Blogspot now hates long comments. This is actually a comment on UR. I suppose I should use more than comment-sophisticated formatting, but I won't. Lazy.
Hey... Finishing stuff you've started. Always worth points in my book.
Nifty, by the Greek Junta, I can just name myself Anarchist and call it a day.
"The envelope meaning the file. The junta kept records for hundreds of thousands of Greek citizens, who did anything to oppose their dictatorship."
A sign of weakness. When a child opposes me, I laugh and pat them on the head. It's cute, not threatening. It is an ideal target for patronizing behaviour.
"And what is true peace - but isichia, taxis kai asfalia?"
Of course it's better when you don't resist because you don't see a good reason to, rather than because they have a gun in your face.
For example: expulsion for long hair? Seriously? What, precisely, is that supposed to accomplish?
Political engineering is actually slightly harder than rocket science. This is simply because there are more components to deal with.
"Is it an aggressive act of defiance to refrain from voting - or does electoral participation constitute impermissible political intervention?"
Well, let me ask: have you stopped beating your wife? When only 'yes' and 'no' are permissible, and both are wrong, then you get to do whatever you want, and nobody can blame you for it.
Though more accurately... Voting isn't going to accomplish anything. The power structures are well insulated against that avenue, so it can't very well be interventionist to vote.
It makes for good blogging, but I think you'll have difficulty with this steel rule thing.
For example you can reduce to simply an acknowledgement of the facts; "Alrenous cannot influence USG. In other news, water wet." So why waste time trying?
Only I don't end up with existential difficulties regarding whether I should vote or not. I just note it makes me feel ill, and thus avoid it. Were it to become legally necessary - I understand Australia has done this - I would simply spoil my ballot.
While I'll need the other steps to fully put it in context, it also seems that the principle at hand either cannot be the steel rule or cannot be followed.
I disagree with basically everything USG does on a structural level - intellectually, this is phrased as 'opposing' it. Certainly, I'm not likely to act on it, because of the above fact, but it does put a certain tension into the idea of the steel rule.
Now the bit about not actually populating high office with yourself - that bit's interesting and deserves playing up.
Tut tut. I notice partway through there you drop the feminine pronoun. If you must insist on annoying a substantial part of your audience, at least be consistent about it. Personally, I approve - it shows an independent will. Ditto the mask thing. (I do nevertheless find both jarring.)
"It should be obvious that any responsible management will instantly shift USG to a posture of strict cultural neutrality, allowing both competing communities - Amerikaner and Brahmin - to live peacefully according to their own principles and preferences, and cleanly divesting both of their political aspirations."
The thing to do, which nobody seem to pick up on, is to prosecute crimes. If you murder someone, you get jail time or the ax. No, I don't care that it was a religious ritual. No, I don't care that you happen to have different skin colours and some attendant prejudice. "But we need to suppress cults!" ...or you could just prosecute fraud, and the cult ends up in jail regardless.
For another example, the Greek Junta. They can outlaw hippie symbols, like long hair...or they could just outlaw hippie actions, and a ton of people with long hair end up in jail regardless, but without wasting time on meaningless style choices.
Penultimately, it's pure hubris to assume you have any idea what the timeline of such action would be like. Seems to me like a popular get out of jail card - "Hey, this seems unlikely, so I'm going to say it'll take a long time!"
On the other hand someone probably needs to point out that Mencius is producing the plan so it can be debated and refined, not because he thinks he is actually getting it right on the first try.
So I clicked over to your progressive philosopher, to check out your modus operandi. At first I was glad that other people can work through this, because I definitely have no tolerance.
"And, by the by, I have not by word, implication or heavy hint accused McArdle of wanting poor people to die."
Let's test this assertion, shall we?
"Philosophically, there just isn't a case to be made against reform unless it's this simple one: if you don't have any money, you shouldn't be entitled to any medicine. McArdle is very indignant when people accuse her of indifference to the fate of the poor, but - honestly - if it isn't that, then it's nothing."
I wonder if Halbo is of the breed that believes his own lies, or not.
Two things of note. First, McArdle is also wrong, but at least she isn't deliberately using deceptive tactics.
Second, McArdle and Holbo think they're discussing philosophy, which is hilarious and a bit cute.
"It’s not enough to defend the principles of communism if what you get in practice is a nasty, murderous dictatorship every time."
"There is a big difference between the general consideration that something MAY go wrong and the knowledge that it WILL go wrong every time."
Hooray for tribalism. I can show how McArdle and Harbo are misrepresenting each other, but so what? Ultimately it misses the point, because recasting the entire thing as a tribal or sectarian spat immediately shows that it's exactly what they're doing. Slim to no philosophy will actually occur under those conditions. Ultimately, their positions are determined by in-groups, not thinking.
"Hee hee...you think you're thinking! So adorable. Look! Look at the little human! Okay, little human, say 'to each according to their needs.' Go on!"
This is what happens when you don't prioritize truth above everything else. It's nice that you're trying, but you won't actually get anywhere.
I don't, however, see the point of studying evil, in general. Study goodness, know goodness, and everything evil simply becomes obviously-so without any additional effort, whereas one can study evil all day without illuminating one iota of good.
Return to UR.