, speed, or other attributes. Fear alerts us to dangers that threaten our well-being and sometimes our very lives. Sensing fear, we respond by running away, by hiding, or by preparing to ward off the danger.

To disregard fear is to place ourselves in possibly mortal jeopardy. Even the man who acts heroically on the battlefield, if he is honest, admits that he is scared. To tell people not to be afraid is to give them advice that they cannot take. Our evolved physiological makeup disposes us to fear all sorts of actual and potential threats, even those that exist only in our imagination.

The people who have the effrontery to rule us, who call themselves our government, understand this basic fact of human nature. They exploit it, and they cultivate it. Whether they compose a warfare state or a welfare state, they depend on it to secure popular submission, compliance with official dictates, and, on some occasions, affirmative cooperation with the state’s enterprises and adventures. Without popular fear, no government could endure more than twenty-four hours. David Hume taught that all government rests on public opinion, but that opinion, I maintain, is not the bedrock of government. Public opinion itself rests on something deeper: fear.1

Hume recognizes that the opinions that support government receive their force from “other principles,” among which he includes fear, but he judges these other principles to be “the secondary, not the original principles of government” ([1777] 1987, 34). He writes: “No man would have any reason to fear the fury of a tyrant, if he had no authority over any but from fear” (ibid., emphasis in original). We may grant Hume’s statement yet maintain that the government’s authority over the great mass of its subjects rests fundamentally on fear. Every ideology that endows government with legitimacy requires and is infused by some kind(s) of fear. This fear need not be fear of the government itself and indeed may be fear of the danger from which the tyrant purports to protect the people.

The Natural History of Fear

See the rest here

Author:

Robert Higgs

Dr. Robert Higgs is retired and lives in Mexico. He was a senior fellow in political economy for the Independent Institute and longtime editor of The Independent Review; he was also a senior fellow of the Mises Institute. He is the 2007 recipient of the Gary G. Schlarbaum Prize for Lifetime Achievement in the Cause of Liberty, and the 2015 Murray N. Rothbard Medal of Freedom.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Pfizer CEO says third Covid vaccine dose likely needed within 12 months

Posted by M. C. on April 17, 2021

$$$urprised?

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/15/pfizer-ceo-says-third-covid-vaccine-dose-likely-needed-within-12-months.html

Key Points

  • Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla said people will “likely” need a third dose of a Covid-19 vaccine within 12 months of getting fully vaccinated.
  • He also said it’s possible people will need to get vaccinated against the coronavirus annually.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

The Right to Ignore the State | Mises Institute

Posted by M. C. on April 16, 2021

The substance of this chapter once more reminds us of the incongruity between a perfect law and an imperfect state. The practicability of the principle here laid down varies directly as social morality. In a thoroughly vicious community its admission would be productive of anarchy. In a completely virtuous one its admission will be both innocuous and inevitable. Progress towards a condition of social health—a condition, that is, in which the remedial measures of legislation will no longer be needed—is progress towards a condition in which those remedial measures will be cast aside, and the authority prescribing them disregarded.

https://mises.org/library/right-ignore-state

Herbert Spencer

[This essay is taken from chapter 19 of Spencer’s first major work of political philosophy—Social Statics: or, The Conditions essential to Happiness specified, and the First of them Developed (1851)—in which his first principle is equal liberty: “that every man may claim the fullest liberty to exercise his faculties compatible with the possession of like liberty by every other man.”]

Voluntary Outlawry

As a corollary to the proposition that all institutions must be subordinated to the law of equal freedom, we cannot choose but admit the right of the citizen to adopt a condition of voluntary outlawry. If every man has freedom to do all that he wills, provided he infringes not the equal freedom of any other man, then he is free to drop connection with the state—to relinquish its protection, and to refuse paying towards its support.

It is self-evident that in so behaving he in no way trenches upon the liberty of others; for his position is a passive one; and whilst passive he cannot become an aggressor. It is equally self-evident that he cannot be compelled to continue one of a political corporation, without a breach of the moral law, seeing that citizenship involves payment of taxes; and the taking away of a man’s property against his will is an infringement of his rights.

Government being simply an agent employed in common by a number of individuals to secure to them certain advantages, the very nature of the connection implies that it is for each to say whether he will employ such an agent or not. If any one of them determines to ignore this mutual-safety confederation, nothing can be said except that he loses all claim to its good offices, and exposes himself to the danger of maltreatment—a thing he is quite at liberty to do if he likes. He cannot be coerced into political combination without a breach of the law of equal freedom; he can withdraw from it without committing any such breach; and he has therefore a right so to withdraw.

Legislative Authority Can Never Be Ethical

“No human laws are of any validity if contrary to the law of nature; and such of them as are valid derive all their force and all their authority mediately or immediately from this original.”

Thus writes Blackstone, to whom let all honor be given for having so far outseen the ideas of his time, and, indeed, we may say of our time.1

A good antidote, this, for those political superstitions which so widely prevail. A good check upon that sentiment of power worship which still misleads us by magnifying the prerogatives of constitutional governments as it once did those of monarchs. Let men learn that a legislature is not “our God upon earth,” though, by the authority they ascribe to it, and the things they expect from it, they would seem to think it is. Let them learn rather that it is an institution serving a purely temporary purpose, whose power, when not stolen, is at the best borrowed.

Nay, indeed, have we not seen that government is essentially immoral? Is it not the offspring of evil, bearing about it all the marks of its parentage? Does it not exist because crime exists? Is it not strong, or, as we say, despotic, when crime is great? Is there not more liberty, that is, less government, as crime diminishes? And must not government cease when crime ceases, for very lack of objects on which to perform its function?

Not only does magisterial power exist because of evil, but it exists by evil. Violence is employed to maintain it; and all violence involves criminality. Soldiers, policemen, and jailers, swords, batons, and fetters, are instruments for inflicting pain; and all infliction of pain is in the abstract wrong.

The state employs evil weapons to subjugate evil, and is alike contaminated by the objects with which it deals, and the means by which it works. Morality cannot recognize it; for morality, being simply a statement of the perfect law, can give no countenance to anything growing out of, and living by, breaches of that law. Wherefore, legislative authority can never be ethical—must always be conventional merely.

Hence, there is a certain inconsistency in the attempt to determine the right position, structure, and conduct of a government by appeal to the first principles of rectitude. For, as just pointed out, the acts of an institution which is in both nature and origin imperfect cannot be made to square with the perfect law. All that we can do is to ascertain, firstly, in what attitude a legislature must stand to the community to avoid being by its mere existence an embodied wrong; secondly, in what manner it must be constituted so as to exhibit the least incongruity with the moral law; and thirdly, to what sphere its actions must be limited to prevent it from multiplying those breaches of equity it is set up to prevent.

The first condition to be conformed to before a legislature can be established without violating the law of equal freedom is the acknowledgment of the right now under discussion—the right to ignore the state.2

The Only Legitimate Source of Power

Upholders of pure despotism may fitly believe state control to be unlimited and unconditional. They who assert that men are made for governments and not governments for men, may consistently hold that no one can remove himself beyond the pale of political organization.

But they who maintain that the people are the only legitimate source of power—that legislative authority is not original, but deputed—cannot deny the right to ignore the state without entangling themselves in an absurdity.

For, if legislative authority is deputed, it follows that those from whom it proceeds are the masters of those on whom it is conferred; it follows further, that as masters they confer the said authority voluntarily; and this implies that they may give or withhold it as they please.

To call that deputed which is wrenched from men whether they will or not, is nonsense. But what is here true of all collectively is equally true of each separately. As a government can rightly act for the people, only when empowered by them, so also can it rightly act for the individual, only when empowered by him.

If A, B, and C debate whether they shall employ an agent to perform for them a certain service, and if whilst A and B agree to do so, C dissents, C cannot equitably be made a party to the agreement in spite of himself. And this must be equally true of thirty as of three; and if of thirty, why not of three hundred, or three thousand, or three millions?

The Immorality of Majority Rule

Of the political superstitions lately alluded to, none is so universally diffused as the notion that majorities are omnipotent. Under the impression that the preservation of order will ever require power to be wielded by some party, the moral sense of our time feels that such power cannot rightly be conferred on any but the largest moiety of society. It interprets literally the saying that “the voice of the people is the voice of God,” and transferring to the one the sacredness attached to the other, it concludes that from the will of the people, that is, of the majority, there can be no appeal. Yet is this belief entirely erroneous.

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that, struck by some Malthusian panic, a legislature duly representing public opinion were to enact that all children born during the next ten years should be drowned. Does any one think such an enactment would be warrantable? If not, there is evidently a limit to the power of a majority.

Suppose, again, that of two races living together—Celts and Saxons, for example—the most numerous determined to make the others their slaves. Would the authority of the greatest number be in such case valid? If not, there is something to which its authority must be subordinate.

Suppose, once more, that all men having incomes under £50 a year were to resolve upon reducing every income above that amount to their own standard, and appropriating the excess for public purposes. Could their resolution be justified? If not, it must be a third time confessed that there is a law to which the popular voice must defer.

What, then, is that law, if not the law of pure equity—the law of equal freedom?

These restraints, which all would put to the will of the majority, are exactly the restraints set up by that law. We deny the right of a majority to murder, to enslave, or to rob, simply because murder, enslaving, and robbery are violations of that law—violations too gross to be overlooked. But if great violations of it are wrong, so also are smaller ones. If the will of the many cannot supersede the first principle of morality in these cases, neither can it in any. So that, however insignificant the minority, and however trifling the proposed trespass against their rights, no such trespass is permissible.

When we have made our constitution purely democratic, thinks to himself the earnest reformer, we shall have brought government into harmony with absolute justice. Such a faith, though perhaps needful for the age, is a very erroneous one. By no process can coercion be made equitable.

The freest form of government is only the least objectionable form. The rule of the many by the few we call tyranny; the rule of the few by the many is tyranny also, only of a less intense kind. “You shall do as we will, and not as you will,” is in either case the declaration; and if the hundred make it to the ninety-nine, instead of the ninety-nine to the hundred, it is only a fraction less immoral. Of two such parties, whichever fulfils this declaration necessarily breaks the law of equal freedom: the only difference being that by the one it is broken in the persons of ninety-nine, whilst by the other it is broken in the persons of a hundred. And the merit of the democratic form of government consists solely in this, that it trespasses against the smallest number.

The very existence of majorities and minorities is indicative of an immoral state. The man whose character harmonizes with the moral law, we found to be one who can obtain complete happiness without diminishing the happiness of his fellows. But the enactment of public arrangements by vote implies a society consisting of men otherwise constituted; implies that the desires of some cannot be satisfied without sacrificing the desires of others; implies that in the pursuit of their happiness the majority inflict a certain amount of unhappiness on the minority; implies, therefore, organic immorality.

Thus, from another point of view, we again perceive that even in its most equitable form it is impossible for government to dissociate itself from evil; and further, that unless the right to ignore the state is recognized, its acts must be essentially criminal.

Representation versus Consent

That a man is free to abandon the benefits and throw off the burdens of citizenship, may indeed be inferred from the admissions of existing authorities and of current opinion. Unprepared as they probably are for so extreme a doctrine as the one here maintained, the radicals of our day yet unwittingly profess their belief in a maxim which obviously embodies this doctrine.

Do we not continually hear them quote Blackstone’s assertion that “no subject of England can be constrained to pay any aids or taxes even for the defense of the realm or the support of government, but such as are imposed by his own consent, or that of his representative in parliament?” And what does this mean? It means, say they, that every man should have a vote. True: but it means much more.

See the rest here

Author:

Herbert Spencer

Herbert Spencer was one of the leading 19th-century English radical individualists. He began working as a journalist for the laissez-faire magazine The Economist in the 1850s. Much of the rest of his life was spent working on an all-encompassing theory of human development based upon the ideas of individualism, utilitarian moral theory, social and biological evolution, limited government, and laissez-faire economics.

The image comes from “The Warren J. Samuels Portrait Collection at Duke University.”

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Watch “Talking About Stoicism 118 Being Kind to Opposing Forces” on YouTube

Posted by M. C. on April 16, 2021

Don’t Be Dissuaded.

https://youtu.be/H1mw800roTc

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

Watch “The Worst Tax: Who’s Responsible For Skyrocketing Food Prices?” on YouTube

Posted by M. C. on April 16, 2021

Government is always limited to how much it can tax the people directly. People will ultimately rebel against high taxes. So, as a workaround, a monopoly was granted to The Federal Reserve. If the government wants money, The Fed can just print it. The people will still pay for this, of course, but not directly. They’ll pay when they see rising prices in the marketplace. The government can just blame something else as the cause. Inflation is the worst tax of them all.

https://youtu.be/ly1XovEqKTc

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

US Criticized For Withdrawing Troops From Afghanistan While Just 50 Years From Victory

Posted by M. C. on April 16, 2021

https://babylonbee.com/news/us-criticized-for-withdrawing-troops-from-afghanistan-while-just-50-years-from-victory?fbclid=IwAR3i-mfewuw1vWDTQeGsMR6wKW-Y6PQ3M25UIS9V86oHItycsecEpxKTXkY

U.S.—The U.S. has been criticized for withdrawing troops from Afghanistan when the country is so close to victory, being just another 50 years away from declaring victory in the region.

Commentators, pundits, Democrats, and Republicans alike criticized the proposal to pull troops out in a few months, when if we just stay there for another few decades, victory is all but assured.

“Why are we leaving when victory is on the horizon, just a few decades away?” asked John Bolton. “We’re so close. You can’t give up right when you’re on the finish line, with a utopia in the Middle East being within our reach if we just stay there for another half-century.”

“It just doesn’t make any sense to leave now.”

At publishing time, the nation’s warmongers were relieved as they realized there’s basically zero chance we’re actually leaving Afghanistan this fall.

Bee seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Wokeless and Second Class

Posted by M. C. on April 16, 2021

USA Today recently ran one of the most ridiculous stories I’ve ever seen, which concluded that “White Supremacy” was responsible for all interracial crime. “White Supremacy” apparently compels Blacks to commit 90% of all interracial crime, including almost all of the crimes against Asians, which have recently been the subject of much attention, and of course nonsensically attributed to “White Supremacy.”

A panel of “experts” from Harvard recently concluded that “not all who give birth are women.” Who am I to argue with Harvard experts? I didn’t even graduate from community college.

https://donaldjeffries.wordpress.com/2021/04/09/wokeless-and-second-class/

 

America is on the way to instituting a new form of Apartheid. This one won’t be based on skin color. The new “Jim Crow” isn’t voting laws that logically require a photo ID to prevent fraud. It isn’t a convenient historical reference for prominent Blacks like Virginia Assistant Governor Justin Fairfax to invoke, because he was accused by two credible women of sexual assault. Nobody is “racist” against anyone with wealth or power, like Fairfax. Lots of average Whites may justifiably despise him, but they can’t be “racist” regardless. They don’t have power. He does.

The elite who misrule us have managed to convert the largest elephant in this collapsing country- the massive and growing disparity of wealth- into a racial argument, where rich Black celebrities or public officials can claim the system, which has bestowed fantastic favors upon them- is actually against them. By the same argument, the millions of Whites who are living paycheck to paycheck, or are even homeless, have a “privilege” that these powerful “persons of color” don’t have. It is based upon the belief that “systemic racism” is responsible for all Black pathology, despite the clear and public support of the most extreme Black Lives Matter advocates by the most influential organs of that system.

USA Today recently ran one of the most ridiculous stories I’ve ever seen, which concluded that “White Supremacy” was responsible for all interracial crime. “White Supremacy” apparently compels Blacks to commit 90% of all interracial crime, including almost all of the crimes against Asians, which have recently been the subject of much attention, and of course nonsensically attributed to “White Supremacy.” What exactly does “White Supremacy” even mean? You could make the argument that “White Supremacy” predominated as recently as the 1950s in America. But now? Yes, most of our leaders are still White- but doesn’t that stand to reason, since most of the population still is? And those White leaders are not exactly renowned for any “Supremacist” beliefs. On the contrary, the “Woke” ones hate Whites more than the most radical member of the Nation of Islam. And the “conservative” ones do nothing but apologize and backpedal, and brag about all the African-Americans supposedly flocking to the Republican Party.

Major League Baseball recently pulled the All-Star game out of Georgia, in response to the state enacting some halfway sensible voting requirements. In our present mad world, Black people don’t have photo IDs, and cannot vote unless someone brings them water. This kind of pandering is embarrassing and condescending. Think the ridiculous film The Blind Side, where a troubled Black youth, whose just happened to be a huge football player, was rescued from his Blackness by a “Woke” White family, who just happened to be powerful alumni boosters of a nationally successful college football program. Louis Farrakhan and his followers were justifiably outraged over this syrupy demeaning of Black families, but modern “liberals” related to it. It’s a great fantasy of theirs; to “rescue” some directionless Black, who just needs a properly “Woke” White guiding hand. Very similar to Hollywood celebs adopting children from Africa, to exploit in photo ops and then hand off to their nannies behind closed doors.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Keeping It Unreal

America is on the way to instituting a new form of Apartheid. This one won’t be based on skin color. The new “Jim Crow” isn’t voting laws that logically require a photo ID to prevent fraud. It isn’t a convenient historical reference for prominent Blacks like Virginia Assistant Governor Justin Fairfax to invoke, because he was accused by two credible women of sexual assault. Nobody is “racist” against anyone with wealth or power, like Fairfax. Lots of average Whites may justifiably despise him, but they can’t be “racist” regardless. They don’t have power. He does.

The elite who misrule us have managed to convert the largest elephant in this collapsing country- the massive and growing disparity of wealth- into a racial argument, where rich Black celebrities or public officials can claim the system, which has bestowed fantastic favors upon them- is actually against them. By the same argument, the millions…

View original post 2,100 more words

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »