Tuesday, September 13, 2016

Platonic Horseshit (Apologies to Robert Anton Wilson)

Rights (not God, mind you--that would be mysticism) embody the Ventriloquist. Rights theorists are the Ventriloquist's dummies. There is (or is not) a Right to civilian safety in wartime, "reproductive choice," intellectual property, slant drilling in oil fields, collecting 100 percent of one's income. The dummies all disagree. But they all know Rights exist nonetheless, on a Platonic plane (not Heaven, mind you--that would be mysticism) somewhere.
Likewise, the horse I see before me is not a real horse. The real horse exists on a Platonic plane. As does the horse's shit. The horse and horseshit I see before me, in the here-and-now, are not real. For the real horse and real horse shit, I have to visit the Platonic plane.
So it is with Rights. What Rights I do or do not enjoy in sensory-sensual space-time are meaningless. All that matters is Platonic Rights. You'll find them right next to the Platonic horseshit. It's all so rational!

Wednesday, August 31, 2016

Church and State and Fear

Christianity is based on hope, not fear. But let's leave that to one side. Any organization based on a belief system only, and not on the use of force or threats of force, requires your consent for it to have any sway over you. Such an organization is perfectly consistent with the NAP. 

Governments understand this principle full well, even if it eludes our most brilliant anarchists. That's why governments don't limit themselves to "exploiting" people's hopes or fears. Governments employ force and threats of force. 

That's why Obama employs the IRS and armed agents to enforce the tax laws. He knows merely threatening us with hell-fire will only work if we (1) believe in the existence of hell-fire and (2) believe he has a way to enable us to avoid that fate. In other words, Obama knows if he were limited to the "fear tactics" of a mere church, the overwhelming majority of us would stop paying taxes and laugh all the way to the gold dealer.

Monday, August 29, 2016

No Indoctrinated Atheists?

Rabid anti-theist Madlyn Murray O’Hair had two sons, Jon Garth Murray and William J. Murray, both conceived out of wedlock and sired by different men. The older son, William, converted to evangelical Christianity in his 30s.
When she learned of his apostasy, O’Hair said, “One could call this a postnatal abortion on the part of a mother, I guess. I repudiate him entirely and completely for now and all times … he is beyond human forgiveness.”
I have to ask. Which of O'Hair's sons was "indoctrinated"?

Saturday, August 27, 2016

Is Talking About Hell "Coercion"?

A crank on a soapbox in a park preaches to anybody who cares to listen to him. "If you step on sidewalk cracks," he solemnly instructs the people gathered around him, "you will go to hell." He develops a following.
You are aghast. You believe any talk of hell is "coercion."
What do you propose to do about it? If talk of hell is coercion, you certainly have a right to shoot the crank in self-defense, don't you? Or does he have a right to free speech?

Sunday, June 26, 2016

Ancestral Homelands

"These are our ancestral homelands. We have a right to defend our people and our culture."
~Mideast Mohammedan
"These are our ancestral homelands. We have a right to defend our people and our culture."
~Shinto Japanese

"These are our ancestral homelands. We have a right to defend our people and our culture."
~African Animist
"These are our ancestral homelands. We have a right to defend our people and our culture."
~European Christian
If one of these statements is mean, racist, extremist, xenophobic, neo-Nazi, and otherwise deplorable, why not the other three? 

Wednesday, June 15, 2016

"Ought" Statements Presuppose a Spiritual Realm

Geoff wrote:

Aye, it seemed that every paragraph contained incomplete edits. But it makes some good points.

In a purely materialistic world, everything we do is determined by our chemical composition. There is no "ought" and "ought not" in a purely material world; there is only "can" and "can not." I guess in truth, there is only "X will inevitably happen due to the laws of physics" and "X will not inevitably happen due to the laws of physics."

Without an immaterial individuating principle, there is no foundation for the notion of "free will." If there is no free will, then all human law, all prisons, all courts, are a complete charade. (That's not to say that they aren't in fact a charade in Realityville, where we live, but that's for a different reason.)

In a purely material world, we are merely clumps of matter that happen to manipulate other clumps of matter, and morality has no place in such a world. But strict materialists still *act* as though there is some sort of objective moral law. The cheek! I mean, if you punch a materialist in the face, he still *objects* to it, even though his getting punched in the face was simply predestined by your chemical composition. It's really as rational as complaining about being struck by a meteorite. The laws of physics simply made it inevitable for you to be hit.

(Pro Tip: When a materialist objects to getting his face punched, be sure to put on a shocked, indignant face and say, "Don't *judge* me!")


On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 1:05 PM,
>> A thought provoking essay in pjmedia.com by Richard Fernandez. We are
>> probably fucked. This piece needs some serious editing but is worth
>> your
>> time.
>> https://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2016/03/27/terminal-depression/

Sunday, June 05, 2016

And the Ball is Free (in Russian)!

Sean McDonough's call is followed by the call in Russian. I'm still waiting for the call in Latin.