Politician’s promises sound like wonderful visions of freedom from toil, scrimping and saving, until we wake up to how they will be paid for.

If you want absolute liberty, go live by yourself in some uninhabited hinterland. When you start encountering other people, however, it becomes a matter of what you give up and what you get to keep. In that equation, I think we’ve been on a vacation from reality for my entire life, and I sense that the bubble is about to burst.

And, no, we’re not. I speak as one of the “creatives”–whatever the hell that is. (Can we all say: Producer?) I owned a business. Today, I could not make a profit in that business without breaking the law.

Why do we (some of us anyway) think we’re freer when in fact we are not? Because we’re losing our ability to reason. IOW, we’re getting stupider. Why? Because our epistemology is degenerating.

Why? Because our ethics is corrupting it.
======================================
http://youtube.com/watch?v=XDI2NVTYRXU

This short video is interesting from the perspective of causality. The first perspective is explicit. In the video, we see and hear Al Gore’s (dramatic: darkened stage; high tech graphing; uses of vibrant colors; etc.) presentation regarding CO2 causing global warming; then, in far less dramatic settings, we hear the experts’ response, namely that Gore is reversing causality: It is warming that is causing increases in CO2, not the other way around.

[...]

The other perspective is implicit….

First, recall my post on … in which I recount a story told me by my father. I noted it as an example of mass scale epistemological corruption. It involved a neighborhood in which most of the people believed they were seeing a miracle, which came in the form of a silhouette resembling (the typical version of) the Virgin Mary on the exterior wall of the local Catholic church. As time past, the crowds grew larger and the priests inside the rectory next to the church grew alarmed. So they placed shrouds over crucifixes that had long handles (used in processions) and walked in front of the shadow to demonstrate to everyone that it was the result, not of a any miracle, but of a streetlight shining through some tree branches. Nothing, though, could convince the growing crowd that this was not the work of some divine agency. Eventually, the priests asked the city (of Camden, NJ) to extinguish the streetlight; after a suitable period, the city sent a crew out to trim back the tree’s branches.

An example, of course, of how the emotionalism of faith corrupts epistemology.

The question that arises from this (in my mind) is: How does the belief in faith—the faith in faith itself—become so ensconced in people’s epistemology that, despite all the facts to the contrary, they refuse to relinquish it? How does one aggressively ignore one’s mind, which is precisely what one must first do, when one is young—in one’s teens—before one becomes corrupted and starts lying to oneself? My answer is: Because one long ago—from 4 to 10—accepted the morality of self-sacrifice. Faith in a supernatural entity that embodies and preaches self-sacrifice re-enforces that morality, rather than leads to it.

In short, just as CO2 isn’t the cause but the effect of warming temps, ethics is the cause, not the effect, of a corrupt epistemology. And that is the reason that one will always fail—whether priests proving a miracle is merely a streetlight cast shadow or scientists proving that global warming is a hoax—when presenting facts to minds whose ethics have corrupted their epistemology. It’s not the corrupted epistemology—faith in God nor even the faith in faith—that leads one to believe in self-sacrifice. The cause is the acceptance of the sacrifice morality itself. That, in effect, stunts the person’s epistemological growth, which remains at the emotional level. That, too, is why such emotion driven presentations like Gore’s succeed so well with those sorts of minds in the face of counter arguments that are impeccably reasoned but less dramatic.

Facing such a mind, the only recourse for the rational—in terms of persuasion—is to attack that mind’s morality head on. To aggressively assault, with facts and with reasoned argument, that person’s ethics. Even then, if the person is over the age of, say, 25, I think there’s very little chance of success. There really isn’t a mind there; only a bundle of reactionary emotionalism (and, later, well constructed rationalizations and evasions), which is all that essentially constitutes the person’s epistemology.

Many … will certainly disagree, of course, citing the fact that metaphysics and epistemology precede and are the foundation for ethics. I submit that such a view is rationalistic, substituting the flow chart, if you will, of philosophy for the beginning state of a child’s mind, which is not a rationally driven state but an emotionally driven one. (Parents will, I think, bear me out on that.) A child reacts first; only as time goes by does a child learn how to act—to take control of his mind (and his emotions), using his gradually learned skills of reasoning to (implicitly—explicitly comes later) form his metaphysics and epistemology. But morality—wanting to be (to feel) good and not (feel) bad—precedes that. Yes, there is a bare bones basic metaphysics & epistemology there; but the force of morality is far greater because, at this point in a child’s development, the force of his feelings is greater.

In conclusion, the force that morality possesses over Man supersedes, at first, the (implicit) conclusions of his mind’s metaphysics & epistemology. So much so that he will arrange (as he ages) his conclusions to fit his notion of morality. (Incidentally, this is, in my opinion, prima facie evidence of the goodness of Man’s nature.) By the time the toddler has reached his teens, that morality is the bedrock upon which he has (custom) built his metaphysics and epistemology.

[...]

A corrupt epistemology does not cause men to accept the morality of self-sacrifice. Rather, the morality of self-sacrifice results in them accepting a corrupt epistemology.

You are SO naive. These are the same kids who are so utterly conformist amongst themselves that their entire identity is wrapped up in their cliques and image — they have no identity or concept of one which isn’t defined by the outside.

That is the recipe for the authoritarian cattle mindset. It means you have an entire generation who listen to “authority” telling them what to think, what to do, what to feel.

And that same crew you find so “catlike” in their behavior are that way because NO ONE has ever smacked them. Someone in authority smacks them — and cops don’t hesitate — and they’ll fall all over themselves in amazement that someone actually does such things. That arrogance and bravado you think so overwhelmingly dominant is a tinfoil facade.

Hell, I’ll lay huge odds that most of them would instantaneously submit to the Tone of Command, even, if anyone ever actually used it on them — just from surprise that such a thing exists.

As for 1968, well, if you’re black, Hispanic, a woman or GLBT, you’re certainly a lot freer today than then.

As for the economic regulation point – it was easier to dump your toxics on your downstream and downwind neighbors in 1968, but it’s hard to argue that change is a net loss of freedom as between you and your neighbors. Other than environmental regulation, it’s hard for me to think of an industry that hasn’t been substantially deregulated since 1968. Certainly financial services (my industry) has been greatly deregulated.

Government at all levels is much larger than 40 or 50 years ago, and our lives are more closely regulated. The ever-present “nanny state” at times tells us what to eat, whether we may smoke or not and where, whether we may use recreational drugs such as marijuana, taxes alcohol, and mandates compulsory sex education for children in public schools. Many adults are forced at their workplaces (by the implied threat of lawsuits) to take sexual harassment/gender senstivity workshops, or other politically-correct fare. In gym class, students may not play dodgeball for fear of hurting someone’s feelings, and some schools are doing away with grades, especially failing ones, because it “hurts self-esteem.” Children are expelled or even led away in handcuffs for having a Tylenol (we have a zero tolerance policy on drugs! say administrators) in their possession, or for playfully slapping or pinching one another (zero tolerance, this time for play that is deemed aggressive or perhaps sexually harassing, even though a 7-year old cannot plossibly know the adult meaning of these things). Municipalities – ever-fearful of lawsuits – have removed diving boards from public pools, and abolished high-risk sports from their school curricula. As adults we have traded our freedoms bit-by-bit in return for convenience, consenting to have our movements tracked by RFIDs, cameras at intersections, ATMs and stores, and out purchases monitored by credit card providers, banks, and merchants of every kind (do you have our super saver card? Sign up today and you get 10% off your purchase!). Quotas on who may apply for certain forms of employment limit the freedom of organzations to hire whom they wish and when; this movement is hidden under the pseudo-speak of “diversity” and “inclusiveness” – but they impose a de facto quota system for those favored.
This, too, is a limitation on freedom – whatever its other consequences. Our government very nearly compells parents to send their children to public schools, and if parents opt out of the system in favor of home schooling or a parochial or private institution, they are still taxed to pay for public education. Similarly, workers are compelled to pay payroll taxes, SS taxes, and the like – these systems are compulsory.

We are more free than 50 years ago if one defines freedom as license to do what one wishes. In those bygone days, you weren’t as free to behave like an imbecile in public w/o conseqeunces, as so many now do – cursing, littering, walking about half-dressed, or engaging in sexual acts in public. We used to understand freedom unrestrained by discipline and responsibility is essentially chaos. Now, I am not so sure we do anymore. The individual is supreme now, and to heck with others and their feelings, or the effects of my behavior on children nearby.

You can give North Koreans all the free speech they want. It doesn’t help them make productive lives or even survive, much less thrive, if they can’t freely trade goods and services amongst each other. They’d just be slightly noisier prisoners.

That article left me cold just for that reason. They (Reason) tend to ignore taxes and economic freedoms in favor of speech and expression freedoms.

Taxes and economics affect literally every move I make in every day. It’s where the rubber meets the road for 99% of people in there interactions with the state. And I am not terribly impressed with our strides there.

Since she brought up the Internet, I’ll debunk that as a point of liberty (like all arguments that more property and prosperity enhance freedom). Yes, we have more freedom to express ourselves. The state also has more freedom to conduct surveillance on our activities because of how many systems are based on TCP/IP networks! Just wait until land lines are folded into VoIP and the federal government finally gets a data retention mandate through. Yes, you’ll have more of an ability to exercise your 1st amendment rights, but the state will never have had such a technological ability to systematically rip the 4th amendment to shreds.

Technology and property are neutral, but Reason doesn’t want to admit that because if they did, they would have to recognize that except on a few issues that they happen to agree with left-liberals, America is demonstrably less free than it was in the 1960s. In fact, one could say even that poor black communities in particular were probably less exposed to being terrorized by local cops under even Jim Crow than they are today by the War on Drugs with the no-knock raid nonsense.

They fought “city hall” and won. I find that inspiring.

People who say things like this have apparently not been in a classroom in a while – try ordering a modern teenager to do anything at all, and see how much slavish obedience to Der Fuhrer you observe. Teaching nowadays is often more about herding kittens than about producing legions of mindless proto-Brownshirts.

Puh-leez.

“Thats some catch that Catch-22!” said Capt. Yossarian. “Its the best there is” said Doc Daneeka.

Not time yet. This is that madrugada period when it’s getting too late to fix things but it’s still too early to shoot the bastards, and you come off as Timothy McVeigh if you were to attempt to. Too many cattle who are too happy with their nose buried in the bread and circuses feedbag.

I’m sorry, I said that where?

I SAID was that it can happen rather more rapidly than one might hope… and the time when the gravel starts moving fast is just a bit TOO LATE to solve the problem. Better to avoid the situation where you’re standing on loose gravel in the first place by not removing the mortar that’s holding the whole thing in one piece.

Removing the mortar around one brick in a huge structure, no, that most likely won’t cause a major problem. But you keep pulling out the mortar, random bricks start falling out on their own… and sooner or later, the result will be anything but pretty.

But no, *everyone* wants to pull out “thiiiiiiis little pickup stick”, always sure that THAT stick attached to the thing they don’t like isn’t THE one that will bring the whole shebang crashing down.

Go ahead. Ignore common sense that says it’s dangerous to screw with a system that’s already working about as well as any human system CAN work, and far, far better than almost any other human system in recorded history, just because one tiny little part of it isn’t to your liking.

Like I said — hopefully, they’ll Come For You First.

You’ll have to get in line with the thousands of others telling me about how the end of freedom is coming in the next 10 years….for the last 25 years.

Look, my stance on the whole complaing of America becoming a facist state remains thusly. Either pick up a gun and commence to killing the bastards you feel are responsible for this undertaking or be quiet. I usually hear this complaint from nutjob liberals I work with and I tell them the same thing. If I really believed that an election had been stolen, or that there was a cabal at work subverting my rights and my liberty was at stake…I’d get rifle…get some like minded individuals and commence to killing the people I thought were responsible. The only position of someone who on the one hand complains of the yoke of oppression ever tightening around them and does nothing about it is cowardice. If you REALLY believe that there is a huge conspiracy gunning for your very liberties and do nothign about it, you are a coward….and I would argue, not even really living the American ideal. Blowing people in power away who were doing this to you is EXACTLY what I think they guys who invented America would not only want you to do, but almost DEMAND you to do.

Protesting “my civil rights are being eroded!” is completely boring at this point. Pick up a gun, or stop complaining….

My grandparents used to use, “don’t make a federal case out of it” all the time. I agree it is telling that we can no longer use a “federal case” a an example of of an extreme last resort action.

“Don’t make a Federal case out of it”.

It used to be that Federal law was rarely seen and even more rarely invoked. Nowdays, if you’re crossing the street against the light, there’s probably a Federal law under which you can be charged, prosecuted, and sent to jail.

So even when you don’t see it, the web of Federal intrusion is there, waiting to pounce at the whim of a disgruntled bureaucrat or “civil servant”. And you can always presume that that same web won’t dare touch one of The Annointed.

Example: I’m willing to bet that there is a law in D.C. that makes smoking inside a Federal building illegal, and probably out to a certain number of feet. The White House is a Federal building. Do you think that Mr. Obama is going to be able to smoke in the White House, or will he step outside just like you and I would have to?

“In a mature society, ‘civil servant’ is semantically equal to ‘civil master‘.”
– Lazarus Long(R. A. Heinlein) -