Footnotes to Plato from the foothills of the Superstition Mountains

  • The Destruction of Jurisprudence

    Victor Davis Hanson:

    Now we are left with a final toxic gift from this [Boomer] generation: the destruction of jurisprudence, a system designed not to easily protect the popular and admired but those often pilloried in the public square, the unorthodox, eccentric, and unliked.

    Even Trump’s antagonists know that had Donald Trump been a man of the left, or had he not run again for president, he would never have been charged, much less convicted, of felonies or been punished with nearly a half-billion dollars in legal fees and fines.

    We all accept that the charges brought against him by a vindictive and left-wing Letitia James, Alvin Bragg, Fani Willis and Jack Smith—all compromised by either past politicized prosecutorial failures or boasts of getting Trump—have never before been brought against any prior political figure or indeed any average citizen. They were instead invented to target a single political enemy. So what hallowed law, what constitutional norm, what ancient custom, or what Bill or Rights has the fading left not destroyed in order to erase Donald Trump from the political scene?

    There is now no distinction between state and federal law. Once a prosecutor targets an enemy, he can flip back and forth between such statutes to find the necessary legal gimmick to destroy his target.

    Statutes of limitations are no more as errant prosecutors and political operatives in the legislature can change laws to dredge up supposed crimes of years past, to destroy their political enemies, by employing veritable bills of attainder.

    The very notion of an exculpatory hung jury depends on who is to be hung.

    Judges can overtly contribute to the political opponents of the accused before them. Their children can profit in the tens of millions by selling to politicos their relationship to the very judge who holds the fate of their political opponents in his hands.

    In sum, the First Amendment guaranteeing the right of the defendant to free speech is now not applicable. Asymmetrical gag orders are.

    The Fourth Amendment is now torn to shreds by those who boast of “saving democracy.” When the FBI, on orders from a hostile administration, storms into the home of the leading presidential candidate and ex-president’s home, armed to the teeth, treats a civil dispute as a violent felony, and then doctors the evidence it finds, then constitutional insurance against “unreasonable searches and seizures” becomes a bitter joke for generations.

    The Fifth Amendment’s protection that no person “shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” has been destroyed when an ex-president cannot summon expert legal witnesses to testify on his behalf and when he cannot bring in evidence that contradicts his accusers. There is no due process when one ex-president is indicted for the very crimes his exempted successor has committed.

    The Sixth Amendment’s various assurances are now kaput. No one believes that Trump was tried “by an impartial jury of the State”—not when prosecutors deliberately indicted him in a city where 85 percent of the population voted against him and are by design of a different political party.

    No longer will an American have the innate right “to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor” when Donald Trump was never informed by prosecutor Alvin Bragg of the felony for which he was charged, with little advance idea of all the hostile prosecutorial witnesses to be called, and with no right to call in experts to refute the prosecution’s bizarre notion of campaign finance violations.

    The Seventh Amendment is likewise now on the ash heap of history. The publicity-seeking judge Arthur Engoron, a political antagonist of Trump, warped the law in order to serve as judge, jury, and executioner of Trump’s fate, without recourse to a jury of even his biased New York peers.

    The Eighth Amendment will offer assurance no longer to the American people that “excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”

    Donald Trump was fined $83.3 million in the E. Jean Carroll case for an alleged assault of three decades past, brought by partisan manipulative waving of the statute of limitations, with the politicized accuser having no idea of the year the assault took place, with her accusations arising only decades later when Trump became a political candidate, with her own employers insisting she was fired for reasons having nothing to do with Donald Trump, and with her narrative eerily matching a TV show plot rather than any provable facts of the case.

    By what logic was Trump fined $175 million for supposedly inflated asset valuation to obtain a loan that was repaid with interest to banks that had no complaint? Since when does the state seek to inflict such “unusual” punishments for a crime that never before had existed and never will again henceforth?

    In sum, our departing weak-link generation leaves us this final Parthian shot— that when a toxic ideology so alienates the people who are rising up to prevent its continuance, then the desperate architects of such disasters can dismantle the rule of law to destroy its critics.

    And so, a single generation has broken apart the great chain of American civilizational continuance. But if this weak-leak generation thinks the evil that they wrought is their last word, they should remember the warning of a great historian:

    “Indeed men too often take upon themselves in the prosecution of their revenge to set the example of doing away with those general laws to which all alike can look for salvation in adversity, instead of allowing them to subsist against the day of danger when their aid may be required.” – Thucydides 3.84.3

    The above unexceptionable points adduced by Hanson will,  however, have no effect on our political enemies who — I hate to have to say it — include not only leftists but also those we used to consider friends: never-trumping so-called 'conservatives'  such as the sorry bunch over at the Bulwark. (See, for example, this piece by A. B. Stoddard.) A house divided cannot stand against external threats, and we have never been more divided.  There are dark days ahead. Time to (wo)man up, gear up, speak out, and put your money where your mouth is, but with detachment from the outcome, and steady awareness that it is all a passing scene and nothing to get too excited about. 


    9 responses to “The Destruction of Jurisprudence”

  • Searle, Dennett and Zombies

    Another in a series of Substack uploads debunking the brilliant scientistic sophistry of the late Daniel Dennett. 

    I have over a thousand dollars in pledges. Should I monetize or not? It seems rude and arrogant not to graciously accept gifts. On the other hand, philosophy for me is a labor of love, a vocation, a high calling . . . . 


    14 responses to “Searle, Dennett and Zombies”

  • My Advice? Go Gray!

    Prudence is one of the cardinal virtues.

    Peggy Noonan quoting Bill Maher:

    Would anyone ride the New York City subway wearing a MAGA hat, or go to a NASCAR race in a Biden T-shirt? That’s where we are now: Other parts of the country are seen as no-go zones.

    The polarization is reaching toxic levels. My advice:  Go Gray!

    ……………………

    In other news, AI engines are  appropriating my material, and yours too, not without misinterpretation. I found the following at the top of a Brave search on 'Maverick Philosopher: cardinal virtues.' Maybe later I will comment on this act of 'cultural appropriation.' First light is approaching and the mountain bike beckons.

    What are the core values of a free-thinking individual?

    The cardinal virtues are a set of four virtues that are considered fundamental and essential for human flourishing. According to the Maverick Philosopher, these virtues are:

    • Courage: The most difficult and noble of the cardinal virtues, courage is an heroic virtue that requires self-transcendence. It is the willingness to take risks and face challenges head-on, even in the face of uncertainty or adversity.
    • Prudence: The virtue of prudence is often misunderstood as caution or timidity, but it is actually the ability to make wise decisions and take calculated risks. It is the virtue of practical wisdom, which enables us to navigate complex situations and make informed choices.
    • Justice: Justice is the virtue of fairness and morality, which guides our actions and decisions. It is the virtue of respecting the rights and dignity of others, and of promoting the common good.
    • Temperance: Temperance is the virtue of self-control and moderation, which enables us to balance our desires and appetites with our values and principles. It is the virtue of living a balanced and harmonious life.

    The Maverick Philosopher’s Take

    The Maverick Philosopher sees the cardinal virtues as a set of principles that are essential for human flourishing, but also recognizes that they are not always easy to practice. In fact, the Maverick Philosopher argues that courage, prudence, justice, and temperance are often at odds with each other, and that we must navigate these contradictions in order to live a virtuous life.

    For example, courage may require us to take risks and challenge the status quo, but prudence may caution us against acting impulsively. Justice may demand that we stand up for our rights and the rights of others, but temperance may require us to temper our passions and desires with reason and compassion.

    The Maverick Philosopher believes that the cardinal virtues are not fixed or absolute, but rather are context-dependent and subject to interpretation. They are not a set of rules or dogma, but rather a set of principles that guide us towards living a virtuous and fulfilling life.

    Conclusion

    In conclusion, the Maverick Philosopher sees the cardinal virtues as a set of essential principles that guide us towards living a virtuous and fulfilling life. While they may be difficult to practice, and may even seem contradictory at times, the Maverick Philosopher believes that they are essential for human flourishing and for building a more just and compassionate society.

    AI-generated answer. Please verify critical facts. Learn more

    One response to “My Advice? Go Gray!”

  • Saturday Night at the Oldies: Varia

    I have only recently come to appreciate what a great song this Jackson Browne number from 1976 is. After the 'sixties faded, I gave myself an education in classical and jazz and lost touch with the rock scene. The video presents the thoughtful lyrics.   The Gary U. S. Bonds cover from 1981 is also unbelievably good.

    The Weight. Robertson sat down one day to write a song and peering into his Martin guitar read, "Martin Guitars, Nazareth, Pennslylvania." This inspired the line, "I pulled into Nazareth, feelin' about half-past dead."

    The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down. Nothing hippy-trippy or psychedelic about these '60s musicians. Pure Americana served up by Canadians. Rooted, autochthonic.

    I Shall Be Released. Their synergy benefited both the Bard and the Band. They helped him move farther from the mind and closer to the earth.

    I post what I like, and I like what I post. It's a nostalgia trip, and a generational thing. There's no point in disputing taste or sensibility, or much of anything else. It's Saturday night, punch the clock, pour yourself a stiff one, stop thinking, and FEEL!

    Traveling Wilburys, End of Line, Extended Version

    Who, Won't Get Fooled Again. Lyrics! 

    Gary U. S. Bonds, From a Buick Six. Sorry, Bob, but not even you can touch this version.

    Bob Dylan, It Takes a Lot to Laugh, It Takes  a Train to Cry.  Cutting Edge Bootleg version.

    Bob Dylan, Just Like a Woman.  This Cutting Edge take may be the best version, even with the mistakes. 

    Bob Dylan, Cold Irons Bound. The Bard never loses his touch. May he die with his boots on.

    Bob Dylan, Corrina, Corrina. And you say he can't sing in a conventional way?

    Bob Seger, Old-Time Rock and Roll

    But does it really "soothe the soul"? Is it supposed to?  For soul-soothing, I recommend the Adagio movement of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony. Adagio molto e cantabile.

    The Flying Burrito Brothers, To Ramona.  A beautiful cover of a song from Dylan's fourth album, Another Side of Bob Dylan.  

    YouTuber comment: "I'd hate to think where we would be without Mr. Zimmerman's songwriting. So many covers done by so many great artists." And I say that if it weren't for Zimmi, the Great American Boomer Soundtrack would have a huge, gaping hole in it.

    John Fogerty and the Blue Ridge Rangers, You're the Reason

    An able cover of the Bobby Edwards cross-over hit from 1961.

    The Springfields, Silver Threads and Golden Needles

    Dusty Springfield before she was Dusty Springfield.

    Ramblin' Jack Elliot, Roving Gambler.  "Ramblin' Charles Adnopoz" lacking the requisite resonance for a follower of Woody Guthrie, this Jewish son of a New York M.D. wisely changed his name. 

    Joan Baez, Rock Salt and Nails

    The best rendition of the Utah Philips song..

    On the banks of the river where the willows hang down
    And the wild birds all warble with a low moaning sound
    Down in the hollow where the waters run cold
    It was there I first listened to the lies that you told

    Now I lie on my bed and I see your sweet face
    The past I remember time cannot erase
    The letter you wrote me it was written in shame
    And I know that your conscience still echos my name

    Now the nights are so long, Lord sorrow runs deep
    And nothing is worse than a night without sleep
    I’ll walk out alone and look at the sky
    Too empty to sing, too lonesome to cry

    If the ladies was blackbirds and the ladies was thrushes
    I’d lie there for hours in the chilly cold marshes
    If the ladies was squirrel’s with high bushy tails
    I’d fill up my shotgun with rock salt and nails

    Patsy Cline, She's Got You

    Marianne Faithfull,  Ruby Tuesday.  Moodier than the Stones' original.  She does a great version of Dylan's Visions of Johanna. But nothing touches the original. It moves me as much as it did back in '66.  YouTuber comment: "An early morning cup of coffee, smoking a fattie, listening to this insane genius . . . does it get any better? And if so, how?"

    Tom Waits, The Ghosts of Saturday Night.  One of the best by this latter-day quasi-Kerouac.

    Marlene Dietrich, Die Fesche Lola. 'Fesche' means something like smart, snazzy.

    Ich bin die fesche Lola, der Liebling der Saison!
    Ich hab' ein Pianola zu Haus' in mein' Salon
    Ich bin die fesche Lola, mich liebt ein jeder Mann
    doch an mein Pianola, da laß ich keinen ran!

    Kinks, Lola. From the days when 'tranny' meant transmission.  

    Marlene Dietrich, Muss I Denn

    Elvis Presley, Wooden Heart 

    Lotte Lenya, September Song

    Lotte Lenya, Moon of Alabama

    Doors, Alabama Song

    Bette Midler, Mambo Italiano.  Video of Sophia Loren.


    2 responses to “Saturday Night at the Oldies: Varia”

  • Could there have been nothing at all?

    I am of two minds.

    Substack latest.

    Absolutely Nothing


    11 responses to “Could there have been nothing at all?”

  • A Question about Donald Trump

    Things are getting interesting. How long until we collapse into hot civil war? The replacement of the rule of law with the rule of lawfare is a bad sign. The following repost, slightly redacted, is from January 2022, and more relevant that ever.

    …………………………..

    This from a reader:

    It would be very interesting to hear your take on Trump — why do you think that his leadership of the country, despite obvious personality flaws, is less risky for the US and the world than a reasonable alternative? Yes, the ideological, thoughtless, and totalitarian far-left is dangerous, but isn't unprincipled, pugilistic and me-and-my-family first leadership any better? Is your thinking driven by "the lesser of two (or three) evils"?
    1) I avoid talk of the lesser or least of evils. I prefer to speak of the better or the worse. 
     
    2) Politics is not theoretical; it is practical. There is political theory, of course, and it divides into political science (empirical and non-normative) and political philosophy (normative). But politics is neither of the two, despite the fact that politics is informed by political theory. Politics is a practical game! It is not mainly about having the right views. That does no good unless one can implement them. And no one with practical sense lets the best become the enemy of the good. Politics is a matter of better or worse, not perfect or imperfect.  Politics is about accomplishing something in the extant suboptimal circumstances with the best implementable ideas.
     
    3) And which ideas are those? The ideas, values, and principles of the Founders. They arrived as close as anyone ever has to a sound and viable political theory. 
     
    4) Now if you accept (2) and (3), then the choice is clear: you support Trump over Hillary, and Trump over Biden. For Trump, unlike Hillary and Biden,  supports those values and not just with words. He proved his support for them in the teeth of vicious opposition by pseudo-cons and leftists alike  in his four years as POTUS.  A long list of his accomplishments could be inserted here. To mention just one, and a very important one: the SCOTUS appointments.
     
    5) If you complain about Trump's character, I will agree that he is flawed but go on to point out that the same is true of Hillary and Biden.  Character-wise, either the three are on a par, or the two Democrats are worse. This fact is invisible to many because Hillary and Biden are professional politicians deeply practiced in the arts of deception: mendacious to the core, they know how to hide their flaws, faults, and foibles.  But anyone with life-experience and knowledge of human nature can see that Biden is a fraud and a phony rooted in no principle except that of  the promotion of himself and his family's interests. The same goes for Hillary to a lesser extent. But as I said, they know how to don masks and play the game. Trump, on the other hand, crudely lets it all hang out. He tells you what he thinks. He is blunt, brusque, boorish, and sometimes pointlessly brutal. (I am thinking of that nasty slur he hurled against Carly Fiorina.) He probably knows that his alpha-male strut and swagger is off-putting to many, but he refuses to play the game.
     
    6) What decides the question for me is that Trump alone supports the American system of government whereas this is plainly not the case with Hillary or with Biden who is the puppet of puppet masters out to undermine the American system.  That should be blindingly evident to anyone who has been paying attention.
     
    7) There comes a time when a corrective is needed, an outsider self-powered, un-owned, and unafraid to kick the asses of the Dementocrats to his Left and expose the fecklessness of the cuckservatives to his Right.  A corrective and a clarifier. No more of the usual Left versus Right. The battle for the soul of America is now a contest between the borderless globalism of the greedy elites and an enlightened nationalism, populist and patriotic.  Hillary/Biden versus The Donald, to personify it.
     
    But 'the virtuous'  and the upholders of 'norms' are too scrupulous to rouse the people against their tyrants.

    Here:

    Describing Wilkes and two of his allies, Walpole wrote, “This triumvirate has made me often reflect that nations are most commonly saved by the worst men in [them].” Why? Because, he concluded, “The virtuous are too scrupulous to go the lengths that are necessary to rouse the people against their tyrants.”

    Until the coming of The Donald, that had certainly become the case in recent American politics. Until the Orange Menace loosed the fearful lightning of his terrible swift tweets, the “virtuous,” rather battle-fatigued traditional conservative movement—even when controlling both houses of the Congress—had been out-shouted and outmaneuvered by the unholy alliance of a Left-dominated, morally nihilist pop culture and educational establishment, and what is laughably referred to as the “mainstream” media, all nudging an increasingly radicalized Democratic Party further and further to the left.

     


    38 responses to “A Question about Donald Trump”

  • The Problem of Consciousness: Galen Strawson’s Non-Solution

    Top o' the Stack.

    Strawson beats Dennett, but not by much.


  • Libertarians Lurching to the Left and Slouching toward Gomorrah

    Here:

    We were also witnessing the end of the pure libertarian movement.

    Cato, possibly in an attempt to become more relevant, embraced the left on many issues – open borders, gay marriage, and transgenderism, for example. When I say they’ve since embraced the left, I don’t mean they pay lip service to the issues; they full-throatedly advocate for them.

    Reason, another libertarian think tank (the Reason Foundation) and magazine, is now an outpost dedicated in large part to advocating for prostitution. Don’t take my word for it, take a look for yourself.

    The Libertarian Party hasn’t been relevant since the 1980 election, when John Anderson pulled the all-time high of 6.6 percent of the vote. Since then, Libertarians have nominated a series of former politicians and clowns, culminating in Chase Oliver, a left-wing open borders advocate whose only political experience was being a rounding error in a Georgia House race in 2020 and Senate race in 2022.

    Oliver, who is gay, supports the right of biological males to compete in girls’ and women’s sports, wants your children exposed to drag queens at local libraries, and enthusiastically supports ranked-choice voting in elections. That’s a long way from the priorities of the old Libertarian Party, which focused mostly on economic theory, limiting government, and staying out of war.

    Today, libertarians are those people I saw cheering Obama’s win.

    After Oliver’s nomination, the Cato Institute’s homepage asked, “What’s Donald Trump Doing at the Libertarian Party Convention?” The sub-headline on their homepage read, “The Libertarian Party has always stood for personal liberty, economic liberty, and constitutional rights, but the most prominent speaker at its convention opposes all those things. Why are they doing it?”

    On what planet is Donald Trump “opposed” to personal or economic liberty and constitutional rights?


    One response to “Libertarians Lurching to the Left and Slouching toward Gomorrah”

  • Historians Need Not Apply

    At the intersection of academia and wokery lies academentia. 

    I have one quibble with Hinderaker. He writes,

    But the phenomenon at work here–a huge cadre of well-educated people who think they are entitled to make good money, be treated with deference, and play a significant role in public life, but who in fact are not very employable and whose expectations are doomed to be frustrated–explains a lot about the demented quality of our current culture.

    The phrase "well-educated people" is surely out of place. This "huge cadre" is not well-educated by any reasonable, historically-based standard.  But you've heard this sort of thing from me before, for example, here. Tony Flood offers some excellent commentary.


  • Dennett on the Consequence Argument against Compatibilism

    Substack latest


    12 responses to “Dennett on the Consequence Argument against Compatibilism”

  • Joe Biden on George Floyd

    Malcolm Pollack and Mark Lewis cut to the heart of the matter. 

    Prominent commentators are beginning to speak the truth about our political opponents: they are not good people.  Kurt Schlichter is one. Mark Levin is another.

    UPDATE (5/28)

    More proof that our political opponents are not good people, and this from an unlikely source.


    4 responses to “Joe Biden on George Floyd”

  • ChatGPT on Me

    William F. Vallicella is a contemporary philosopher known for his work in metaphysics, philosophy of religion, and philosophy of language. He has written extensively on topics such as existence, identity, time, free will, and the nature of truth. Vallicella is particularly noted for his clear and rigorous analytical style, and he often engages with both classical and contemporary philosophical positions in his writings. He has contributed to numerous academic journals and has authored several books on these subjects.

    Not bad! "Several books' is inaccurate. If you count my dissertation I have authored only two books.  Two more are in the works. How might I justify my lack of productivity? 

    Ludwig Wittgenstein, Culture and Value (University of Chicago Press, 1980), p. 80:

    Der Gruss der Philosophen unter einander sollte sein: "Lass Dir Zeit!"
    This is how philosophers should greet each other: "Take your time!"

    A similar thought is to be found in Franz Brentano, though I have forgotten where he says this:

    Wer eilt, bewegt sich nicht auf dem Boden der Wissenschaft.
    One who hurries is not proceeding on a scientific basis.

    But now I'd better get moving. The clock is running, the time control is sudden death, and the Grim Reaper is my vis-à-vis, his scythe all aglisten and at the ready.

    Antonius Block, depicted below and played by Max von Sydow in Ingmar Bergman's Seventh Seal (1957), resembles Ludwig Wittgenstein.

    In Ingmar Bergman’s 1957 film The Seventh Seal, actor Max von Sydow, right, portrays Antonius Block, a knight who challenges Death to a chess match.


  • A Gov’t Subsidy for Seniors’ USCF Dues

    Ed Yetman reports:

    I don’t know if this is a new high or a new low, but it is something I’ve never seen before. Somehow, USCF has managed to find a way to get the U.S. government to pay membership fees for senior members. That’s right, Uncle Sam wants you to play chess so bad, he’s willing to pay for it. Here are the details:

    Uncle Sam pays…of course.

    Normally, I would applaud USCF finding such a strange niche and using it to promote USCF membership. But I’m having qualms.

    My first concern is this: whenever the government subsidizes something, the subsidy distorts the free-market value. The sky-high cost of college tuition is such an example. USCF membership for seniors will go up, and that will lead, inevitably, to corruption. Also, you subsidize something, you get more of it: how many of these new USCF senior members will never play in a tournament? They will have full voting rights; I’m chary about letting people vote for things they have no stake in at all. Do we want USCF elections to be decided by people who could not care less about tournament chess? Oh wait—we already have that problem.

    My second concern is the inescapable mission-creep of such things. How long before we have subsidies for other classes of players, like women and children? What then?

    The leadership of USCF is already pretty far away from the traditional tournament player. This will only make it worse.

    You're spot on, Ed.


  • Trump and the ‘Losertarians’

    The Libertarian Party is for losers. If you are a conservative who votes Libertarian, you are behaving foolishly. You say you stand on 'principles'? Principles are great. And some of the Libertarian ones are salutary. But principles without power are just paper.  Politics is a practical game. Wise up and get with the program. Don't throw away your vote on unelectables. If it comes down to Trump versus Biden, you must vote for Trump.  Nikki Haley gets it. To paraphrase her recent  endorsement: Trump is  not perfect, but Biden is a catastrophe.

    You have heard me say many times that politics is a practical game. I don't mean that it is unserious. Some games are serious; chess is one, life is another.* Life is as serious as cancer, and the wrong people in power can put a serious dent in your living of your life.  You know who these are at the present time.

    Politics is not about perfect versus  imperfect, but about better versus worse in the concrete circumstances in which we find ourselves.  That's what I mean when I say that politics is practical. I'm a theoretician myself, and unlikely to do much in the political sphere beyond vote and exercise my free speech rights.  But you must understand the political if you are to have any chance of ameliorative action within the political sphere.  Ameliorative praxis presupposes true theory. Libertarians, standing on 'principle,' have as little understanding of the nature of the political as do integralists. (See my Substack entries on integralism, here and here.) Their respective candidates are unelectable.   

    Practically, you are a fool if you let the best become the enemy of the good by supporting candidates the probability of whose election is near zero.  Don't waste your time with third parties, which are nothing more than discussion societies in political drag.

    Old Karl said that whereas the philosophers have variously interpreted the world, the point is to change it. He got it backwards. Job One is to understand the world; only then will you have any chance of changing it for the better. I hope you all agree that the commies changed things all right, but for the worse. Pace Barack Hussein Obama, progress is not change; progress is change for the better.  And to repeat myself, in the realm of praxis the realizable better is to be preferred over the unattainable best.

    Politico reports here on foolish 'losertarian' opposition to Trump.  

    “The vast majority of Libertarian Party members are not happy with this invitation,” said Bill Redpath, a 40-year veteran of the Libertarian Party and a former national party chair who’s helped organize their presidential ballot access for decades. “There are some people who call Trump the most Libertarian president of our lifetimes. That’s utterly ridiculous.”

    What is Redpath's point? That Reagan was more libertarian than Trump? Maybe so. But Reagan is long gone. What is practically relevant is that Trump is more libertarian than any other electable candidate at present.   Who will stand up for 2A? Joey B.? RFK Jr.? Gavin Newsom?  2A is the lead that backs up the paper of the other ten. Catch my drift?

    Do libertarians really value liberty? Or do they just like to talk?  In his address at the Libertarian National Convention, Trump said that if the libertarians are not happy with their usual 3% of the vote, they should nominate or at least vote for him. They nominated some unknown by the name of Chase something.  Oh yes, Chase Oliver. I'm already having trouble remembering a name I first heard two days ago.

    ______________

    *Bobby Fisher famously said, "Chess is life." But we needn't go that far!

    UPDATE (5/29) Walter E. Block: Libertarians should vote for Trump. https://www.wsj.com/articles/libertarians-should-vote-for-trump-4ef84994?mod=opinion_lead_pos8 But of course! Block has his head screwed on Right even if he is a libertarian.

    If we pull the lever for Mr. Trump in these swing states, we may get a slightly more libertarian president and help free Mr. Ulbricht. If we vote Libertarian everywhere else, we make a statement and help preserve our ballot access.

    Some Libertarians find Mr. Trump unacceptable on grounds of principle. True, he is no libertarian, but Mr. Biden—the wokester, the socialist, the interventionist—is much further from us on the political-economic spectrum than Mr. Trump.

    Others are put off by Mr. Trump’s obnoxious behavior. He engages in name-calling. He puts ketchup on filet mignon.

    Mr. Trump grew up in Queens. I’m roughly his contemporary and come from Brooklyn. I assure you that everyone in New York City is personally unbearable (except Staten Islanders). It is a geographical-genetic disposition. Ignore it. This act of his is mostly tongue-in-cheek. New Yorkers actually have contests to see who is the most insufferable. Prizes are given out.


    25 responses to “Trump and the ‘Losertarians’”

  • Epictetus and His World

    "A Substack devoted to exploring the historical context of the Stoic philosopher Epictetus."  By Erlend MacGillivray. Looks interesting.

    An entry of mine: The Uselessness of Stoicism in the Face of Death





Philosophy Weblogs



Other Websites