Tag: Matthew Reece

Ever since Donald Trump became the Republican presidential nominee in 2016, there has been a concerted effort by the establishment to do whatever they can to stop him. Publicizing scandalous materials, weaponizing intelligence agencies, voting, marching, protesting, and political violence were all tried, and none managed to keep him from gaining the Presidency. As such, the focus of the leftist vanguard has shifted to impeachment as a means to remove Trump from office, regardless of the facts of the case. Though the Democratic Party leadership has sought to distance itself from such efforts thus far,[1,2] more ardent leftist activists are pushing the idea in growing numbers. Let us see why this strategy is likely to backfire in such a way that the federal government itself will be damaged, and thus why one should agree with statists for the wrong reasons. The Attempt Before they can impeach Trump, Democrats (and a few cuckservative Republicans[3,4]) will have to mobilize greater support, given that the most recent attempt to bring the measure to the Congressional floor was defeated by a 66–355 margin.[5] The effort to drum up support for impeachment will anger Trump’s base, bringing them to the polls in greater numbers than would otherwise occur in a mid-term election. In the American system of government, an incumbent president does not stand for re-election in singly even years. But if impeachment is to be the result of Democrats winning control of the House of Representatives in 2018, Trump can argue with merit that he actually is on the ballot, even if informally so. Later, attempting impeachment going into the 2020 election will be seen as redundant, as the electorate will wonder why the decision should not be left up to them. Should Trump win re-election, the same argument for the 2018 mid-term voter turnout would apply again in 2022, and an impeachment effort against a lame duck president after that will be viewed as wasteful and needlessly divisive. It is also worth mentioning that impeachment proceedings would occupy the news cycle in the legacy media to the exclusion of other important events. This could both allow the Trump administration a freer hand in performing unsightly but necessary tasks and provide more fodder for mobilizing Trump’s base against Fake News. Throughout his presidential campaign and ensuing administration, Trump’s signature move in the political arena has been to do unto others as they have done unto him. He counterattacks anyone who attacks him and defends whoever defends him. However, there is much more that Trump could do with the powers of the Presidency, such as pardoning people to remove leverage that the investigation led by Robert Mueller may have, unilaterally declassifying information that would be damaging to the Cathedral, issuing sweeping executive orders, and firing executive branch officials who serve at the pleasure of the President. He seems to be taking a relatively passive approach, perhaps sensing that Mueller could interpret the aforementioned maneuvers as obstruction of justice. But if Trump were to be charged and impeached, he would have nothing to lose by engaging in such vigorous countermeasures. The result of this is likely to be a revelation of massive amounts of criminal activity by government agents at all levels in all agencies which are currently hidden behind a veil of secrecy. In other words, if Trump goes down, he can probably take half of D.C. with him. Read the entire article at ZerothPosition.com References: DeBonis, Mike (2017, Dec. 6). “House votes to kill Texas lawmaker’s Trump impeachment effort”. Washington Post. Martin, Jonathan; Burns, Alexander (2017, May 18). “Democratic Leaders Try to Slow Calls to Impeach Trump”. New York Times. Smilowitz, Elliot (2017, May 17). “First Republicans talk possibility of impeachment for Trump”. The Hill. Seipel, Brooke (2017, May 16). “McCain: Trump scandals reaching ‘Watergate size and scale’”. The Hill. “Final Vote Results For Roll Call 35”. Clerk of the United States House of Representatives. Jan. 19, 2018. “Memorial Regarding the Abolition of the Presidency”. National Archives Catalog. Center for Legislative Archives, National Archives and Records Administration. Gibson, C. Robert (2013, Mar. 4). “Abolish It: It’s Our Right”. Huffington Post. Copple, Roger (2013, June 25). “Why a New Constitution is Our Best Hope”. Dissident Voice. Day, Meagan; Sunkara, Bhaskar (2018, Aug. 9). “Think the Constitution Will Save Us? Think Again”. New York Times. “Abolish the Constitution”. Sydiot, Jan. 25, 2017. Kliff, Sarah (2011, Feb. 16). “Pence’s war on Planned Parenthood”. Politico. (2016, July 15). “Donald Trump’s Running Mate Has Some Truly Strange Views on Modern Science”. Fortune. Ring, Trudy (2015, Apr. 1). “Mike Pence ‘Abhors’ Discrimination? His Record Shows Otherwise”. The Advocate. Drabold, Will (2016, July 15). “Here’s What Mike Pence Said on LGBT Issues Over the Years”. Time. Yglesias, Matthew (2009, Feb. 25). “Mike Pence Calls for Massive Anti-Stimulus”. ThinkProgress. Sahadi, Jeanne (2016, July 15). “On Social Security, Trump and Pence couldn’t be more different”. CNN Money. Heinz, Katie (2015, Aug. 26). “As congressman, Gov. Pence co-sponsored change to birthright citizenship rules”. WRTV. Hirji, Zahra (2016, July 15). “Trump’s Choice of Pence Adds a Conservative Fossil Fuel Backer to GOP Ticket”. InsideClimate News. Carden, Dan (3016, Mar. 21). “Pence reinstates mandatory minimum prison terms for some drug crimes”. The Times of Northwest Indiana. Mount, Steve. “Constitutional Topic: Presidential Line of Succession”. ussconstitution.net. 25th Amendment to the United States Constitution. Feierhard, German; Lupu, Noam; Stokes, Susan (2018, Feb. 16). “A significant minority of Americans say they could support a military takeover of the U.S. government”. Washington Post. Bell, Brandon. “When Do High Levels of Corruption Justify a Military Coup?”. AmericasBarometer Insights 2012, number 79. Vanderbilt University.

The post Agreeing With Statists For The Wrong Reasons: Impeach Donald Trump appeared first on The Zeroth Position.

Source: Reece Liberty.Me – Agreeing With Statists For The Wrong Reasons: Impeach Donald Trump

By Darien Sumner

On July 23, Social Matter published an article by Mark Christensen titled “We Need Tremendous Government: Why Conservative Mythology Must Be Disrupted”.

His contention is that modern conservatism has long been dominated by libertarians who want to shrink government purely for its own sake, with no attention paid to the costs or consequences. Conservatives, therefore, should rebel against this negative influence and get back to what he contends is the root of conservative thought: Making America Great Again.

To do so, it is necessary to embrace the power of the state as a tool for advancing conservative interests. Unfortunately for Christensen, his quest to disrupt conservative mythology runs aground on three major flaws, which we will explore below. What Christensen Gets Right Christensen is far from wrong about everything.

Indeed, he is highly perceptive on the subject of President Trump. He writes: “The political leader of Republican America is a man with a very different message. In his journey to the White House, the words from Donald Trump’s mouth rang very different. Something like this: ‘I am a successful businessman. I have built great things and hired great people. The U.S. government is not successful and does not build things right now, but it used to. When I am in charge, I will use my tremendous ability to make it a success which builds great things once more. I will Make America Great Again.’”

The post The Myth of Tremendous Government: A Reply to Mark Christensen appeared first on The Zeroth Position.

Read the rest at: Reece Liberty.Me – The Myth of Tremendous Government: A Reply to Mark Christensen

The New Wealth of Nations is a book about the decline of world poverty by Indian economist Surjit S. Bhalla. The book explores the role of education in bringing this about, the failures of current measures of inequality, and possible changes to government welfare programs to accommodate changing conditions. The opening chapter considers the accelerated growth of the third world relative to advanced economies in recent decades. Bhalla posits greater equality in education as the cause, making the case through much of the rest of the book. His near-obsession with equality between the sexes and belief in its unalloyed goodness begins here and becomes tedious as the book goes on. His list of supposed benefits of the globalization demonstrate a thoroughly liberal worldview. Bhalla closes the chapter by introducing the topics that will be covered in most of the following chapters. Chapter 2 deals with the impacts of the equalizing of education around the world. Bhalla cites data showing that since 1980, growth in developing countries has outpaced growth in the West. He notes that crediting globalization for all of the 700 percent growth in the incomes of poor people in China and India would be fallacious, but waits until the next chapter to deal with other explanations. He views Brexit and Trump as mostly a backlash against falling Western growth, partly racially motivated, and the latter partly due to Clinton’s incompetence as a candidate, which is more or less correct. Bhalla ends the chapter by framing globalization as good in Rawlsian terms, which also works against his case if one rejects Rawls’ conception of government policy ethics. The third chapter examines economic history from 1500 to 2016, with projections to 2030. Bhalla relies heavily on the estimates of Angus Maddison, which are highly questionable even by Maddison’s own admission.[1,2] Bhalla outlines his methodology for the rest of the book, and problems here explain most of what is misguided going forward. He makes much of the Gini coefficient, which has its own set of faults. He contemplates why poor countries are poor, looking to industrialization, commodity trading, and colonialism, finally settling on lack of education. Never does the possibility of genetic differences in intelligence between ethnic groups cross Bhalla’s mind, as this would call into question his “natural experiment” of comparing Latin America to Africa and Asia in the 19th and early 20th centuries. The chapter finishes on a tangent about spread of democracy, which Bhalla treats as political freedom and an absolute good rather than a source of perverse incentives. Read the entire article at ZerothPosition.com References: Datta, Saugato, ed. (2011) Economics: making sense of the Modern Economy. John Wiley & Sons. Maddison, Angus (2007). Contours of the world economy 1-2030 AD: Essays in macro-economic history. Oxford University Press. Fritze, Ronald H. (2011). Invented Knowledge: False History, Fake Science and Pseudo-religions (Reprint ed.). Reaktion Books. p. 12, 19. Wai, Jonathan; Cacchio, Megan; Putallaz, Martha; Makel, Matthew C. (2010). “Sex differences in the right tail of cognitive abilities: A 30year examination”. Intelligence. 38 (4): 412–423.

The post Book Review: The New Wealth of Nations appeared first on The Zeroth Position.

Source: Reece Liberty.Me – Book Review: The New Wealth of Nations

By Insula Qui Producerism is a unique view of political and social philosophy. To completely understand this theory, we first have to establish how ideologies are constructed. For any ideology, it is important that there is a base value. There must be some value-judgment above all other value-judgments. (There are two other key requirements for a set of ideas to be an ideology, but we will deal with them later.) For libertarianism I have identified the base value as efficiency. When presented with a choice between the value of liberty and the value of efficiency, most libertarians will choose efficiency. This value of efficiency is not necessarily the creation of the best possible GDP, but rather preventing unnecessary waste and striving towards goals in the best possible manner. On an individual level, efficiency means organizing one’s life so as to create the best path between a person and his goals. This is why mainstream libertarians mostly advocate for liberty due to its efficiency. There has never been a libertarian who thinks that liberty is less efficient than the lack of it. The closest we get to this are those with immense classical anarchist influences, but their significance is constantly being reduced. One could also say that Rothbard valued liberty as self-ownership more than he valued efficiency, but his political action demonstrates otherwise. He was quite willing to ally with people who did not see liberty as the most valuable goal as long as he viewed them as the most expedient way to reach a particular goal. Even Walter Block, who frequently makes moral arguments for traditionally immoral behavior, supports libertarianism in large part because of purely economic reasons. His support of philosophical libertarianism has always taken a backseat to economic libertarianism. (In this context, we are speaking about Austrian economics and not neo-liberal economics; the Austrian School cares less about maximizing monetary value and more about individuals striving towards any goal that they value.) Libertarians may claim that their key value is liberty, but if liberty brought universal misery, decay, and poverty, they would be the first to abandon their current ideal. We can see this in practice, as most people who abandon libertarianism slingshot toward the most authoritarian version of their new persuasion, whether they become Stalinists or national socialists (or even both). However, in reality, we know that liberty brings the most efficient form of organization. This does not mean that it is simple to establish a regime of liberty, but simply that people best achieve their chosen goals when they are given the freedom to do so. Socialists, on the other hand, value equality above all other values. To a libertarian this seems odd; equality is inefficient and thus useless. But the socialist would rather have everyone equally poor than some unequally rich. However, the American socialist still functions within classical liberal cultural assumptions. The American people value efficiency far more than most other cultures. This means that American socialists will also constantly appeal to efficiency, but they do so to justify socialism as they do not actually value this efficiency. Both of these values are ultimately arbitrary; there is nothing that makes efficiency objectively correct or that makes equality objectively desirable. The necessity to construct an ideology from principles that approach objectivity is thus clear. We cannot see the world without ideology; the best we can do is to switch the lenses of ideology so fast that it becomes unnoticeable. The only solution to this is producerism. And finally, let us mention the other two key components for ideologies. One can be described as the secondary value or end goal, one that backs up the base value. For libertarianism, this would be property. For the libertarian, the moral value of efficiency should ultimately create a regime of full property ownership. The other is the method of analysis employed by different ideologies. This is a key part that differentiates left- and right-libertarians. Left-libertarians tend to focus on materialism and empirical data, while right-libertarians tend to be more concerned with rational systems and the results of applying moral principles. Read the entire article at Zerothposition.com

The post The Producerist Theory of Society and Civilization appeared first on The Zeroth Position.

Source: Reece Liberty.Me – The Producerist Theory of Society and Civilization

Libertarianism within a leviathan state functions not as a governing philosophy, but as a critique of excesses, i.e. the cases in which state power is used in an unusually pernicious manner. These efforts have had varying degrees of success, depending on how well libertarians can convince major party operatives and wealthy financiers of the wisdom of restraining the state on one issue or another. Unfortunately, mainstream libertarians seem to have a blind spot, if not an outright case of political autism, when it comes to corporate power. Free-market conservatives, reactionaries, and traditionalists also view corporations far too positively. Let us examine the history of corporations, construct a case against their existence and power, and offer solutions for reining them in. History of Corporations The word “corporation” comes from Latin corpus, meaning “body”. Originally, it was the gods of Uruk that fulfilled the function of imaginary entities that owned property and conducted commerce. Like modern corporations, Enki, Inanna, Lagash, Shurupak, and the other deities of ancient Mesopotamia outlived any human and were not troubled by inheritance disputes, but needed humans to conduct affairs on their behalf. The ancient Egyptians merged this concept with a physical embodiment to create the concept of Pharaoh.[1] By the time of Justinian I (r. 527–565), Byzantine-Roman law recognized several types of corporate entities, such as collegium, corpus, and universitas. The state itself was considered a sovereign corporation, the Populus Romanus. Smaller municipalities were also categorized as such, along with occupational guilds, political groups, and religious cults. The privileges of these early corporations were granted by the emperor in their charters, such as owning property, making contracts, engaging in commerce, and pursuing legal action.[2] Local governments and religious institutions were also incorporated in medieval Europe for the same reasons. Other forms of organization such as partnerships were offered by common law, which arose whenever people acted together with an intent to profit. The era of the modern corporation began in the 17th century with the chartered companies that led European colonial ventures in India, the Americas, and elsewhere. The Dutch East India Company (VOC, from Dutch Vereenigde Oostindische Compagnie) was chartered by the Dutch government in 1602 and sold shares to investors, who traded them on the Amsterdam Stock Exchange. The charter granted limited liability to investors and allowed the company to use military force pursuant to its purposes, which it did by defeating Portuguese forces in the Maluku Islands.[3] The English government chartered corporations with a territorial monopoly. For example, Queen Elizabeth I chartered the East India Company of London in 1600 to monopolize trade with all countries east of the Cape of Good Hope.[4] Like the Dutch company, the English company would use force on the government’s behalf, becoming integrated with English and later British foreign policy. The English East India Company would become a symbol of both corporate success and exploitation.[5] Shareholders made almost 150 percent returns in 1711. Its first stock offering in 1713–1716 raised £418,000, and its second in 1717–1722 raised £1.6 million.[6] However, the apparent success of a similar entity, the South Sea Company, turned out to be illusory. Established in 1711, its monopoly rights to trade with Spanish South America were supposedly backed by the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht. In reality, the Spanish remained hostile, only allowing one trade ship per year. Investors made the South Sea Company immensely wealthy despite the fact that it did no real business. It took on the burden of British public debt in 1717, further accelerating the share price. War with Spain in 1718 cost the company its prospects of trade profits.[7] The Bubble Act 1720, which prohibited the establishment of companies without a Royal Charter, contributed to Britain’s first speculative bubble.[8] South Sea Company shares eventually collapsed from £1000 in August 1720 to under £150 in October, causing many bankruptcies. Modern Developments As the 18th century ended, mercantilism was displaced by capitalism and agrarian economies became industrialized. Corporate forms also evolved to be less dependent on state direction and permission. Many business ventures during this time were unincorporated associations with up to thousands of members. Litigation was thus very difficult to coordinate, keeping the courts from being clogged with corporate lawsuits. The Bubble Act was eventually repealed in 1825. In 1844, Parliament passed the Joint Stock Companies Act, which allowed companies to incorporate by registration for only £10 without obtaining a royal charter.[9] Until 1855, company members were still fully financially responsible for their collective actions, but the Limited Liability Act changed this by only holding investors responsible up to the amount of their investment[10], thus allowing the remainder to be externalized to the public.[11] Insurance companies were excluded from limited liability at first, but the Companies Act 1862 changed this.[12] The 1897 House of Lords decision in Salomon v. Salomon & Co. confirmed the separate legal personhood of corporations by affirming that creditors could not sue the shareholders of an insolvent company for outstanding corporate debt. In 1892, Germany introduced the Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung (GmbH), the forerunner of the modern limited-liability company (LLC). These were considered separate legal personalities with limited liability like corporations, but could be owned by a single person.[13] In the United States, corporations were usually formed by acts of Congress until the late 19th century. The captains of industry therefore made more use of the trust model than the corporate model, under which Rockefeller’s Standard Oil and Carnegie Steel Company became enormously successful.[14,15] State governments had more permissive corporate laws than the federal government in the 19th century, but most were designed to prevent corporations from gaining much wealth or power.[16] In the 1890s, New Jersey and Delaware adopted enabling corporate statutes.[17,18] Around this time, mergers and holding companies led to larger corporations, and governments responded with anti-trust and anti-monopoly legislation. Forming corporations was also made easier in most jurisdictions, though some places had many state-owned corporations that effectively nationalized certain industries. In recent decades, many countries have moved toward privatizing state-owned corporations, though ownership was transferred to politically connected oligarchs in many cases.[19,20,21] Read the entire article at ZerothPosition.com References: Harari, Yuval Noah (2015). Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow. HarperCollins Press. Ch. 4. Berman, Harold Joseph (1983). Law and Revolution (vol. 1): The Formation of the Western Legal Tradition. Cambridge University Press. p. 215–6. Prakash, Om (1998). European Commercial Enterprise in Pre-Colonial India. Cambridge University Press. Imperial Gazetteer of India vol. II (1908), p. 6. Keay, John (1991). The Honorable Company: A History of the English East India Company. MacMillan-New York. Ibid., p. 113 Carswell, John (1960). The South Sea Bubble. London: Cresset Press. p. 75–6. Harris, Ron (1994). “The Bubble Act: Its Passage and Its Effects on Business Organization”. The Journal of Economic History. 54 (3): 610–627. Davies, Paul Lyndon (2010). Introduction to Company Law. Oxford University Press. p. 1. Mayson, S.W; et al. (2005). Mayson, French & Ryan on Company Law. London: Oxford University Press. p. 55. “Limited Liability and the Known Unknown”. Social Science Research Network. 2018. Pulbrook, Anthony (1865). The Companies Act, 1862, with analytical references and copious index. London: Effingham Wilson. Limited Liability Company Reporter (2001, Jun. 4). “Historical Background of the Limited Liability Company”. Dies, Edward (1969). Behind the Wall Street Curtain. Ayer. p. 76. Nasaw, David (2006). Andrew Carnegie. p. 578–88. Smiddy, Linda O.; Cunningham, Lawrence A. (2010). Corporations and Other Business Organizations: Cases, Materials, Problems (7th ed.). LexisNexis. p. 228–31. Ibid., p. 241 The Law of Business Organizations. Cengage Learning. Nellis, John; Menezes, Rachel; Lucas, Sarah. “Privatization in Latin America: The rapid rise, recent fall, and continuing puzzle of a contentious economic policy”. Center for Global Development Policy Brief, Jan 2004. p. 1. Faiola, Anthony (2005, Oct. 15). “Japan Approves Postal Privatization”. Washington Post. Megginson, William L. (2005). The Financial Economics of Privatisation. Oxford University Press. p. 205–6. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 844 (2010) Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Co., 118 U.S. 394 (1886) Roser, Max; Ritchie, Hannah (2018). “Technological Progress”. Published online at OurWorldInData.org.

The post The Case Against Corporations appeared first on The Zeroth Position.

Source: Reece Liberty.Me – The Case Against Corporations

By Benjamin Welton As some American eggheads say, there could not have been 1787 without 1215. The legacy of Philadelphia starts at Runnymede. Put more bluntly, the U.S. Constitution would not exist without the Magna Carta that was signed by King John of England. America’s political culture, ideals, and most of its founding stock come from the British Isles. As such, arguing that American documents have an English lineage is entirely sensible. America’s Bill of Rights is based on and not much different from the Bill of Rights that English Protestants ratified in 1689 following the Glorious Revolution. There a few documents in the world that receive such undue reverence as the Magna Carta. Conservative MP Daniel Hannan has called the signing of the document a “secular miracle”, the logic being that it was the Magna Carta that enshrined limited government in the English, then British soul. Hannan and others sincerely believe that the 1215 document is the root and origin of modern Anglo governance, with its protection of individual freedom, liberties, etc. Let us show that this is bunk. Historical Context The Magna Carta, which can be read in translation here, was signed by a king so loathed that no subsequent English monarch took his name. Although King John‘s story has been colored over the centuries by writers who hated him, it is true that John was a tyrant and a bumbler who lost most of the Angevin holdings in France to King Philip II of the House of Capet. Even worse, insofar as the Anglo-Norman barons of England were concerned, John was not the legitimate king because he ruled in the stead of the brave Richard the Lion-heart, who spent years languishing in an Austrian jail. Beginning in 1215, the same year that John affixed his emblem to the Magna Carta, the Anglo-Norman barons of England’s north and east rose up in rebellion. Their main grievances were over John’s misrule in England and Normandy as well as his steep taxes that were raised in order to fight new campaigns in France. This rebellion would become known as the First Barons’ War, an unnecessary conflict that further weakened the monarchy in England. The Magna Carta had already been signed by the time the war broke out, so it neither prevented the war nor ended it. In fact, haggling over the Magna Carta following its signing led both parties to be dissatisfied with the document, ultimately putting all on a war footing. The “secular miracle” was ineffectual insofar as internal English politics were concerned. The main reason for this is that King John had the document annulled not long after signing it by a decree from Pope Innocent III. The Pope and the King agreed that the document had been signed under coercion. The Pope even went further by excommunicating those barons who had forced John’s hand. Even in its own time, the Magna Carta meant nothing to either the English monarch or the barons who fought him. The Document Itself Those who claim that the Magna Carta is the origin of Anglo-American freedom often point to one line in particular: “No Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will we not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right.” This passage is often cited as the foundation of the notion that all governments should be held to the rule of law. This is a strange assertion, given that no English or British court case has been decided based on either this passage or the Magna Carta generally, and that the Romans had a legacy of protecting legal authority long prior. The Magna Carta is therefore of no legal importance. It is merely a symbolic gesture that signals the king’s willingness to compromise on his authority. When the English sovereign faced a much greater revolt in the 17th century, many Parliamentarians echoed the work of barrister Sir Edward Coke, who often invoked the Magna Carta during his injunctions against outlawry, unlawful arrests, and other formerly common practices of medieval (and Catholic) England. Read the entire article at ZerothPosition.com

The post Against the Magna Carta appeared first on The Zeroth Position.

Source: Reece Liberty.Me – Against the Magna Carta

The fundamental concern of libertarianism is the question of what constitutes the acceptable use of force. The primary objective of reactionaries is to correct bad decisions and undo the damage done by them in order to establish, secure, and advance a healthy and stable social order. Adherents of these political ideologies thus share an interest in determining the optimal level of force needed to maintain civilization. Finding the correct balance is the overarching question of proper statecraft as applied to domestic policy. Let us attempt to do this by defining scales of force usage, considering the role of a sovereign with regard to use of force, and examining their interrelationships. Scales of Force Let us construct scales to measure the amount of force used in a society. Like a Spinal Tap amplifier, these will go from zero to eleven, but unlike Nigel Tufnel’s explanation, the reasons for this unconventional range will make sense. There are three categories of force to consider: force used by government agents (official force), force used by private actors in accordance with the law (officially sanctioned force), and force used by private actors in violation of the law (criminalized force). In all real societies, the boundaries between these three categories are somewhat fluid. Laws and customs are changed over time, which alters the use of official force and the categorization of legal versus illegal uses of force by non-governmental actors. Even so, they rarely change quickly, and those exceptions will be handled in our definitions of the zeroes and elevens. Corruption of the governance structure also blurs the lines when official and/or sanctioned force does under color of law that which should be criminalized. Finally, it must be understood that the scales are qualitative and particular, not quantitative or universalizable. There is no constant value by which force must be added or multiplied to reach one number higher on the scale. The range of forces that a society can withstand depend on culture, genetics, and even the weather. Force that would be a five in North Korea may be an eleven in the United States; force that would be a six in winter may be a seven in summer. The first scale is that of official violence, the force used by the governance structure of a society to punish criminal behavior and enforce social norms. If too little force is used, then acts of aggression against people and property will not be sufficiently deterred and criminals will run amok. If too much force is used, then officially sanctioned acts of aggression will tear the social fabric. A zero on this scale means that there is no officially sanctioned use of force. Because a governance structure must have some control over the use of force, sanctioning some uses and forbidding others, zero means that no such structure is present. This value is thus outside the realm of human civilization, describing instead a Hobbesian war of all against all in a primitive state of nature or a post-apocalyptic ruin. (A utopian civilization of angels in which no one uses aggressive force to get what one wants would also be at zero on this scale and the others, but let us deal with the world as it is.) An eleven on this scale describes a dystopian totalitarian state in which minor crimes are met with wildly disproportionate and brutal punishments, so much so that the civilian population decides to violently revolt because they reasonably believe that the state will murder them anyway. Stable civilizations occupy the one to ten range, with one being the minimal amount of force needed to maintain order and ten being the maximum amount of force that does not cause a collapse. The second scale is that of officially sanctioned violence, the force used by private citizens to further the cause of civilization. If too little force is used, then both criminality and statism will grow. If too much force is used, then excess violence will destabilize the social order. A zero on this scale typically means that the governance structure has taken over all responsibility for the use of force by banning any private defense, which inevitably results in totalitarianism. It could also mean, as before, that there is no governance structure to allow or forbid anything. An eleven on this scale means that the governance structure has failed and that private citizens may use force as they see fit because no one sits in judgment. To permit anything is to yield sovereignty to whomever would take it, and thus eleven comes full circle back to zero in the latter sense. One represents a minimal legal right to self-defense, while ten represents the limit of private violence that a civilization can withstand. It is important to remember that legally sanctioned forms of mutual combat also belong on this scale. The third scale is that of criminalized violence, the aggressive force used to harm people, steal wealth, and destroy property. An important aspect of statecraft is to keep this value small by both suppressing crime and defining it correctly. A zero on this scale typically means that crime has been improperly defined, as true zero is beyond the possibility of human nature. It could also mean, as before, that there is no governance structure to allow or forbid anything. An eleven on this scale means that the governance structure has failed and the criminal element is destroying civilization. One represents the realistic minimum of crime in a healthy society, while ten represents the maximum amount of crime that will not break the social order. Note: A fourth 0–11 scale could be used to measure the force used outside of a society in terms of defending against external enemies and engaging in foreign interventionism, but the scope of this article is internal use of force only. Read the entire article at ZerothPosition.com References: Krauthammer, Charles (1992, Apr. 24). “Without the Noose, Without the Gag”. Washington Post.

The post How Much Force is Best for Civilization? appeared first on The Zeroth Position.

Source: Reece Liberty.Me – How Much Force is Best for Civilization?

On the June 19 episode of Fox News Channel’s “The Story with Martha MacCallum”, substitute host Sandra Smith had former Donald Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski and Democratic Party strategist Zac Petkanas on for a segment about Trump’s zero-tolerance immigration policy, which at that time included separating children from adults when they cross the border illegally. Petkanas began with a story he read about a 10-year-old girl with Down syndrome who was separated from her mother. He neglected to mention that the mother was suspected of involvement with a child trafficking ring and was detained for that reason. Lewandowski responded by rolling his eyes and making his now-famous retort, “womp womp”, as in a sad-trombone effect that follows a failure of some kind. This caused Petkanas to completely lose his composure as he raised his voice, “How dare you! How dare you! How absolutely dare you, sir! We have infants that are being taken from their mothers! We have infants that are being stolen from their mothers and put into cages! And you go ‘womp womp’?! This just exemplifies…how dare you, sir, how dare you! She has Down syndrome and she was taken from her mother. How dare you.” Meanwhile, Lewandowski maintained composure and softly continued, “What I said is you can pick anything you want to, but the bottom line is very clear: when you cross the border illegally you have given up the rights of that country. When you cross the border illegally, when you commit a crime, you are taken away from your family because that’s how this country works.” Smith tried to keep them from talking over each other, to little avail. The next day, Lewandowski appeared with Smith again on FNC’s “America’s Newsroom” as well as on Chris Cuomo’s show on CNN to clarify his remarks, saying that “womp womp” was directed at Petkanas for politicizing children and not at the young child. The great and good of the Cathedral brahmins reacted predictably. On June 20, Lewandowski was released by Leading Authorities Inc., a Washington, D.C. firm that helps political figures get speaking engagements. MSNBC host Rachel Maddow cried at the end of her show over the issue of child detainment centers. David Perry expressed dismay over the Trump administration’s “white nationalist agenda” in CNN’s opinion column. The harridans of ABC’s The View were outraged. NBC’s Megyn Kelly called Lewandowski a coward and said that he should be de-platformed. Read the entire article at ZerothPosition.com

The post Womp For Victory appeared first on The Zeroth Position.

Source: Reece Liberty.Me – Womp For Victory

Since the beginning of recorded history, a teleological element has been present in historical narratives. The precise form of this element has varied through places and times, but historians have always offered some sense of where we are going and what the future may hold. This is an understandable impulse; humans are the only extant species with the ability to conceive of the future in a meaningful way and make long-term plans beyond the horizon of gathering food for the winter. Making plans of worth requires having some idea of future conditions. In pre-modern times when social and technological progress occurred more slowly, past trends were generally a sound predictor of the future. But as knowledge has expanded and the pace of change has quickened, the fragility of the idea of a grand narrative of history has become increasingly obvious, as has the fallacy of assuming that past trends will continue uninterrupted. Let us consider each of the forms of historical teleology, then introduce and defend a non-teleological approach. Decline and Cycle The earliest narrative of history is that of the fall of man, of a decline from a previous golden age. In those times, there was no clear distinction between history and myth, so many such accounts are a combination of creation myths and a mytho-historical account of events between the creation and the present. Examples of this include the story of the Garden of Eden and man’s expulsion from it in the Abrahamic faiths[1], the Four Yugas in Hinduism[2], the Five Suns in the Aztec faith[3,4], and the five Ages of Man described by the Greek poet Hesiod[5]. In the Abrahamic and Greek traditions, man (or proto-man) once existed in a state of harmony, virtue, and free communion with the divine. The Hindu and Aztec traditions relate cycles of creation and destruction, ascent and decline. The Hindu cycles depict humans as becoming shorter in stature and lifespan as the Yugas progress. It is easy to understand how belief in decline would become popular. The earliest written stories were transcriptions of oral traditions. The first civilizations to invent writing existed in the wake of a time of decline, which in turn followed a previous civilization that predated recorded history. In other cases, past forms of writing were lost to later inhabitants of a region. For example, Hesiod flourished sometime between 750–650 BC[6], just after the Greek Dark Ages (1100–800 BC)[7] which followed the Mycenaean civilization (1600–1100 BC)[8]. The present state of recovery just beginning, the recent memory of decline, legends of a better time in the past, and the loss of understanding of the Linear B script used by the Mycenaeans to record their affairs[9] make a historical narrative of fall from grace understandable. In addition to the Hindu and Mesoamerican developments of cyclical views of mythology, the Chinese developed concepts of social cycles. The dynastic cycle in which a new ruler unites China, forms a dynasty, prosperity occurs, corruption ensues, a disaster occurs, civil war follows, the Mandate of Heaven is lost, a Warring States Period occurs, one faction wins the war to establish a new dynasty, and the Mandate of Heaven is gained by them has long been a prominent political theory in Chinese society.[10] Meanwhile, theologians of the Abrahamic faiths developed theodicies and eschatologies, some of which posited a telos of apocalypse followed by a Messianic age. Ibn Khaldun described cycles of nomads forming or conquering cities, states, and empires, then being displaced by other conquering nomads as their group cohesion (asabiyyah) faded over time.[11] Cyclical conceptions of history flourished during the Renaissance, such as Niccolo Machiavelli’s Discourses on Livy (1513–17). The most famous modern works in this tradition are Oswald Spengler’s Decline of the West (1918–22) and the Strauss-Howe generational theory.[12] Recent study in this direction uses mathematical modeling of long-term social cycles.[13] Understanding the popularity of cyclical history is also straightforward. As record-keeping improved and people made more observations about the natural world, periodic and repetitive behaviors in all parts of life and nature were discovered. Despite our unique advances, humans are still a part of nature, so applying this pattern recognition to ourselves is a reasonable step. The Hesiodic and cyclical views of history continue to inform conservative and reactionary political ideologies, to the extent that these seek a return to an idealized past rather than the correction of mistakes by bringing well-functioning elements of the past into the future. Religious fundamentalists also tend to view the world through such a lens, with a restoration to come in the future through divine intervention. Most modern philosophers of history, however, have come to adopt a different view. Read the entire article at ZerothPosition.com References: Gen. 2:7-3:24 Mark L. Prophet, Elizabeth Clare Prophet. The Path to Immortality. Summit University Press. Smith, Michael E. (2003). The Aztecs 2nd Ed. UK: Blackwell Publishing. Aguilar- Moreno, Manuel (2006). Handbook to life in the Aztec World. Los Angeles: California State University. Hesiod. Works and Days, lines 106–201. Hesiod. Theogony. Freeman, Charles (2014). Egypt, Greece and Rome: Civilizations of the Ancient Mediterranean (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 127. Fields, Nic; illustrated by Donato Spedaliere (2004). Mycenaean Citadels c. 1350–1200 BC (3rd ed.). Oxford: Osprey Publishing. p. 10–11. Ventris, Michael; Chadwick, John (1973). Documents in Mycenaean Greek (Second ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 60. Edwin O. Reischauer. “The Dynastic Cycle”, in John Meskill, The Pattern of Chinese History, (Boston: D.C. Heath and Company, 1965). p. 31–33. Tibi, Bassam (1997). Arab nationalism. p. 139. Howe, Neil; Strauss, William (1991). Generations: The History of America’s Future, 1584 to 2069. New York: William Morrow & Company Turchin, Peter (2003). Historical Dynamics: Why States Rise and Fall. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Trevor-Roper, Hugh (1979). Lord Macaulay’s History of England. Penguin Classics. p. 10. Trevor-Roper, p. 12–26. Marwick, Arthur (1980). The Nature of History 2nd ed. p. 47. Soffer, Reba (1994). Discipline and Power: The University, History, and the Making of an English Elite. p. 87. Butterfield, Herbert (1965). The Whig Interpretation of History. New York: W. W. Norton. p. 12. Schuster, John A. (1995). The Scientific Revolution: Introduction to History and Philosophy of Science. p. 14–19. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto Marx and Engels, The Civil War in France Marx and Engels, The Critique of the Gotha Programme Fine, Ben; Saad-Filho, Alfredo; Boffo, Marco. The Elgar Companion to Marxist Economics. Edward Elgar Publishing. p. 212. Satter, David (2001). Age of Delirium: The Decline and Fall of the Soviet Union. Yale University Press. Zalejko, Gwidon (1994); Jerzy Topolski (ed.). Soviet historiography as “normal science”, in Historiography Between Modernism and Postmodernism. Rodopi. p. 179–191. Greer, Allan. “1837-38: Rebellion reconsidered”. Canadian Historical Review (1995) 76#1:1–18, at p. 3. Schuster, p. 17. Huxley, T. H. (Feb. 1889). “II. Agnosticism”. In Christianity and Agnosticism: A controversy. New York, NY: The Humboldt Publishing Co. Rowe, William L. (1998). “Agnosticism”. In Edward Craig. Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Taylor & Francis. Le Poidevin, Robin (October 28, 2010). Agnosticism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press. p. 32ff. Rauch, Jonathan (May 2003). “Let It Be: Three Cheers for Apatheism”. The Atlantic Monthly.

The post Introducing Agnostic History appeared first on The Zeroth Position.

Source: Reece Liberty.Me – Introducing Agnostic History

The revelation of clandestine personal information has occurred for as long as clandestine personal information has existed. This has been practiced throughout human history as intelligence gathering by states and private firms, investigation of crimes, security testing, harassment, social shaming, blackmail, and vigilantism.[1] In the age of the Internet, the researching and broadcasting of private, personally identifiable information about individuals and organizations has become easier than ever, and thus a more serious problem. Let us consider the nature of the practice known as doxxing, the possible effects on victims, and potential countermeasures. The Nature and Effects of Doxxing By using publicly searchable databases, social media, social engineering, and hacking, a doxxer can gain access to private information about a person or organization. The term doxxing to refer to the publication of a dossier of such information derives from the Internet slang “dropping dox”, dating to the 1990s. Black-hat hackers in that era would sometimes dox one another in order to expose someone to harassment and/or criminal prosecution.[2] In a 2003 presentation at West Point, Adam Young and Moti Yung presented a novel type of computer virus known as doxware. Such a virus does not encrypt files and demand ransom for a decryption key, as traditional extortion programs do; rather, it simply copies private information and threatens to publicize it unless payment is made.[3,4] Doxxing entered mainstream public awareness through the Internet-based group of activists known as Anonymous, who frequently use the tactic.[5] Once a doxxer has a compiled dossier on an individual or group, a variety of tactics are possible, with a wide range of outcomes: mobs can be directed to protest at a person’s home or business, an employer can be harassed into firing the person, advertisers and investors can be coerced into ending their association with a person or group, a public figure can be intimidated into silence, fake sign-ups for deliverable goods and services can be made, a police raid can be sent with a false tip of a bomb threat or hostage situation, social media and financial accounts can be hacked, or criminals may be sent to harm or even assassinate someone.[6] The aforementioned effects can completely ruin a person’s life. Aside from the possibility of direct bodily harm from misaimed vigilante mobs or police raids under false pretenses, a person’s family can be left without sustenance if doxxing leaves one unable to find employment or sponsorship and one does not qualify for state assistance. Leaving or being expelled from university because of doxxing can alter a person’s entire life trajectory. Fixing identity theft that can occur as a result of personal information being publicized can consume a vast amount of time, effort, and resources. Exposing the identity of a political or religious dissident living under a hostile regime can cause harm or death to that person. The shame and social alienation following doxxing and association with a negative behavior or vilified political cause can cause depression and even lead to suicide.[7] In recent years, doxxing has increasingly been carried out by journalists who claim that they are revealing information that is in the public interest. Many journalists who work for establishment media firms seem to believe that they are somehow entitled to do what is considered wrong for anyone else to do, especially if they strongly disagree with the politics of a person or organization. The ethics of doxxing in journalism and the relationship between journalism and activism are matters of ongoing debate and controversy.[8,9] Read the entire article at ZerothPosition.com References: Bright, Peter (2012, Mar. 7). “Doxed: how Sabu was outed by former Anons long before his arrest”. Ars Technica. Honan, Mat (2014, Mar. 6). “What Is Doxing?”. Wired. Young, A. (2003). Non-Zero Sum Games and Survivable Malware. IEEE Systems, Man and Cybernetics Society Information Assurance Workshop. p. 24–29. A. Young, M. Yung (2004). Malicious Cryptography: Exposing Cryptovirology. Wiley. “Anonymous’s Operation Hiroshima: Inside the Doxing Coup the Media Ignored”. Ibtimes.com. Jan. 1, 2012. Cohen, David S.; Connon, Krysten (2015, May 21). “Strikethrough (Fatality); The origins of online stalking of abortion providers”. Slate. Nark, Jason. (2014, Apr. 30). “The Boston bombing’s forgotten victim”. Philadelphia Daily News. “Rethinking the ethics of doxing”. Background Probability, Dec. 14, 2014. Ingram, Mathew (2014, Mar. 6). “Of Bitcoin and doxxing: Is revealing Satoshi Nakamoto’s identity okay because it was Newsweek and not Reddit?”. Chrisman, Harry E. “Cattle Rustling”. Old Meade County. “Bentonville Anti-Horse Thief Society”. Ohio History Central. Rachel Ginnis Fuchs (2005). Gender and Poverty in Nineteenth Century Europe. Cambridge University Press. p. 97. Luckett, Matthew S. (2014). Honor among Thieves: Horse Stealing, State-Building, and Culture in Lincoln County, Nebraska, 1860 – 1890 (Ph.D.). University of California Los Angeles.

The post Dealing With Doxxing appeared first on The Zeroth Position.

Source: Reece Liberty.Me – Dealing With Doxxing