T Nation

Ticking Time Bomb

This is an excerpt from a beautifully written piece by Robert Higgs:

[quote]“Politics, under democracy,” Mencken wrote more than 80 years ago, “resolves itself into impossible alternatives. Whatever the label on the parties, or the war cries issuing from the demagogues who lead them, the practical choice is between the plutocracy on the one side and a rabble of preposterous impossibilists on the other.” And in a declaration even apter now than it was at the time, he concluded that what democracy “needs beyond everything is a party of liberty.”

The trouble is, however, that now, even more than then, the American people have little interest in liberty. Instead, they want the impossible: home ownership for those who cannot afford homes, credit for those who are not creditworthy, old-age pensions for those who have not saved, health care for those who make no attempt to keep themselves healthy, and college educations for those who lack the wit to finish high school. Moreover, they want it now, and they want somebody else to pay for it.

If you think that Fannie and Freddie’s bust is a big deal, just wait until Medicare comes crashing down. Then, the wailing and gnashing of teeth will be truly unbearable. As that day rapidly approaches, however, you’ll notice that the politicians are doing utterly nothing to forestall it."[/quote]

Irrationalists impose impossible demands on rationalists because of the will to power. Make the world into an impossible maze and convince the producers that they are evil because they don’t have an innate desire to serve others. Convince the thoughtful and productive that they are morally corrupt because they want to attain personal happiness.

This is perfectly logical if you look on it as a weak person would. If everyone around you was smarter/stronger, you’d try to convince them to hinder themselves. Why do you think unselfishness was invented? Christian morality, for ex, has often been called the morality of slaves. Well sure: If you’re a slave, you want to convince your master to be kind, thoughtful, meek, and all the other symptoms of decline that such a morality invokes.

All those contradictions you mentioned are just the weak people trying to conquer the stronger, using morality as a weapon. Its really quite simple.

There are only individuals. There is no class of humans that can be defined as the weaker class.

I can also envision a situation where a weaker/less intelligent individual would seek protection from the stronger/more intelligent individuals and not insist that they hinder themselves. Protectionism is much more rational than “destructionism”.

Protectionism is the basis for all modern political rationale.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
There are only individuals. There is no class of humans that can be defined as the weaker class.

I can also envision a situation where a weaker/less intelligent individual would seek protection from the stronger/more intelligent individuals and not insist that they hinder themselves. Protectionism is much more rational than “destructionism”.

Protectionism is the basis for all modern political rationale.[/quote]

Individuals who can’t survive on their own seek to conquer other men, for the simple reason that those conquered can be used to sustain the weak. The weak naturally then teach unselfishness as a moral virtue. It is far better to have the productive members enslave themselves.

You can classify individuals in the sense of what philosophy they embrace and what groups they join. Let’s face it — someone with the spirit of a Viking doesn’t sign up with the meek and humble, unless of course its some sort of devious plan.

I once told a sputtering idiot in a college debate that I don’t care at all or in any way about the poor or the weak. I said that trying to make me feel guilty because I didn’t care about the weak was a game I didn’t play. If he wanted to help the poor, go ahead but count me out. He didn’t know what to say, to someone who didn’t accept what he did, as a given.

  1. Paulson appears on Face The Nation and says “Our banking system is a safe and a sound one.” If the banking system was safe and sound, everyone would know it (or at least think it). There would be no need to say it.

  2. Paulson says the list of troubled banks “is a very manageable situation”. The reality is there are 90 banks on the list of problem banks. Indymac was not one of them until a month before it collapsed. How many other banks will magically appear on the list a month before they collapse?

  3. In a Northern Rock moment, depositors at Indymac pull out their cash. Police had to be called in to ensure order.

  4. Washington Mutual (WM), another troubled bank, refused to honor Indymac cashier’s checks. The irony is it makes no sense for customers to pull insured deposits out of Indymac after it went into receivership. The second irony is the last place one would want to put those funds would be Washington Mutual. Eventually Washington Mutual decided it would take those checks but with an 8 week hold. Will Washington Mutual even be around 8 weeks from now?

  5. Paulson asked for “Congressional authority to buy unlimited stakes in and lend to Fannie Mae (FNM) and Freddie Mac (FRE)” just days after he said “Financial Institutions Must Be Allowed To Fail”. Obviously Paulson is reporting from the 5th dimension. In some alternate universe, his statements just might make sense.

[quote]AynRandLuvr wrote:
You can classify individuals in the sense of what philosophy they embrace and what groups they join. Let’s face it — someone with the spirit of a Viking doesn’t sign up with the meek and humble, unless of course its some sort of devious plan.

[/quote]
Classification can only happen in the presence of strictly definable (and measurable) characteristics. There is no definable “weak” or “strong” class.

You cannot classify people by their philosophy either because that would mean having to objectively measure some quality within that philosophy to define it. One cannot even classify Christians by their philosophy because there is no singularly defined category. Individuals have free will and that is what makes them undefinable.

For example, it is reasonable to imagine a situation where one individual might believe in the ideas of the free-market to best bring about “prosperity” but act contrary to that philosophy because he wishes to destroy society.

Besides, most people do not have a philosophy outside of doing the necessary things to survive.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=OS2fI2p9iVs&feature=related

anyone have 50 trillion lying around to pay for those expecting medicare and social security ?

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
There are only individuals. There is no class of humans that can be defined as the weaker class.

I can also envision a situation where a weaker/less intelligent individual would seek protection from the stronger/more intelligent individuals and not insist that they hinder themselves. Protectionism is much more rational than “destructionism”.

Protectionism is the basis for all modern political rationale.[/quote]

Where do you get this stuff, it sounds like poetry :slight_smile:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Where do you get this stuff
[/quote]

The only way possible is through sound reasoning of objective truth. The methods of philosophy, like mathematics, anyone can learn (though, like mathematics, some do much better at it). It takes lots of practice and I am still struggling through it.

The only reason I even post on T-Nation is because I find that writing out responses helps me with my own reasoning process. In my field of work I need to keep these faculties sharp. If I am incorrect here, no harm, no foul. I do not wish to have the same errors in my professional arguments.

This is wonderful. Pure logic I love it. I just wish we werent a nation of lazy ass, panzies, looking for a bigger handout.