::::: : the wood : davidrobins.net

My name is David Robins: Christian, lead developer (resume), writer, photographer, runner, libertarian (voluntaryist), and student.

This is also my son David Geoffrey Robins' site.

Compassion versus theft

Political ·Monday April 12, 2010 @ 00:44 EDT (link)

An excerpt that illuminates a tactic I thought might have been only a local phenomenon: claim that people that oppose (failed) government programs, handouts, and redistribution are not "compassionate". A similar trick, not covered so explicitly, is to claim that it is compassionate to take money from people by force and use it to fund such programs.

The contemporary anointed and those who follow them make much of their "compassion" for the less fortunate, their "concern" for the environment, and their being "anti-war," for example—as if these were characteristics which distinguish them from people with opposite views on public policy. The very idea that such an opponent of the prevailing vision as Milton Friedman, for example, has just as much compassion for the poor and the disadvantaged, that he is just as much appalled by pollution, or as horrified by the sufferings and slaughter imposed by war on millions of innocent men, women, and children—such an idea would be a very discordant note in the vision of the anointed. If such an idea were fully accepted, this would mean that opposing arguments on social policy were arguments about methods, probabilities, and empirical evidence—with compassion, caring, and the like being common features on both sides, thus canceling out and disappearing from the debate. That clearly is not the vision of the anointed. One reason for the preservation and insulation of a vision is that it has become inextricably intertwined with the egos of those who believe it. Despite Hamlet's warning against self-flattery, the vision of the anointed is not simply a vision of the world and its functioning in a causal sense, but is also a vision of themselves and of their moral role in the world. It is a vision of differential rectitude. It is not a vision of the tragedy of the human condition: Problems exist because others are not as wise or as virtuous as the anointed.

The great ideological crusades of twentieth-century intellectuals have ranged across he most disparate fields—from the eugenics movement of the early decades of the century to the environmentalism of the later decades, not to mention the welfare state, socialism, communism, Keynesian economics, and medical, nuclear, and automotive safety. What all these highly disparate crusades have in common is their moral exaltation of the anointed above others, who are to have their very different views nullified and superseded by the views of the anointed, imposed via the power of government. Despite the great variety of issues in a series of crusading movements among the intelligentsia during the twentieth century, several key elements have been common to most of them:
  1. Assertions of a great danger to the whole society, a danger to which the masses of people are oblivious.
  2. An urgent need for action to avert impending catastrophe.
  3. A need for government to drastically curtail the dangerous behavior of the many, in response to the prescient conclusions of the few.
  4. A disdainful dismissal of arguments to the contrary as either uninformed, irresponsible, or motivated by unworthy purposes.
… What is remarkable is how few arguments are really engaged in, and how many substitutes for arguments there are. These substitutes for arguments are, almost by definition, more available to adherents of the prevailing vision, whose assumptions are so widely accepted as to permit conclusions based on those assumptions to pass muster without further scrutiny.

—Thomas Sowell, The Vision of the Anointed, 1996.

Pay your economic education tax

Political, Humor, Economics ·Sunday April 11, 2010 @ 20:46 EDT (link)

Posted to the "Lively Political Discussion" alias at work.

I and others have spent a lot of time teaching the liberals in here about basic economics—things like supply and demand, incentives, free markets, etc.—and logic, by pointing out fallacies and being positive examples.

Therefore, I will be levying a tax on those liberals for services rendered. If you consider yourself "liberal" or "progressive", or think wealth redistribution is a good idea, I will be taxing you at 5% of your yearly income, and, to be sufficiently progressive, 50% of anything you make over $100,000. If you cannot calculate this for yourself, I am sure the free market will provide qualified accountants.

You are welcome for both the education and the opportunity to repay your debt to society. You have, of course, contractually agreed to this by joining this alias and remaining here.

I will be distributing the funds to the alias owner and to others on the alias that have aided my efforts to educate liberals in economics and logic (and naturally, taking an administrative fee). Failure to pay will be met by nasty letters and then I'll have to send in my enforcement team. We will also be conducting random audits.

You may pay via cash or money order in I/O mail. You may deduct the price of Henry Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson, or any books by Murray Rothbard, Ludwig von Mises, or F. A. Hayek.

We at the LRS thank you for doing your civic duty to support the common good and welfare.



David B. Robins
Lively Revenue Service

Books finished: Magician's Gambit, The Return of the Great Brain, Castle of Wizardry, Enchanters' End Game, The Great Brain Is Back, More Adventures of the Great Brain, Is Reality Optional?.

Tim's 25th birthday

News ·Saturday April 3, 2010 @ 21:32 EDT (link)

On Saturday the 3rd we went over to All-Purpose Pizza in Seattle to meet with Tim, Katt, and Katt's brother to celebrate Tim's 25th birthday with fine pizza and good ale. We found out their planed house purchase in Duvall fell through, but they're soon to be closing on a place in Samammish. The intention was to go over to another place for dessert, but we couldn't find a place to park so went home after the pizza.

Books finished: Queen of Sorcery, The Great Brain At the Academy, Are the Rich Necessary?, The Great Brain Reforms.

"Coffee Party" are bigots - film at 11

News, Political ·Friday April 2, 2010 @ 00:00 EDT (link)

So much for "civility". Civility is not blocking people you don't agree with. If there was an agenda, they shouldn't be coy about it.

Books finished: The Political Mind, Programming F#, The Great Brain, The Great Brain Does It Again, Me and My Little Brain.

Review: The Political Mind by George Lakoff, 2008

Political, Media ·Wednesday March 31, 2010 @ 00:28 EDT (link)

The Political Mind by George Lakoff (2008) is a poisonous screed. I felt sick to my stomach reading it. I had hoped to learn something from what the author had to say about how the brain works, but there was so much propaganda, lies, leaps of illogic, and smug assumption of unsupported and unsupportable statist political theories that I couldn't get through it. It presents the state as the only moral agent and individual rights as worthless except to be subverted. American history is rewritten from whole cloth on every page.

Some of the few good things are the concepts of framing, some examination of metaphor (e.g., of morality being beauty, fairness, light. etc.), and of psychological decision-making, near the end, however, Dan Ariely's treatment in Predictably Irrational is much better. The fact that people don't act rationally, however, is a powerful indictment against democracy or any sort of system where the choices of the masses legitimize violence controlled by the few.

A massive false dichotomy permeates the book, itself composed of two straw men: "progressive" morality is about empathy and responsibility, conservative morality is about authority. Of course, both are about authority, historically "progressives" have authored the most rigidly and disastrously authoritarian regimes, and it is neither empathic nor responsible to bribe the irresponsible with other people's money. Furthermore, no room at all is left for individual freedom - libertarians, voluntaryists, anarchists, and small –government conservatives. His model excludes it entirely, which is a strong indicator that his model is incorrect (as my software architecture professor says, all models are wrong; some are useful; his is not useful).

From my own observations, and from reading this book, what I'm actually seeing is that the "progressive" brain focuses on the collective, while the libertarian focuses on the individual. The collective brain wants control; it wants its "empathy" (misguided as it may be) to have an outlet, by rearranging the collective (including stopping people from harmless pursuits, or redistributing their wealth and posessions); this is where harm begins. It grows angry at any incomplete submission to the self-declared authority of the collective (if it must submit, so must everyone; for social programs, if it must pay for them - even if it agrees - then everyone else must be forced to as well). The individual is subservient. Individualism is tolerated to a point, but the collective (however defined - possibly democratically, possibly not) is king and god. It sees problems and thinks a knee-jerk reaction is an answer, and carries it out with enthusiasm as great as its ignorance; it has a design for "society", and nobody may stray outside it (or refuse to pay for it).

In opposition is the libertarian (classically liberal) brain, which is about individual choice (rights, including property ownership) and responsibility. It doesn't care what anyone else does as long as it is not harmed. There is no grand master plan for what everyone else should do; order is spontaneous and comes from voluntary interaction (e.g., the market). There may be a great deal of empathy (despite the typical liberal slander), but that just means the individual will give his time and means to help out; he feels no compulsion to make others do the same. Conservatives tend to fall between the two (as presented in the book, his authoritarian conservatives are basically just progressives with different ideas for the collective).

The author should have written two books: one a useful, scientific examination of how mental patterns and models affect political thought, then, as another book included free in case people need fire starting material, his poisonous statist screed. But I suspect the first book would be a pamphlet and the second a tome.

Books finished: The King of Torts, Pawn of Prophecy.

DVDs finished: Spider-Man.

Belated birthday dinner

News ·Friday March 26, 2010 @ 22:37 EDT (link)

We went to Outback for steak; I had a New York strip, Honey had the fillet. My birthday was back in January, but we'd been busy with school and such.

I also got my Microsoft five year award (a pointy crystal) on Monday.

Matthew Burke dinner

News, Political ·Friday March 26, 2010 @ 22:36 EDT (link)

We went to the Crab Cracker in Kirkland to hear Matthew Burke (introduced by his wife Jennifer). Matthew is running in Washington's first district against Jay Inslee. He wants to shrink government, stop bailouts, etc.; worked 22 years a financial advisor (wife was a teacher); seems interesting. His opponent, James Watkins, is a good guy too, and they have a good relationship; I would be happy to see either one beat Inslee. We decided to eat later, so just ordered drinks and ate from some of the food ordered for the tables. We donated $50 to the campaign later. It was a nice group of people, and a good time.

Books finished: Controversial Essays.

"So this is how liberty dies… with thunderous applause."

News, Political ·Sunday March 21, 2010 @ 20:34 EDT (link)

219 traitors passed so-called "ObamaCare" socialized medicine (over 212 patriots) in the so-called U.S. house of representatives. It was as dark a day as the republic has ever seen.

This post on Americanly Yours has some suggestions on what might come next: If there are states brave enough to resist the new unconstitutional bill—and some are going so far as to promise to arrest any federal agent in the state that will try to uphold it, then the next step will probably be an attempt at withholding federal funds (they won't go military at first). The response to this must be state refusal to render taxes to the federal government—presented very carefully as "for the seniors" and "for the children", with (some of) the funds being used to pay at least the partial costs of federal programs now cut off.

Individuals should be encouraged by the state not to pay income taxes (or possibly to make a partial payment into an escrow account, for the propaganda value—return to constitutionalism, feds, and we'll give you your ill-gotten loot), and then you have your revolution. People will flock to those states. Businesses will follow, as long as business taxes are kept low. By then, a military invasion will be too late: Americans won't stand by for the massacre of an entire state; even liberals might blanch at that a little. And at that point, even without all the modern weapons I claim are necessary, a million or so people armed and scattered through the population will have better success in a guerrilla war than even the Islamofascists, and for a far greater cause.

You can't fight the government

Political, Guns ·Sunday March 21, 2010 @ 18:57 EDT (link)

To anyone with "lock and load", "I'm ready to fight", etc. rhetoric that think they can defeat the federal government: this isn't 1776. The Second Amendment was written that the people might have the same armaments as the government, but it has been infringed so far and so frequently that we think we've won a victory when our overlords give us permission to keep semi-automatic handguns in our houses. The intent was that anyone that can afford a cannon (tank) should be able to have one (or go in on a group buy).

Got nukes? Got artillery? How about air support? Missiles? Tanks? Heck, even automatic weapons or grenades? Probably not. The brainwashed military will cheerfully turn any armed resistance into red mist without breaking a sweat; they've done it before (so-called American Civil War, Japanese-American internment in WWII, the Bonus Army, Waco, Ruby Ridge, and many smaller incidents of government kidnap and murder). In most of the country civilians can't even own automatic weapons. Lock and load all you want, they'll flatten us without a care in the world, and the liberals will spin it for the news as putting down of evil racist terrorists and the sheep will smile and nod and accept their soma ration from mother government.

The US has apparently never invaded a country with nukes, so nukes are what a seceding state or other territory will need as a deterrent. The best service an individual can do for freedom is to become an expert in nuclear physics and similar disciplines; but fissionable material (and most other ingredients, for that matter) will still be hard to come by (perhaps easier with the power of a state behind you). One solution is nukes; the other is winning hearts and minds (Molyneux's approach). I wonder which will happen first.

The fallacy of voting

Political ·Sunday March 21, 2010 @ 18:25 EDT (link)

Fallacious crap like "if you didn't vote you can't complain" abounds. The only way that could be legitimate is if one believed in the system, it was a close enough race to make a difference, and the candidates were substantially different in areas the voter cares about. Let us examine each of these areas.

First, the system is a farce. Step back and consider the idea that 50% plus one of a group get to violently force their ideas on the rest of the group; that they can rob the productivity of the entire group. It is something that of course that 50% plus one will support, but then any tyrant would claim that whatever method lends legitimacy to his edicts is right. Let me also confront the fallacy that not permitting this system of "tyranny of the majority" allows for a 50% minus one "tyranny of the majority". To not use force, to not steal, to not do violence and enforce edicts—this is not tyranny. It can never be tyranny to fail to do harm. Initiation of violence is wrong: nothing justifies it, not numbers, not popular support, not high-sounding principles of "equality" or "social justice" that are thin veneers over envy and redistributionist robbery. Voting, even democracy itself (absent everyone in a group agreeing beforehand to be bound by such a poll) is a farce; not voting is a legitimate protest against it.

Second, the race must be close enough to make a difference. In a precinct solidly for one party or candidate, you can look later and determine that your vote added to either the losing side would do no good. "What if everyone thought this way?" the ignorant masses cry. That is both moot, because everyone doesn't feel that way; look at the numbers; plenty of partisans or supporters of hopeless causes get out and vote, and irrelevant, because you are only responsible for yourself.

Last, the candidates. Usually it's Republican vs. Democrat in the United States. They sometimes talk a different talk, but frequently we see them voting for the same wars, tax increases, entitlements, and regulations, and government growing only fractionally less under the Republicans than the Democrats, and certainly not shrinking as it should. Why bother when on the important issues, there's no difference? Does it matter if the Democrat preaches peace but votes for war and funding of war, or if the Republican preaches smaller government but votes for increased entitlements, or if the representative claims to be against abortion but will never face a vote on it?

Of course, similarly it is also reasonable to complain if you voted and someone else was elected, or if your guy was elected and isn't doing what he promised or implied (or what you hoped), or if he is doing all that, but still not accomplishing anything because the body of which he is part goes against him. You have never contracted to be dictated to and robbed by any individual, and hence not by any group either, whether you participated in the sham that formed them or not. Similarly, you have probably not agreed to the Constitution (see Lysander Spooner's essay "No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority"), or if you did, not to particular interpretations, nor signed a particular contract relating to it, and even if you had, if one party violates any element, as the federal government has, the whole contract is void.

Voting is a mind game. Make use of it when you can, but don't be deceived. It's today's soma, a pacifier and an illusion of choice for the masses to stop you from realizing that government is violence and the moral barrenness of a majority of a group pillaging the rest under color of a holy idol labeled democracy. Is it surprising that when the warmongers in Congress "spread democracy" they spread violence? A vote is a poll about which inmate you'd like to be raped by, and "None of the above" isn't offered as an option.

Sometimes a good one does slip through. What do I mean by "good"? Do I mean someone that will pass bills that will benefit me financially? No, unless those bills are repeals of other bills. "Good" is anti-government. "Good" shrinks government, repeals and overturns laws and regulation and fails to pass new law. I was saying recently how government is violence and hence evil, and asked "What about Ron Paul?" And here it is: Ron Paul (and representatives like him) are not government, they are antigovernment (in the sense of matter and antimatter). He's a positive force because he's trying to roll back and limit the violence and the robbery. Voting for him (if the race was close) or any other "antigovernment" candidate is a good example of using a corrupt system toward a good end. If Congress consisted of such men, they could repeal the unconstitutional welfare-warfare state in a week, propose a few amendments to ensure it will never return ("Leave now, and never come back!"), and then pack up and go home.

Books finished: Compassion Versus Guilt and Other Essays.

<Previous 10 entries>