Capitalism, Christian Libertarianism, Communism, Compulsion, Constitution, Corruption, Death of America, Democracy, Easy Listening, Economic Ruin, Economics, Financial Collapse, Freedom, Heroism, Liberate your Mind!, Libertarianz, Nanny State, Prohibition, Psychology, Thomas Jefferson, Totalitarianism, Vested Interests, Vote Wikiriwhi!, Zombies

Dutch King Kills the Welfare State…

3 Comments

The Following is From The Libertarian Republic

end the welfare state

Dutch King Willem-Alexander did his best to garner support for the country’s new austerity measures yesterday in a speech that proclaimed the end of the Welfare State and welcomed the beginning of a “participation society.” Speaking in defense of spending cuts that have been sharply criticized, the monarch said the second half of the twentieth century had brought about arrangements in social security and long-term care that are “unsustainable in their current form.” In the participation society, people would be responsible for their own futures, and would have to plan for financial and medical needs on their own with less help from government. – See more at: http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/dutch-king-kills-welfare-state-lauds-new-participation-society-video/#.UjrOotJkSqg

The budget revealed yesterday by Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte contains cuts to their military, axing 2,300 military employees in addition to the 12,000 the country had already committed to eliminate between 2011 and 2015. The new budget comes after several years of unpopular spending cuts, as the Dutch try to gain control of unsustainable entitlement programs and bring their deficit for the upcoming year under the EU’s permitted 3% of GDP.

The European Union’s Stability and Growth Pact which took effect in 1999 seeks to limit member nation’s deficits and debts. It sets a 3% of GDP deficit cap which the Dutch are currently projected to go over by 0.3%. The moves towards austerity by European nations are not due to populace demands but rather an increasingly grim and sobering financial outlook. Despite resistance, King Willem-Alexander’s speech marks an important shift in European politics. The progressive, post-World War II welfare state has failed and its continuation is not financially possible.

– See more at: http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/dutch-king-kills-welfare-state-lauds-new-participation-society-video/#.UjrOotJkSqg
****************************************************
….Wow!

The Truth!
Can you take it from a Fortunate son?
The lefties will call for the Kings head.
Demonstrations may follow.
Rioters may Kill, burn and loot…. yet nothing can eradicate the fact that Socialism is a Lie and a delusion.
It is not only completely Unsustainable… it is completely tyrannical.
It does not alleviate suffering!
It generates poverty and dependence!
Most socialists *Don’t want to know!* …. yet deep down they do know!
They know they are guilty of Cannibalism… they secretly enjoy it …. out of pure envy and malice.
They hide their vile approbation of looting and extortion under the guise of ‘Humanitarianism’, ‘Utility’,’Democracy’,….
They refuse to admit that Socialist Democracy…. ‘Pure’ Democracy….Unchecked/ Unlimited Democracy has destroyed Western civilisation… and yet the destroyers will sucker many by saying that the blame is not due to their Tyranny… but to their lenience!
They continue to delude the sheeple by insisting instead that their Legislative Micro-management and regimentation of our lives has not been thorough enough!

Yet as the Rot sets in the harder the Lie is to maintain…
The King speaks the truth when he says that Socialist Paternalism is untenable, and that Individuals must shoulder their own responsibilities….yet the Idea that we must take care of our own Health, education, Retirement, etc is simply too frightening for many institutionalised and dependent Plebs to bear!

Many will hate him for it!
They will cry “Regicide!”
“Lets Build a scaffold… a guillotine…. and rid ourselves of the Monarchy”…. wilfully pretending that ‘Democracy’ is synonymous with justice…. yet this is a great lie!

All forms of Government have their strengths and their weaknesses.
All suffer from the ‘Human Condition’ making them susceptible to corruption… so why Give any government Absolute power?
Best to strictly limit political power and leave Individuals free to take care of themselves and to pursue their own happiness.
Socialism has failed on every level, and Western civilisation teeters an the edge of economic catastrophe… and this King…. has in fact proven what are some of the virtues of Monarchy…. of being an unelected ruler and having a birthright which makes his self interest and the interests of his nation/ Dominion synonymous… The Fact that it is both his duty to care for his Subjects, and that he can speak an unpopular truth without having to face an election… ie his Seat of power is not so immediately dependent upon appeasing the Whims of the Mob… as is the chief problem of the demagogue.
A king still requires the support of his subjects, yet it is Easier to vote out an unpopular Demagogue, than to legally dethrone a King.

Back in the late 1700s, the American Founding Fathers discussing these questions of ‘What constitutes the proper role of Government?’…. John Adams said to Thomas Jefferson … “You Fear the Few, whereas I fear the Many…”

Both were right.

Whether Monarchy, Oligarchy, or Democracy… “He who governs Best… Governs Least.”
Thomas Jefferson…

These are Issues facing all Western Nations…. All Nations.
New Zealand included.
We are currently going through the pretences of ‘a Constitutional review’ and yet it is a Charade!
So few of the Real issues are being discussed…. because the Status quo seeks to maintain and even strengthen the status quo!
There is no desire for any True reform….. no question of the surrendering of any government powers or spheres of Intervention, regulation, Taxation…etc.
It is a parade….. an act…. a formality…. for the sake of The Morons…. It’s the ruse of setting up ‘commissions’ etc so that the the powers that be can claim “due process was followed”… the fools can be duped into believing they ‘witnessed’ Justice being done…. even though the conclusions were all forgone… and not one ounce of political power revoked.
Tim Wikiriwhi
Christian Libertarian.

Jihad on Drugs™, Peter Dunne, Psychoactive Substances Act, Regulation, What Have You Been Smoking?

Ministry of Stupid

2 Comments

2103-youre-a-special-kind-of-stupid-arent-you

Here‘s the page where the Ministry of Health tells us that synthetic cannabinoids pose no more than a low risk of harm to people using them.

Here‘s the page where the Ministry of Health goes into further detail.

(What did you understand we meant by “no more than a low risk of harm”? Let us tell you, because I think you misinterpreted us. We meant …)

difficulty breathing
feeling cut off from the world or what is happening
seeing, feeling or hearing things that are not real
high blood pressure
chest pain
racing heart rate
chest pain
shaking and twitching
eyeballs move up an and down rapidly
nonstop vomiting
fainting or loss of speech and eyesight
extreme anxiety and panic
paranoia
loss of contact with reality (psychosis)
seizures

problems sleeping
nightmares
heavy sweating
nausea
low appetite
headaches
moodiness
irritability
restlessness
craving drugs

extreme anxiety and panic
paranoia
on-going nausea and vomiting
confusion and memory problems
depression
suicidal thoughts
high blood pressure
racing heart
anger
aggression and violence

reduced self-care
less school attendance
less motivation
more apathy
less thought about the consequences of actions
less ability to focus and pay attention

Disorientation
Painlessness
Head rush when smoking cigarettes
Heightened sense of awareness
Mood changes (some reporting happier moods, some reporting an increase in anxiety)
Loss of co-ordination
Loss of balance
Nausea and vomiting
Inner unrest

Disorientation
Sensitivity to light
Nausea and vomiting
Sleeplessness
Anger outbursts
Heightened sense of awareness
Head rush when smoking cigarettes
Inner unrest
Pins and needles sensation
Low mood
Altered perceptions
Sense of hopelessness
Feeling “left with all the dumb sh**”
Feeling faint
Willing to take more risks
Dehydration

Sleeplessness
Anger outbursts
Altered perceptions
Disorientated
Low mood
Pins and needles sensation
Use of cannabis to self-medicate symptoms
Dehydration
Cold flashes

Now look here, Ministry of Stupid. I’m a libertarian and I don’t think you should be involved in regulating psychoactive substances at all. But I’m a realist too. I know it’s not like I have a choice. But didn’t I hear you say, “it’s for your own good”? If you really must get all paternalistic about it, couldn’t you at least get that bit right?

You know, you really dug yourselves into a hole when Peter Dunne was calling the spadework. Stupid is as stupid does. Stupid Dunne. But maintaining blatant contradictions on your website? That’s a special kind of stupid. Hasn’t anyone told you? When you’re in a hole, stop digging.

Notwithstanding what I said a couple of days ago, the moles from the Ministry of Stupid really have abdicated their tiny minds and evicted themselves from the realm of reality. Will they ever find their way back? They’ve lost their moral compass so maybe we should send out a search party.

Right now I’m

Feeling “left with all the dumb sh**”

I think I need a smoke.

Ayn Rand, Death Angel, Semantics

It’s time to drive a stake through the heart of Objectivism

1 Comment

John Van Eyssen and Valerie Gaunt

I’m not sure how I ended up here. But I did.

The desire for the unearned has two aspects: the unearned in matter and the unearned in spirit. (By “spirit” I mean: man’s consciousness.) These two aspects are necessarily interrelated, but a man’s desire may be focused predominantly on one or the other. The desire for the unearned in spirit is the more destructive of the two and the more corrupt. It is a desire for unearned greatness; it is expressed (but not defined) by the foggy murk of the term “prestige.” . . .

Unearned greatness is so unreal, so neurotic a concept that the wretch who seeks it cannot identify it even to himself: to identify it, is to make it impossible. He needs the irrational, undefinable slogans of altruism and collectivism to give a semiplausible form to his nameless urge and anchor it to reality—to support his own self-deception more than to deceive his victims.

– Ayn Rand in “The Monument Builders,” The Virtue of Selfishness

And I was mortified. Just a few days ago I accused Rand of this.

The conventions that govern our use of stipulative definitions demand that any use of a word stipulatively defined is preceded with the appropriate disclaimer, i.e., “In what follows, I use ‘X’ to mean ‘Y’. Rand rode roughshod over this convention with cavalier contempt.

But in these two paragraphs (the Ayn Rand Lexicon entry on Prestige) not only does Rand adhere to the rules meticulously, – (By “spirit” I mean: man’s consciousness.) – she levels the very same charge at those who desire unearned greatness that I’d leveled at her.

I hastily posted an embarrassed retraction to atone for my rush to judgement. 🙁

But then I realised. I’d thought I was wrong but actually I was right. The two paragraphs do not exonerate Rand. They seal her doom.

Rand knew the rules. She knew the danger of ambiguity. She acknowledged the need of one who seeks unearned greatness for “irrational, undefinable slogans … to give a semiplausible form to his nameless urge and anchor it to reality—to support his own self-deception more than to deceive his victims.”

And she went and broke the rules. She capitalised on the foggy murk of the very ambiguities she introduced to underwrite her egoistic creed. She satiated her need for prestige with the irrational, undefinable slogans of Objectivism – not to support her own self-deception but to deceive her wretched victims – her own followers.

Rand knew exactly what she was doing.

If I’m not wrong, I’ve resolved something that has long puzzled me. You see, I’ve spent considerable time in the virtual company of Rand’s deluded disciples. And over the course of that time I’ve developed a grudging respect for Objectivism’s founder. The lady was smart, super-smart. But her philosophy simply doesn’t stack up.

It was never meant to stack up. It’s a philosophy for life on earth. Rand’s life on Earth, surrounded by an inner-circle of adoring sycophants. And her philosophy served its purpose. It created an army of hapless dupes in thrall to their evil dominatrix.

Rand earned her greatness. But what shall she give in return for her soul?

1984, Tax

Papers please!

4 Comments

papers1Big_01In the last couple of months I have been stopped at least once a week by the police to check my WOF, Registration and Driver’s License. Always during the day too – so it’s not like they are seriously looking for drunk drivers.

Screen Shot 2013-09-18 at 7.07.44 PMI’m not feeling bloody safer.

Bigotry and Hate, Evolutionism, Faith, Materialism, Nazi Thugs, Nihilism, Science, Theism, There is a God!

“Moral Teacher’s more important than Physicists”

1 Comment

Saith Einstein.

apple terrorists

Science is Amoral in the sense that it works for whosoever employs her… without regard of the Righteousness or Wickedness of her Employer’s cause …
That is why Ethics are more essential than Technology.
As Einstein said… “Moral Teachers (like Jesus) are more important than Physicists”
And as the man who understood the horrific global implications if the Nazi’s should have time enough to get command of the power or the Atom…. He would know!
Ironically It was Hitler’s Immoral Anti-Semitism which caused Einstein to quit Germany and emigrate to America….
Poetic Justice!

Ayn Rand, Entombed, Logic, New Inklings, Religious Toleration

What is rationality? (Part 1)

12 Comments

2002_75211AFCFBA3477

It’s been a while, but tomorrow night The New Inklings meet again! The time is 7 pm. The place is the Downtown House Bar and Cafe at the Downtown Backpackers, corner of Bunny Street and Waterloo Quay, Wellington.

We discuss philosophy (mainly) and theology. You’re welcome to join us, provided that you are (1) irenic, and (2) rational. If you don’t know what it means to be irenic, Google is your friend. If you don’t know what it means to be rational, well … tomorrow night’s discussion topic is for you!

the nature of rationality and what a commitment to Reason entails

So I thought I’d jot down a few recent thoughts … and start a series of posts … on this fundamentally important to everything topic.

Here’s my all-time favourite Ayn Rand quote.

To arrive at a contradiction is to confess an error in one’s thinking; to maintain a contradiction is to abdicate one’s mind and to evict oneself from the realm of reality.

I used to love to brandish this one at Ayn Rand’s hypocritical followers. I say ‘used to’ because it’s just dawned on me that Rand got it completely wrong! (Yet again! Wotta surprise!)

To arrive at a contradiction is NOT to confess an error in one’s thinking. To arrive at a contradiction is the strongest confirmation possible that there is NO error in one’s thinking!

And to maintain a contradiction is NOT to abdicate one’s mind nor to evict oneself from the realm of reality. At least, not in the short-term, probably not in the medium-term and possibly not even in the long-term! NOT to maintain a contradiction, in the short-term at least, would be irrational in the utmost extreme!

I really don’t know why I didn’t see this sooner … perhaps you don’t see it yet, so I’ll explain.

The simplest example of a contradiction is a proposition and its negation. P and not-P. Two propositions are contradictory, or inconsistent, if they cannot both be true. Three propositions are mutually contradictory, or form an inconsistent triad, if they cannot all be true. Four propositions that cannot all be true form an inconsistent tetrad. And so on and so forth.

None but the completely insane ever believes P and not-P. But believing A, B and C, where A, B and C cannot all be true? This is a commonplace. But most people who believe A, B and C don’t notice the inconsistency. A and B don’t contradict. B and C don’t contradict. C and A don’t contradict. It’s the mutual inconsistency that gives rise to the contradiction. To arrive at the contradiction you actually have to have some logical nous. You have to be able to recognise that

(P1) A
(P2) B
Therefore, (C) not-C

is a deductively valid argument. So to arrive at a contradiction is actually to confirm that you have at least a basic grasp of logic! Which most people don’t.

So you’ve arrived at a contradiction. You believe A, B and C and you are cognizant of the contradiction. You know your beliefs can’t all be true. You know that (at least) one of them has to go. But which one? You’d better sit down and try to figure that one out. But you don’t want to reject the wrong belief. So, in the meanwhile, you’ll maintain the contradiction. Take your time. It’s the rational thing to do.

Domesticated Primates, Exegesis, Jesus FTW!, John, Logic, Memes, Personal Identity, Philosophy of Mind

He that hath seen me

12 Comments

3l4kf

For an entertaining exercise, name the third person of the Unholy Trinity.

Who is it? Mini-Me? Fat Bastard? Frau Farbissina? Or … ?

Brian Leftow on “One Person Christology” is Glenn Peoples’ latest blog post.

How can a Chalcedonian Christology avoid ending up with Christ being two people? If the divine logos (the second person of the Trinity) combined with a fully functioning human body and soul (which some people take to be the ingredients of a human being), that is surely two people and not one, right?

Commenter Nathan thinks it would be an entertaining exercise “to try and define Logos and Human as classes, and then try and bring them together to get incarnate Jesus.” He adds, “but ultimately it won’t work.”

Class, superclass, subclass, interface, implementation, instantiation, inheritance—these are all concepts in object-oriented programming (OOP). Object-oriented programming is a programming paradigm that represents things in the real world as objects with attributes (“properties”) and abilities (“methods”). In software development, object-oriented programming is the one true way. But in theology?

The theology question of the day is not

How can God be three persons?

but the closely related

How can the Incarnate Christ be only one?

By implementing the Human interface, that’s how! Not sure if serious or trolling? I’m serious. I think everything is software.

(Incoming! Genetic fallacy! “When you’re a hammer, everything looks like a nail,” you say. “You’re a progr(h)ammer, Richard, so *of course* everything looks like software to you!” Nice try but no chocolate fish. Thales was not a tap.)

I’ll try to elaborate. But there’s a problem. Whereas the procedural paradigm is intuitive, the object-oriented paradigm is counter-intuitive. I started out in the procedural paradigm. Next stop, bitter experience. That’s when I made the paradigm shift. But it wasn’t easy explaining the object-oriented paradigm to myself then, and it won’t be easy explaining it to you now. That’s the problem. But I’ll try to elaborate.

I don’t always determine the meaning of a word by looking at its etymology, but when I do I look at the etymology of the word ‘logic’. The word ‘logic’ derives from the Greek λόγος or Logos, which has no exact translation but means, roughly, “reason, idea, word”. But Logos is the second person of the Trinity. Christ is Logos.

God is the author of the logic of the world, and his son is the expression of this logic.

So says philospher Nicholas F. Gier. Now, what is software but an expression of logic? Think about it.

In the beginning was the Code, and the Code was with God, and the Code was God.

Controversial? Heretical? Or just plain bat-shit crazy? No more so than the Logos Christology of the Gospel of John is any of those things.

A brain (and the body housing it) and a mind (the software running on it) are what constitutes a human person. Christ Incarnate was a human person. He was simultaneously the second person of the Trinity. How come he was not two persons, but just one? Simple. He was running different software. You and I instantiate the class DomesticatedPrimate. Christ Incarnate instantiated the class Logos. Christ is the class Logos. He instantiated himself.

An interface is an abstract class that defines a set of abstract methods. The Human interface is an abstract class that defines what it is to be human in terms of distinctively human attributes and distinctively human abilities. The classes DomesticatedPrimate and Logos have this in common. They both implement the Human interface.

That’s my destructive heresy for today. I’m not teaching it, mind. Just putting it out there.

OOP or Oops!? Be sure to let me know in the comments.

3nf8k

Good

“Good without God” or “good with God”?

7 Comments

.. .the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control.. .

Some Buddhists have love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control.
Some Muslims have love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control.
Some Atheists have love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control.
And, even some Christians have love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control.

The question I have is this:-

If these people have genuine fruit of the Spirit then doesn’t that imply that they have the Spirit of God?

Ayn Rand, Semantics

Say what you mean and mean what you say

8 Comments

humpty_thumb

Have you considered an egg?

Consider Humpty Dumpty, the world’s most famous egg.

I poached the following passage from Lewis Carroll’s Through the Looking-Glass (1872), where Humpty discusses semantics and pragmatics with Alice.

“I don’t know what you mean by ‘glory’,” Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. “Of course you don’t – till I tell you. I meant ‘there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!'”

“But ‘glory’ doesn’t mean ‘a nice knock-down argument’,” Alice objected.

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.”

“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”

“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master – that’s all.”

What an egg-otist! Whosoever exalteth himself shall be abased. It’s no wonder Humpty Dumpty had a great fall.

A long time ago I was a philosophy student at Otago University. And one exam time I was looking at some past exam papers and came across the following exam question: What is the meaning of a word?

It’s a simple question with a simple answer. The meaning of a word is determined by the conventions that govern its use. This is no mere platitude. It’s philosophical orthodoxy and has been since David Lewis – ranked by his peers as the third most important philosopher of the twentieth century – published Convention: A Philosophical Study (1969). Platitude. Orthodoxy. Truth.

The meaning of a word is determined by the conventions that govern its use.

Alice is right. ‘Glory’ doesn’t mean ‘a nice knock-down argument’. You can’t make words mean so many different things. You can’t make ‘glory’ mean ‘a nice knock-down argument’ on your own, any more than you can determine the next government by casting a single vote. What’s more, one of the conventions that governs the use of the term ‘glory’ is the convention of correcting people when they use the word to mean something else. Our linguistic conventions have a built-in inertia that safeguards our very ability to communicate.

Humpty Dumpty’s semantics was scrambled a long time before he met the same fate.

MjAxMy04YWVhZGE1NTA5NDcyMWQ4

Sense of Life Objectivists (SOLO) is the world’s foremost forum for disciples of Ayn Rand. Go there and check out the banner at the top-right of every page. Every few page loads it advises

Say what you mean, and mean what you say

It’s good advice. But, SOLO being the hive of hypocrisy that it is, well, you’d hardly expect its delusional denizens to take it, would you? No, you wouldn’t and they don’t.

Recently, I’ve been following (one side of) a conversation on SOLO. An Objectivist said this.

What did you understand I meant by “human (i.e. existential) survival”? Let me tell you, because I think you misinterpreted me. I meant what Ayn Rand meant by it, namely, living in accordance with man’s identity as having the potential to be a heroic being

This has the more general form.

What did you think I meant by ‘X’? I meant ‘Y’.

To which I respond, if you meant ‘Y’, why didn’t you find the word or words which actually mean what you meant, and use those instead? To enter into a philosophical discussion is to commit to upholding certain standards of rational debate. It is inexcusable to say ‘X’ when you mean ‘Y’. I know, I’ve done it myself. I’ve said ‘X’ when I meant ‘Y’. And I’ve apologised. There is simply no excuse for not saying what you mean, let alone any entitlement to use words any which way. Why should other participants in the debate have to take time out to establish the meaning of your every utterance? It’s an imposition.

There’s another problem. Words have meanings. Their meanings are determined by the conventions that govern their use. Their meanings are not determined by you on an ad lib basis as you see fit on any given occasion. Consider the case of someone who habitually says ‘X’ but means something else. (In other words, consider an Objectivist.) The Objectivist tells us he actually meant ‘Y’. But what does he mean by ‘Y’? Perhaps by ‘Y’ he means ‘Z’?

This can go two ways. One is an infinite regress of stipulative definitions. The other is a regress that stops when the Objectivist tells you that what *he* actually means is the same as what the *words* he uses actually mean. But if the Objectivist is demonstrably capable of using words to mean what the words mean, as he is in the latter case, he is without excuse for not using words to mean what they actually mean in the first place.

We use words to talk about reality. The constant redefinition of ordinary words that goes on in Objectivist circles has the inevitable consequence that the relations of reference that obtain between words and the world come unstuck.

Ayn Rand described herself as an advocate of reason. I know what ‘reason’ means. I don’t know what Rand meant by ‘reason’ but I know what she didn’t mean. She didn’t mean reason.

Give me Liberty, or give me Death!