Footnotes to Plato from the foothills of the Superstition Mountains

  • Frédéric Bastiat on the Law

    To gain historical perspective and philosophical insight as we slide into the abyss, you must read Bastiat among others. Our current situation is nothing new and what the Frenchman writes is directly relevant to our decline. The owl of Minerva spreads its wings at dusk. It's twilight time. Can we turn things around? I don't know. It may be too late. As a citizen I lament, as a philosopher I rejoice in the opportunity to learn something. Everything below is reproduced from this source.

    Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850) was a French economist, statesman, and author.

    The Law

    The law perverted! And the police powers of the state perverted along with it! The law, I say, not only turned from its proper purpose but made to follow an entirely contrary purpose! The law become the weapon of every kind of greed! Instead of checking crime, the law itself guilty of the evils it is supposed to punish!

    If this is true, it is a serious fact, and moral duty requires me to call the attention of my fellow-citizens to it.

    What Is Law?

    What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.

    Each of us has a natural right — from God — to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties? If every person has the right to defend even by force — his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right — its reason for existing, its lawfulness — is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force — for the same reason — cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.

    Such a perversion of force would be, in both cases, contrary to our premise. Force has been given to us to defend our own individual rights. Who will dare to say that force has been given to us to destroy the equal rights of our brothers? Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces?

    If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than this: The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all.


  • Trotsky’s Faith in Man

    On 20 August 1940, the long arm of Joseph Stalin finally reached Trotsky in exile in Mexico City when an agent of Stalin drove an ice axe into Trotsky's skull. He died the next day.

    It makes no sense to put your faith in Man, as I argue in a 2021 Substack entry.


  • Vivek versus Democrat Shill Acosta

    Run Ramaswamy against Joe Dementia and it's in the bag. You decide. Less than 23 minutes. VR has an astonishing command of the issues. He has it all except name recognition. But that could change. He is young, brilliant, articulate, a self-funding outsider who is not another professional politician who went to law school, and a 'person of color' to use that asinine expression. All to the good in point of electability.

    He is also extremely personable and able to keep his cool even when dealing with a disgusting CNN hack like Acosta.  Watch the expressions on the shill's face.

    Nomen est omen:

    Vivek (or Bibek/Bivek in some regions) is a masculine given name that is popular in South Asia, particularly in India and Nepal. It is of Sanskrit origin and means "wisdom" and/or "conscience". (Wikipedia)

    There are only three serious candidates for the GOP nod: Trump, DeSantis, and Ramaswamy. What do those other clowns think they are doing? Pence? What a joke! That nattering nabob of negativism, Chris Christie? Get off the stage and go on a diet. The slob thinks he can gain traction by attacking Trump.   

    Tucker on Twitter, Episode 17, interviews Ramaswamy.

    CORRECTION (8/24).  What I wrote above may give the impression that VR did not go to law school. He has a J. D. from Yale.


  • Saturday Night at the Oldies: Celebrating Freedom and Independence

    Not to mention resistance and defiance in these waning days of a great republic.

    Great minds on "All men are created equal."

    Johnny Cash, I Won't Back Down. Tom Petty wrote it, with Jeff Lynne.

    Byrds, Chimes of Freedom.  One of Dylan's greatest anthems.

    Byrds, I Wasn't Born to Follow

    Good YouTuber comment: "I keep searching for that door back into the summer of '69, I lost it somewhere long ago." 

    Tim Hardin, A Simple Song of Freedom

    Crystals, He's a Rebel

    Phil Spector at the top of his game. We avert our eyes from the later 'developments.'

    Albert Camus version: You'll enjoy it. If you don't,  you are not MavPhil material.

    Albert Camus, The Rebel: An Essay on Man in Revolt, tr. A. Bower, Vintage 1991, p. 15, French original published by Gallimard in 1951:

    Better to die on one's feet than to live on one's knees.

    Good advice if one can take it without false heroism and existentialist hyperventilation.

    Rascals, People Got to be Free

    Bob Dylan, I Shall Be Free. This is the first time I've heard this particular delightful 1962 outtake which varies from the 1963 Freewheelin' version.  A real period piece in the style of Woody Guthrie with appearances by Marilyn Monroe, Anita Ekberg, Sophia Loren, John F. Kennedy, Elizabeth Taylor, Richard Burton, Mr. Clean, Mr. Clean's great granddaughter, fallout shelters, air raid drills,  . . . .

    Young Bob in 1962 is at the beginning of his life-long deep dive into musical Americana, into the soul of the land and its people. And he is still at it: appropriating, renewing, interpreting. David Remnick's outstanding October 2022 New Yorker essay lays it all out for you: A Unified Theory of Bob Dylan.

    Cream, I Feel Free  

     
    Rolling Stones, Gimme Shelter.  We're going to need it.

    One response to “Saturday Night at the Oldies: Celebrating Freedom and Independence”

  • Support for Trump from Diverse Quarters

    The Militant:

    Defending constitutionally protected free speech is at the heart of fighting the latest assault on political rights by President Joseph Biden’s Justice Department. Special counsel Jack Smith’s second indictment of former President Donald Trump would gut the First Amendment in an attempt to drive Biden’s main rival for the presidency out of the 2024 race and put him in jail.

    Related: MAGA Communism

    How Dersh would defend the Orange Man.


  • In Life as in Chess

    Die Fehler sind alle schon da, sie warten nur darauf, gemacht zu werden. (Savielly Tartakower)

    The mistakes are already all out there just waiting to be made. (tr. BV)


  • Norms in Nature? Some Doubts

    Substack latest. It opens like this:

    Our friend Malcolm Pollack, riffing on some complaints of mine about Michael Anton's talk of natural rights, wrote the following:

    Rights are normative in their essence, while Nature simply is. Therefore, I see only two possibilities:

    1) “Natural” rights flow from an intrinsic source of normative authority. Since brute and indifferent Nature cannot be such a source, then for such rights to exist in themselves, as opposed to being mere conventions and intuitions, requires the existence of God. They are therefore “natural” rights in virtue of our nature qua creations of a transcendent and normatively authoritative Deity.

    2) There is in fact no such authoritative source, and so natural rights are nonsense. (Upon stilts.) It may be in our nature to have the intuitions we do about possessing such rights, but it is a category error to imagine that rights themselves can originate in the material world.

    Foot 3In response, I pointed out that this is far too quick inasmuch as there are Aristotelians who seek to ground norms in nature herself. These thinkers do not accept what to Pollack and the modern mind seems self-evident, namely, that there is a gap between the normative and the factual that disallows any derivation of normative claims from factual ones.  One prominent Aristotelian is Philippa Foot. So let's see what she has to say.  

    ComBox open.


    6 responses to “Norms in Nature? Some Doubts”

  • Hurricane Hilary is Misnamed!

    Disasters should be named after disasters. The name should be Hillary.


  • Tucker on Twitter: Carlson Interviews RFK, Jr.

    Episode 16 (14 August 2023). RFK Jr. explains Ukraine, bio-labs, and who killed his uncle.  


    One response to “Tucker on Twitter: Carlson Interviews RFK, Jr.”

  • On Hairsplitting

    Substack latest.

    The charge is brought by anti-intellectuals, too many of them conservatives.

    On Hairsplitting - Maverick Philosopher: Strictly Philosophical

     


  • Roberto Rossellini’s Socrates

    Substack latest.

    The philosopher at the hour of death.


  • Ever Hear of Gene Sharp?

    A symposium on Gene Sharp's The Politics of Nonviolent Action.


  • Why Won’t Leftists Enforce Existing Laws?

    A reason, perhaps the main reason, may be gleaned from the following graphic:

    The above stats are clearly in the ball park according to every study I have read. Heather Mac Donald has done outstanding work on this topic. I refer you to her.

    One reason why leftists won't enforce existing laws is because (1) doing so would have a "disproportional impact on blacks," and (2) such disproportionality violates the value of 'equity' to which leftists subscribe.

    Leftists (mis)use 'equity' to mean equality of outcome or result. 'Equity' is at or near the top of the Left's axiological hierarchy:  a high or the highest value to be striven for in our social and political arrangements. 

    Someone who accepts both (1) and (2) will be loathe to enforce existing laws against homicide and other crimes. 

    Now (1) is undoubtedly true. The reason is simple: blacks as a group commit more crimes than the other groups mentioned.  And so it follows that their incarceration rates are higher.  This is so even after we subtract off unjust convictions due to racial bias among jurors, and the malfeasance of corrupt judges, overzealous careerist prosecutors, and bad cops. 

    (2), however, is undoubtedly false.  The reason is that 'equity' is a disvalue, not a value. The word as used by leftists is a neologism that conflates the distinction between equality in legitimate and attainable senses (equality of opportunity, equality before the law, treating like cases in a like manner, and such related ideas as due process which are the glory of the Anglo-American legal system) and, on the other hand, equality of outcome, which is unattainable except by police-state means, and even then not sustainable for long: life's  natural hierarchies will inevitably reassert themselves.

    It might go like this: the USA under the yoke of 'woke' continues to weaken itself until it collapses under the  effect of its own decadence in synergy with  external attack and invasion by its geopolitical enemies. It is a good bet that this is in our near future, within ten years.  It is not inevitable, but there is no reason to be sanguine about the prospects of push-back. The oligarchic deep state will do everything and anything to crush Donald J. Trump and will of course if necessary attempt an 'Ecuadorean solution.' 

    If the USA collapses, then the natural hierarchy of aptitude, ability, resoluteness, etc, will have reasserted itself.  We will then both collectively and individually face the Islamist-Sino-Russki trilemma: either embrace and affirm the new order, or accept political-cum-religious dhimmitude, or 'be put to the sword,' if not literally then by cancellation of livelihood and incarceration.

    There will never be, and their cannot be, equality of outcome or result over the long haul because of the different aptitudes and abilities and interests of different peoples and groups of people.  


    19 responses to “Why Won’t Leftists Enforce Existing Laws?”

  • How is Such Moral Heroism Possible?

    The example of Maximilian Kolbe


  • Thomas Mann on Blogging

    Thomas Mann: Diaries 1918-1939 (Abrams, 1982, tr. R & C Winston), p. 194:

    I love this process by which each passing day is captured, not only in its impressions, but also, at least by suggestion, its intellectual direction and content as well, less for the purpose of rereading and remembering than for taking stock, reviewing, maintaining awareness, achieving perspective . . . .

    I agree, although for me rereading and remembering have as much value as the taking stock, etc. There is the pleasure of writing but also that of rereading and rethinking what one has written.

    As for remembering a passage such as one above, its notation allows me to pull the book off the shelf and return to the pleasurable semantic penumbra which is the quotation's context. 



Latest Comments


  1. https://www.thefp.com/p/charles-fain-lehman-dont-tolerate-disorder-charlie-kirk-iryna-zarutska?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

  2. Hey Bill, Got it now, thanks for clarifying. I hope you have a nice Sunday. May God bless you!

  3. Vini, Good comments. Your command of the English language is impressive. In my penultimate paragraph I wrote, “Hence their hatred…

  4. Just a little correction, since I wrote somewhat hastily. I meant to say enemies of the truth (not from the…

  5. You touched on very, very important points, Bill. First, I agree that people nowadays simply want to believe whatever the…

  6. https://barsoom.substack.com/p/peace-has-been-murdered-and-dialogue?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=841240&post_id=173321322&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1dw7zg&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email



Categories



Philosophy Weblogs



Other Websites