So how do you pro-regressives and 'democratic socialists' like your precious democracy, now? How is that working out for you, exactly, what with Trump absolutely slaughtering his opponents in the debates and primaries, and the idea that he will most likely be your next President? This is democracy. This is the mob. This is how it works. Democracy is your 'God that Failed' (hat-tip, Hans-Hermann Hoppe). The idea that the 'sock in the wind' of 'public wisdom' can decide on good government representatives and policy decisions is one of the most absurd notions, ever, and history and this entire election reflect exactly that. The irony that 'democracy' ends up ushering in what seems like the antithesis incarnate of almost everything pro-regressives stand for is truly sublime.
But the vast majority of them don't seem to be getting it. Pro-regressives are so unbelievably out of touch and just not understanding why Trump is so popular -- with the Republican rank-and-file, with centrists, independents, and even some right-leaning Democrats. It has far less to with his 'policies' or how 'liberal' or 'conservative' he is (or isn't) than other factors, and attacking him over ignorant, incoherent, or flip-flopping statements that he constantly makes is actually counter-productive. A lot of it is an act, of course, and the guy is a social genius, whether you want to admit it or not.
In the end, the more people from 'the left' (whatever that even means, anymore), 'the right' (whatever that even means, anymore), 'big media', 'the establishment', et al attack him, the stronger his support gets and grows. His support is a referendum on big media, the establishment of both parties, the way politics is conducted, how support for presidential candidates is manufactured, and on political correctness in general. He says what a lot of these people are already thinking, and his support continues to grow because it only makes them feel empowered when they've felt so weak and so powerless for so long. It may all end up being short-sighted, but since when has the mob not been?
Yes, Donald Trump is the culmination of GOP policy and pandering and flame-fueling for years, now. They are greatly responsible for creating this monster. I won't bother getting into why, because that's already been widely established and talked about elsewhere, and it should be obvious in the first place.
But what further adds to all of the irony is that we can't just thank the GOP for this. We have to thank Pro-regressives in particular, and even some Democrats as well -- what with their ridiculous political correctness, elitism, condescension, fueling the flames of (arbitrarily-drawn lines of) 'racial' and 'class' tension, and constant, non-stop explicit and implicit personal attacks on those who have now become Trump supporters. These attacks have been the norm for a long time. They've felt manipulated and powerless and hopeless for so long, and he is tapping in to that -- which is exactly why attacks against them and him just make them that much stronger and rally and dig in their heels that much more fervently. Trump supporters are lashing out in the most angry and unified way, now, by supporting and voting for someone like Trump. They don't like the way the table is set (and has been set for a long time), and so they're flipping the table.
His supporters just don't care about 'the usual stuff' -- how liberal or conservative he is (or isn't), what his policies are, his 'substance' (or lack thereof), what he's said about people, who he's supported politically in the past or done in his life and how he got to where he is, et cetera. It's that he's a protest vote that can actually win -- and the outright disruption he and his supporters are causing among both parties really is quite a thing to behold. He can flip-flop on the issues all he wants, and it will barely hurt him -- if at all. It might even strengthen him by giving more people who hate Hillary some hope somewhere else. It's basically all a kind of political nihilism, which almost warms even my ice-cold, Vantablack void of a political heart.
Almost.
I think Trump is pretty damned horrible, policy-wise, but this is the reality we're facing. Barring any extremely ruthless (and short-sighted of their own) GOP shenanigans, he absolutely will be the GOP nominee, and he has a strong chance of becoming the next president, whether we like it or not. Dismiss and underestimate his chances at your own peril.
Basically, it comes down to this, as it always does. Democracy is the idea that the People know what they want. And they deserve to get it, too -- good and hard.
But enough of my rant. I don't entirely agree with him, but Louis C.K. seems to be one of the few Pro-regressives who (mostly) gets it. He recently gave a (mostly) good to maybe even great rant on Donald Trump, from his perspective -- as a kind of love letter to his supporters. It's one for the ages. You've got the typical overdramatic Hitler and Nazi comparisons going on (thank you for satisfying 'Godwin's Law', by the way, like every other head-exploding pro-regressive out there, recently), but hey, when are pro-regressives not overdramatic? Here's a snippet of this that I particularly enjoyed from him...
"And that voting for Trump is a way of saying “f--- it. F--- them all”. I really get it. It’s a version of national Suicide. Or it’s like a big hit off of a crack pipe. Somehow we can’t help it. Or we know that if we vote for Trump our phones will be a reliable source of dopamine for the next four years. I mean I can’t wait to read about Trump every day. It’s a rush. But you have to know this is not healthy.
If you are a true conservative. Don’t vote for Trump. He is not one of you. He is one of him. Everything you have heard him say that you liked, if you look hard enough you will see that he one day said the exact opposite. He is playing you."
Go read the whole thing, though. Seriously. Check it out, here.
Showing posts with label debate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label debate. Show all posts
Sunday, March 6, 2016
Thursday, October 15, 2015
On Anthropogenic Global Warming, or How to Properly Handle Watermelons
Ah, yes. The ole Anthropogenic Global Warming (hereon referred to as 'AGW') 'debate', if one could honestly call it that. I apologize in advance for sullying your computer screen with another such screed, but the AGW hype-train, fueled by fear and alarmism, just keeps on keepin' on, and there are some particularly glaring, nosebleed-inducing dents in said train for me to ignore much longer.
As for instructions on how to properly handle watermelons, well, I'll get to that part, later. Don't worry, it'll all be worth it.
CO2, the Innocent Whipping Boy
First, let's look at the real meat of the numbers, here. AGW and CO2 alarmists constantly refer to the current CO2 level in the atmosphere as being at a 'potentially catastrophic' 400 ppm (parts per million). However, a lot of people touting this number either ignorantly or dishonestly don't seem too interested in communicating what this really means. They just regurgitate how it's increased from about 270 ppm since 1850 to 400 ppm, today, correlated with the rise of industrialization. That's true, but the issue is this -- 400 ppm of the atmosphere is only 0.04% of the atmosphere. 400 ppm minus the 270 ppm means an increase of 130 ppm since 1850. That's an increase of only 0.013% in the atmosphere in 164 years of increasing industrialization. 0.013% is not a significant ratio of increase relative to the whole of the atmosphere, and certainly not a significant ratio relative to other times in the history of the earth. No one can deny this, as it's based on their very own oft-touted numbers. No one. This is just the simple math.
Of course, I can see it, already. Dishonest alarmists will then want to talk about how an increase of 270 ppm to 400 ppm "is an increase of over 48%", and while, yes, mathematically that's also true -- this interpretation of the numbers is not at all helpful. The statement 'an increase of over 48%' conveys far less information than the method provided earlier, and conclusions based on less information versus more are far less valuable, particularly when you're trying to draw conclusions from them. With the previous method, you're given far more context -- you're provided information about the piece as it relates to the whole. With the 'Dishonest Alarmist Method', it's just numbers in a vacuum -- almost meaningless. Of course, unless you're engaging in unadulterated propaganda as opposed to the actual science -- then such an interpretation of the numbers is exactly what you'd want. Take note that these are the kinds of games that are very often played with statistics for a whole range of issues. With statistical interpretation, it's easy to tell lies by using the facts -- and those seeking to validate their preconceived notions will jump all over it and propagate it until they're blue in the face.
Further, it's important to emphasize that this CO2 increase of 130 ppm is, again, correlated with the rise of industrialization since 1850. It's of course difficult -- virtually absurd, even -- to claim that none of this increase is due to human CO2 contributions, but it is equally absurd to claim that none of this increase is due to some combination of natural factors, as well. The conclusion we can draw, however, is that we cannot lay 100% of the 130 ppm increase of CO2 at the feet of human activity, as we know that CO2 levels have risen long before the existence of humanity, and they will rise, at times, long after we're gone.
As for the fact of the increase, it is more than likely that the earth's ecosystem will adapt and that life, including human life, will continue to survive, if not flourish, as life always has and does amidst these kinds of CO2 levels. This extra CO2 means an abundance of plant (including algae) food, leading to more plant-life, which leads to an eventual balance where the even greater amount of plants 'eat' the excess CO2, with the natural 'breathing' of the earth stabilizing. This has panned out exactly as expected, according to NASA, with the recently rising CO2 levels leading to what they refer to as a 'greening' of the earth:
Further, and this point is particularly important with respect to the natural 'breathing' of the earth,
To further capitalize on this point, much higher CO2 concentration levels of 2200 ppm preceded the rise of the Devonian Period about 400 million years ago, and vast forests covered large portions of the earth. Trees began competing with eachother over the 550% higher CO2 concentrations, to the point of eventually dying on top of eachother until they were 100 meters or more in depth. Want to know where all of our coal deposits we've been finding have come from? You guessed it -- those vast forests of dead trees consumed all of that 'catastrophic' CO2 that we're burning today. And even with a CO2 concentration of 2200 ppm, temperatures were only 6 degrees celsius higher than they are today.
AGW ideologues often try to counter with ocean acidification and how it will destroy coral reefs, marine life, and the entire structure of the food chain. As it turns out, that wasn't the case during the Devonian Period at all. With much higher levels of CO2 concentration (as noted above), animal and plant life on land and in the oceans not only flourished, we also saw some of the greatest strides in evolution during this time. Plant life consumed significant amounts of CO2 during this time, as one should expect, and led to great increases in O2 concentration in the atmosphere, further pushing evolution along to where we see it today.
In the end, it is all very silly to say that an increased CO2 level of 0.013% is 'catastrophic' -- especially considering our ecosystemic adaptability and the history of CO2 levels and the life that flourished under it.
Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc
Yes, temperatures have risen. Yes, CO2 has risen. No one denies this. However, linking temperature increase to CO2 increase solely because of the amount humanity is adding in to it since industrialization is a pure post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy. There are many more factors at play with respect to temperatures and climate, and only acknowledging temperature changes for the last 150 years since industrialization, even just in relation to the past couple hundred thousand years of human existence (let alone hundreds of millions of years of climate history), is a pretty piss-poor sample size. Whether we're looking at the climate over the past year, past 150 years, past 20,000 years, past 400,000 years, or past 400 million years, not only does the climate change, but it's always changing, across virtually all timescales. There are cycles, within cycles, within cycles, within cycles. Even a cursory glance at temperature data derived from ice cores (below), shows how silly and nonsensical the whole idea of AGW is, as one can clearly see that the vast majority of human history has seen climate to be multiple degrees warmer than it is, today. To the extent there's been any climate change, we've actually been cooling for the past 1,000 years or so.
In addition to this, evidence shows that temperature fluctuation for Earth is very cyclical, switching between very warm periods and very cool periods every 100,000 years or so. We're actually currently in an interglacial period called the Holocene, and these interglacial periods are very tightly correlated with insolation (incoming solar radiation), leading to this being a major factor in earth's climate cycle. Clearly such a tight correlation over hundreds of thousands of years is far from coincidence, so either the earth is having a significant affect on the cyclical climate of the sun, or the sun is having a significant affect on the cyclical climate of the earth. Needless to say, it shouldn't be difficult to realize that one of these two possibilities is prima facie absurd.
Further -- and this is very important to note -- CO2 increases come after the temperature increases (on average about 800 years after), not before -- further putting into question the claim that 'CO2 increases are what cause higher temperatures'. They may contribute, but it doesn't seem that they're the cause. This doesn't necessarily prove that CO2 doesn't cause temperatures to rise, or that they aren't a factor in causing them to rise, otherwise we'd be engaging in the same correlation fallacy AGW proponents do, but it does show that this data is not valid evidence to their argument.
Speaking of planetary ecosystems, climates, temperature, greenhouse gases and life, let's bring our attention, for a moment, to Venus. Fear mongering alarmists, especially in the pop-science celebrities sphere, love to talk about and use Venus comparisons a lot. Man, they love to use them. But Venus has no vegetation. It doesn't have vast oceans of H20 and other complex ecosystems with fauna and flora and dirt that cyclically absorb and breathe out CO2, as we noted earlier. On Venus, it just gets trapped under an atmospheric blanket, under the brutal power of the sun and doesn't go anywhere. The Earth is not even remotely comparable to Venus, and there's no good reason to believe we will become Venus.
AGW is Political Religion, Not Science
So around and around we go, with AGW alarmists and other useful idiots claiming they are 'doing science', running around exclaiming how much they supposedly 'fucking love science', but they clearly haven't a clue what science actually is and what it means to 'do science'. 'Doing science' involves utilizing the scientific method, which is testing to try to disprove a hypothesis (not trying to prove it, as many of these organizations and individuals are actually trying to do) by utilizing control groups vs experimental groups in controlled environments. This point is important, here -- controlled environments. I'd hardly call the earth's climate a 'controlled environment' and I'd hardly call using a sample size of a mere 150 years in the tens of thousands of years of relatively recent human existence, amidst the millions of years of earth's climate, a proper sample size to compare this against.
This brings us to another point of interest in this debate -- climate 'models'. These 'models' are procedurally generated speculations produced by computer programs and designed by flawed individuals with extremely limited information. They incorporate relatively few factors (there are vast numbers of factors in earth's climate and ecosystem, many of which we don't even know) into these algorithms while trying to produce results akin to historic trends up to the current climate reality 'and beyond'. Of course, as the real-world climate changes, the algorithms governing the models (which regularly produce future predictions inconsistent with reality) are 'adjusted' to reflect new and updated data in order to shoehorn them into fitting both the actual climate along with predicting trends that uphold the AGW narrative. Climate models are not particularly rigorous, they don't utilize the scientific method, and the process surrounding them is eerily similar to how religion is rationalized, ad-hoc, based on preconceived notions and dogma. Yet, instead of being called out as such, these ad-hoc climate 'models' and their future trend predictions are regularly cited by the usual suspects to fuel the fire of alarmism and fearmongering. This is all completely backwards and not how actual science and the scientific method works.
Then there are the pet projects and special interests involved. The IPCC is a political authority that, while it doesn't engage in direct funding itself, has many subsidiaries that do, and if your outfit doesn't provide evidence that justifies its own existence and support the special interests involved, your funding gets cut. The existence of the IPCC in the first place absolutely relies on AGW dogma -- without it, they would disappear. As such, this naturally creates distorted incentives that amount more to supporting political favor than to supporting actual science that constantly challenges itself to discover truth as opposed to re-affirming certain political narratives.
One such narrative we still, unfortunately, hear propagated to this day, from the 44th President of the United States on down to any rando reddit commenter, is the notion of the scientific consensus re-affirming AGW. The '97% of scientists agree' claim is a debunked myth, but it circulates, regardless.
I REPEAT, the '97% of scientists agree' claim is a debunked myth.
The fearmongering and alarmism continues in the face of all of the conflicting scientific evidence. Global climate change is happening, yes -- it's been cyclically happening for millions of years, and there is far too much evidence that suggests, contrary to AGW dogma, that humans have virtually to absolutely nothing to do with it. Ultimately, Anthropogenic Global Warming is an excuse towards an ideological agenda -- to regulate, tax and redistribute as much as possible, and to curtail capitalism and individual liberty, in favor of centralization and collectivism.
A Gallagherian Conclusion
For this reason, I've long referred to AGW activists and environmentalists as 'watermelons' -- 'green' on the outside, but ultimately deeply 'red' on the inside. These are utilitarian ideologues, and utilitarians are well-known for their affinity towards what's known as The Noble Lie, if that's what it takes to advance their narrative and political agenda. The ends justify the means, and eviscerating the truth and individual liberty is a small price to pay towards achieving what is, in their perception, the aim of some 'greater good'.
To be clear, I am not implicating all AGW scientists -- though there are certainly some distorted incentives and politics taking place, that much is clear. The political and ideological activism I am concerned about poisoning this issue are in the mainstream media, bureaucrats and representatives within the State, special interests, influencers on social media, and amongst the rank-and-file. It's in this domain where they are spinning or even outright fabricating claims, some of which pro-AGW authorities don't even claim, themselves, to push an ideological agenda and send it viral.
Anthropogenic Global Warming is, simply put, just another of the latest in a long line of compounding Noble Lies employed in the service of an ideology which cannot stand on its merits, alone, and it should be publicly recognized as such. So let's finally peel the green skin off of this watermelon, for good, expose the mushy, rotten, red flesh that's beneath, and smash it to bits once and for all.
And with that, I leave you with your moment of zen...
This post was originally published under my old pseudonym, 'Sentient Void', at the Ron Paul Forums Blog, on 10/15/2015. It has been edited and updated with more sources and other information and for 'A Sisyphean Revolt'.
As for instructions on how to properly handle watermelons, well, I'll get to that part, later. Don't worry, it'll all be worth it.
CO2, the Innocent Whipping Boy
First, let's look at the real meat of the numbers, here. AGW and CO2 alarmists constantly refer to the current CO2 level in the atmosphere as being at a 'potentially catastrophic' 400 ppm (parts per million). However, a lot of people touting this number either ignorantly or dishonestly don't seem too interested in communicating what this really means. They just regurgitate how it's increased from about 270 ppm since 1850 to 400 ppm, today, correlated with the rise of industrialization. That's true, but the issue is this -- 400 ppm of the atmosphere is only 0.04% of the atmosphere. 400 ppm minus the 270 ppm means an increase of 130 ppm since 1850. That's an increase of only 0.013% in the atmosphere in 164 years of increasing industrialization. 0.013% is not a significant ratio of increase relative to the whole of the atmosphere, and certainly not a significant ratio relative to other times in the history of the earth. No one can deny this, as it's based on their very own oft-touted numbers. No one. This is just the simple math.
Of course, I can see it, already. Dishonest alarmists will then want to talk about how an increase of 270 ppm to 400 ppm "is an increase of over 48%", and while, yes, mathematically that's also true -- this interpretation of the numbers is not at all helpful. The statement 'an increase of over 48%' conveys far less information than the method provided earlier, and conclusions based on less information versus more are far less valuable, particularly when you're trying to draw conclusions from them. With the previous method, you're given far more context -- you're provided information about the piece as it relates to the whole. With the 'Dishonest Alarmist Method', it's just numbers in a vacuum -- almost meaningless. Of course, unless you're engaging in unadulterated propaganda as opposed to the actual science -- then such an interpretation of the numbers is exactly what you'd want. Take note that these are the kinds of games that are very often played with statistics for a whole range of issues. With statistical interpretation, it's easy to tell lies by using the facts -- and those seeking to validate their preconceived notions will jump all over it and propagate it until they're blue in the face.
Further, it's important to emphasize that this CO2 increase of 130 ppm is, again, correlated with the rise of industrialization since 1850. It's of course difficult -- virtually absurd, even -- to claim that none of this increase is due to human CO2 contributions, but it is equally absurd to claim that none of this increase is due to some combination of natural factors, as well. The conclusion we can draw, however, is that we cannot lay 100% of the 130 ppm increase of CO2 at the feet of human activity, as we know that CO2 levels have risen long before the existence of humanity, and they will rise, at times, long after we're gone.
As for the fact of the increase, it is more than likely that the earth's ecosystem will adapt and that life, including human life, will continue to survive, if not flourish, as life always has and does amidst these kinds of CO2 levels. This extra CO2 means an abundance of plant (including algae) food, leading to more plant-life, which leads to an eventual balance where the even greater amount of plants 'eat' the excess CO2, with the natural 'breathing' of the earth stabilizing. This has panned out exactly as expected, according to NASA, with the recently rising CO2 levels leading to what they refer to as a 'greening' of the earth:
From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25.
An international team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries led the effort, which involved using satellite data from NASA’s Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer instruments to help determine the leaf area index, or amount of leaf cover, over the planet’s vegetated regions. The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States.
...
Results showed that carbon dioxide fertilization explains 70 percent of the greening effect, said co-author Ranga Myneni, a professor in the Department of Earth and Environment at Boston University. “The second most important driver is nitrogen, at 9 percent. So we see what an outsized role CO2 plays in this process.”
Further, and this point is particularly important with respect to the natural 'breathing' of the earth,
The extent of the greening over the past 35 years “has the ability to fundamentally change the cycling of water and carbon in the climate system,” said lead author Zaichun Zhu, a researcher from Peking University, China, who did the first half of this study with Myneni as a visiting scholar at Boston University.
 |
| Greener areas show a 'leaf area' gain aka 'greening', whereas redder indicates loss. |
To further capitalize on this point, much higher CO2 concentration levels of 2200 ppm preceded the rise of the Devonian Period about 400 million years ago, and vast forests covered large portions of the earth. Trees began competing with eachother over the 550% higher CO2 concentrations, to the point of eventually dying on top of eachother until they were 100 meters or more in depth. Want to know where all of our coal deposits we've been finding have come from? You guessed it -- those vast forests of dead trees consumed all of that 'catastrophic' CO2 that we're burning today. And even with a CO2 concentration of 2200 ppm, temperatures were only 6 degrees celsius higher than they are today.
AGW ideologues often try to counter with ocean acidification and how it will destroy coral reefs, marine life, and the entire structure of the food chain. As it turns out, that wasn't the case during the Devonian Period at all. With much higher levels of CO2 concentration (as noted above), animal and plant life on land and in the oceans not only flourished, we also saw some of the greatest strides in evolution during this time. Plant life consumed significant amounts of CO2 during this time, as one should expect, and led to great increases in O2 concentration in the atmosphere, further pushing evolution along to where we see it today.
In the end, it is all very silly to say that an increased CO2 level of 0.013% is 'catastrophic' -- especially considering our ecosystemic adaptability and the history of CO2 levels and the life that flourished under it.
Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc
Yes, temperatures have risen. Yes, CO2 has risen. No one denies this. However, linking temperature increase to CO2 increase solely because of the amount humanity is adding in to it since industrialization is a pure post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy. There are many more factors at play with respect to temperatures and climate, and only acknowledging temperature changes for the last 150 years since industrialization, even just in relation to the past couple hundred thousand years of human existence (let alone hundreds of millions of years of climate history), is a pretty piss-poor sample size. Whether we're looking at the climate over the past year, past 150 years, past 20,000 years, past 400,000 years, or past 400 million years, not only does the climate change, but it's always changing, across virtually all timescales. There are cycles, within cycles, within cycles, within cycles. Even a cursory glance at temperature data derived from ice cores (below), shows how silly and nonsensical the whole idea of AGW is, as one can clearly see that the vast majority of human history has seen climate to be multiple degrees warmer than it is, today. To the extent there's been any climate change, we've actually been cooling for the past 1,000 years or so.
 |
| Ice cores clearly show that the vast majority of human history has been warmer than it is, today. To the extent there's been any climate change, we've been cooling for the past 1,000 years. |
In addition to this, evidence shows that temperature fluctuation for Earth is very cyclical, switching between very warm periods and very cool periods every 100,000 years or so. We're actually currently in an interglacial period called the Holocene, and these interglacial periods are very tightly correlated with insolation (incoming solar radiation), leading to this being a major factor in earth's climate cycle. Clearly such a tight correlation over hundreds of thousands of years is far from coincidence, so either the earth is having a significant affect on the cyclical climate of the sun, or the sun is having a significant affect on the cyclical climate of the earth. Needless to say, it shouldn't be difficult to realize that one of these two possibilities is prima facie absurd.
 |
| Data clearly shows extremely tight correlation between earth's climate (temps), CO2 concentration, and insolation (incoming solar radiation) |
Further -- and this is very important to note -- CO2 increases come after the temperature increases (on average about 800 years after), not before -- further putting into question the claim that 'CO2 increases are what cause higher temperatures'. They may contribute, but it doesn't seem that they're the cause. This doesn't necessarily prove that CO2 doesn't cause temperatures to rise, or that they aren't a factor in causing them to rise, otherwise we'd be engaging in the same correlation fallacy AGW proponents do, but it does show that this data is not valid evidence to their argument.
Speaking of planetary ecosystems, climates, temperature, greenhouse gases and life, let's bring our attention, for a moment, to Venus. Fear mongering alarmists, especially in the pop-science celebrities sphere, love to talk about and use Venus comparisons a lot. Man, they love to use them. But Venus has no vegetation. It doesn't have vast oceans of H20 and other complex ecosystems with fauna and flora and dirt that cyclically absorb and breathe out CO2, as we noted earlier. On Venus, it just gets trapped under an atmospheric blanket, under the brutal power of the sun and doesn't go anywhere. The Earth is not even remotely comparable to Venus, and there's no good reason to believe we will become Venus.
AGW is Political Religion, Not Science
So around and around we go, with AGW alarmists and other useful idiots claiming they are 'doing science', running around exclaiming how much they supposedly 'fucking love science', but they clearly haven't a clue what science actually is and what it means to 'do science'. 'Doing science' involves utilizing the scientific method, which is testing to try to disprove a hypothesis (not trying to prove it, as many of these organizations and individuals are actually trying to do) by utilizing control groups vs experimental groups in controlled environments. This point is important, here -- controlled environments. I'd hardly call the earth's climate a 'controlled environment' and I'd hardly call using a sample size of a mere 150 years in the tens of thousands of years of relatively recent human existence, amidst the millions of years of earth's climate, a proper sample size to compare this against.
This brings us to another point of interest in this debate -- climate 'models'. These 'models' are procedurally generated speculations produced by computer programs and designed by flawed individuals with extremely limited information. They incorporate relatively few factors (there are vast numbers of factors in earth's climate and ecosystem, many of which we don't even know) into these algorithms while trying to produce results akin to historic trends up to the current climate reality 'and beyond'. Of course, as the real-world climate changes, the algorithms governing the models (which regularly produce future predictions inconsistent with reality) are 'adjusted' to reflect new and updated data in order to shoehorn them into fitting both the actual climate along with predicting trends that uphold the AGW narrative. Climate models are not particularly rigorous, they don't utilize the scientific method, and the process surrounding them is eerily similar to how religion is rationalized, ad-hoc, based on preconceived notions and dogma. Yet, instead of being called out as such, these ad-hoc climate 'models' and their future trend predictions are regularly cited by the usual suspects to fuel the fire of alarmism and fearmongering. This is all completely backwards and not how actual science and the scientific method works.
Then there are the pet projects and special interests involved. The IPCC is a political authority that, while it doesn't engage in direct funding itself, has many subsidiaries that do, and if your outfit doesn't provide evidence that justifies its own existence and support the special interests involved, your funding gets cut. The existence of the IPCC in the first place absolutely relies on AGW dogma -- without it, they would disappear. As such, this naturally creates distorted incentives that amount more to supporting political favor than to supporting actual science that constantly challenges itself to discover truth as opposed to re-affirming certain political narratives.
One such narrative we still, unfortunately, hear propagated to this day, from the 44th President of the United States on down to any rando reddit commenter, is the notion of the scientific consensus re-affirming AGW. The '97% of scientists agree' claim is a debunked myth, but it circulates, regardless.
Yet the assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction. The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been contradicted by more reliable research.
One frequently cited source for the consensus is a 2004 opinion essay published in Science magazine by Naomi Oreskes, a science historian now at Harvard. She claimed to have examined abstracts of 928 articles published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and found that 75% supported the view that human activities are responsible for most of the observed warming over the previous 50 years while none directly dissented.
Ms. Oreskes's definition of consensus covered "man-made" but left out "dangerous"—and scores of articles by prominent scientists such as Richard Lindzen, John Christy, Sherwood Idso and Patrick Michaels, who question the consensus, were excluded. The methodology is also flawed. A study published earlier this year in Nature noted that abstracts of academic papers often contain claims that aren't substantiated in the papers.
Another widely cited source for the consensus view is a 2009 article in "Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union" by Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, a student at the University of Illinois, and her master's thesis adviser Peter Doran. It reported the results of a two-question online survey of selected scientists. Mr. Doran and Ms. Zimmerman claimed "97 percent of climate scientists agree" that global temperatures have risen and that humans are a significant contributing factor.
The survey's questions don't reveal much of interest. Most scientists who are skeptical of catastrophic global warming nevertheless would answer "yes" to both questions. The survey was silent on whether the human impact is large enough to constitute a problem. Nor did it include solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists or astronomers, who are the scientists most likely to be aware of natural causes of climate change.
The "97 percent" figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make.
In 2010, William R. Love Anderegg, then a student at Stanford University, used Google Scholar to identify the views of the most prolific writers on climate change. His findings were published in Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences. Mr. Love Anderegg found that 97% to 98% of the 200 most prolific writers on climate change believe "anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for 'most' of the 'unequivocal' warming." There was no mention of how dangerous this climate change might be; and, of course, 200 researchers out of the thousands who have contributed to the climate science debate is not evidence of consensus.
In 2013, John Cook, an Australia-based blogger, and some of his friends reviewed abstracts of peer-reviewed papers published from 1991 to 2011. Mr. Cook reported that 97% of those who stated a position explicitly or implicitly suggest that human activity is responsible for some warming. His findings were published in Environmental Research Letters.
Mr. Cook's work was quickly debunked. In Science and Education in August 2013, for example, David R. Legates (a professor of geography at the University of Delaware and former director of its Center for Climatic Research) and three coauthors reviewed the same papers as did Mr. Cook and found "only 41 papers—0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent—had been found to endorse" the claim that human activity is causing most of the current warming. Elsewhere, climate scientists including Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv and Nils-Axel Morner, whose research questions the alleged consensus, protested that Mr. Cook ignored or misrepresented their work.
Rigorous international surveys conducted by German scientists Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch—most recently published in Environmental Science & Policy in 2010—have found that most climate scientists disagree with the consensus on key issues such as the reliability of climate data and computer models. They do not believe that climate processes such as cloud formation and precipitation are sufficiently understood to predict future climate change.
Surveys of meteorologists repeatedly find a majority oppose the alleged consensus. Only 39.5% of 1,854 American Meteorological Society members who responded to a survey in 2012 said man-made global warming is dangerous.
Finally, the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—which claims to speak for more than 2,500 scientists—is probably the most frequently cited source for the consensus. Its latest report claims that "human interference with the climate system is occurring, and climate change poses risks for human and natural systems." Yet relatively few have either written on or reviewed research having to do with the key question: How much of the temperature increase and other climate changes observed in the 20th century was caused by man-made greenhouse-gas emissions? The IPCC lists only 41 authors and editors of the relevant chapter of the Fifth Assessment Report addressing "anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing."
Of the various petitions on global warming circulated for signatures by scientists, the one by the Petition Project, a group of physicists and physical chemists based in La Jolla, Calif., has by far the most signatures—more than 31,000 (more than 9,000 with a Ph.D.). It was most recently published in 2009, and most signers were added or reaffirmed since 2007. The petition states that "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of . . . carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."
I REPEAT, the '97% of scientists agree' claim is a debunked myth.
The fearmongering and alarmism continues in the face of all of the conflicting scientific evidence. Global climate change is happening, yes -- it's been cyclically happening for millions of years, and there is far too much evidence that suggests, contrary to AGW dogma, that humans have virtually to absolutely nothing to do with it. Ultimately, Anthropogenic Global Warming is an excuse towards an ideological agenda -- to regulate, tax and redistribute as much as possible, and to curtail capitalism and individual liberty, in favor of centralization and collectivism.
A Gallagherian Conclusion
For this reason, I've long referred to AGW activists and environmentalists as 'watermelons' -- 'green' on the outside, but ultimately deeply 'red' on the inside. These are utilitarian ideologues, and utilitarians are well-known for their affinity towards what's known as The Noble Lie, if that's what it takes to advance their narrative and political agenda. The ends justify the means, and eviscerating the truth and individual liberty is a small price to pay towards achieving what is, in their perception, the aim of some 'greater good'.
To be clear, I am not implicating all AGW scientists -- though there are certainly some distorted incentives and politics taking place, that much is clear. The political and ideological activism I am concerned about poisoning this issue are in the mainstream media, bureaucrats and representatives within the State, special interests, influencers on social media, and amongst the rank-and-file. It's in this domain where they are spinning or even outright fabricating claims, some of which pro-AGW authorities don't even claim, themselves, to push an ideological agenda and send it viral.
"If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it, and you will even come to believe it yourself." -- Joseph Goebbels
The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly and with unflagging attention. It must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over. Here, as so often in this world, persistence is the first and most important requirement for success." -- Adolf Hitler
Anthropogenic Global Warming is, simply put, just another of the latest in a long line of compounding Noble Lies employed in the service of an ideology which cannot stand on its merits, alone, and it should be publicly recognized as such. So let's finally peel the green skin off of this watermelon, for good, expose the mushy, rotten, red flesh that's beneath, and smash it to bits once and for all.
And with that, I leave you with your moment of zen...
This post was originally published under my old pseudonym, 'Sentient Void', at the Ron Paul Forums Blog, on 10/15/2015. It has been edited and updated with more sources and other information and for 'A Sisyphean Revolt'.
Friday, July 27, 2012
How should we Vote if Ron Paul is *NOT* the GOP Nominee???
We need to have a serious discussion about how we should vote if Ron Paul is not the nominee for the GOP. Between a likely outcome of either Obama or Romney, which is a more preferable outcome, and why?
Before I state who I'd rather have win - give me a second while I change my clothes...
/puts on flame retardant suit
Okay. That's better. Between Romney and Obama, I would rather have Obama win. Now, before I am labeled as a traitor and a hypocrite - hear me out.
There are at least five good reasons off the top of my head as to why we should all prefer this.
1) A divided, gridlocked government is certainly preferable to one that is mostly if not totally controlled by the Statist, militarist, hypocrite GOP (I think Republicans will probably end up taking control of the Senate as well as holding the House, or at least holding the House).
2) When the proverbial $#@! really starts to hit the fan under Obama - at least the dems and everyone can't say, 'See?! See what happens when you elect and institute free market policies?!'. Clearly, none of the policies would be free market ones, but we all know a Romney presidency will be painted that way, regardless.
3) The GOP establishment deserves the punishment of not having our votes and thus losing to Obama (while I wouldn't vote for Obama, I certainly won't vote for Romney) due to their heavy use of dirty tricks and treatment of Paul and Paul supporters... This will set in the reality that they need us, and that without us (independents, libertarians, constitutionalists, and old-school conservatives), they will rarely, if ever, win the presidency again. See my post 'Ron Paul Supporters are a Scourge on the Republican Party' for more context.
4) If the GOP wins, they will be encouraged to continue to do what they've always done.
5) It would make for good entertainment just to see the GOP establishment go apoplectic over a second term for Obama.
Remember, take this all within the context of Obama and Romney really being only inches apart. It's not like one is that much different than the other, anyways. Obama's rhetoric may be socialistic - but his policies are corporatist. Romney's rhetoric may be much more free-market, but his policies would be corporatist as well. They both support the drug war. They both support imperialism, militarism, war, and have talked about pre-emptive war with Iran and elsewhere (Syria, etc). They both ultimately support big, bloated federal government. They both support the IRS and income taxes. Neither has any plan for significant cuts, anywhere. They both support domestic welfarism and foreign aid. They both support the IMF and the UN. They both support bailouts. They are both owned and funded by the largest players on Wall Street and special interests. They both support the Federal Reserve. They both support massive deficit spending. They both support Keynesianism. They both support the Patriot Act, SOPA, and NDAA - deplorable violations of civil liberty.
NEITHER offer any real change and are mere inches apart on substantive issues.
Understand, I'm *not* saying we should vote for Obama. Absolutely not. What I'm implying is that you might think supporting and voting for Romney *over* Obama out of a more or less greater fear of Obama sounds like the best alternative between two crummy outcomes. Please understand that this sentiment is short-sighted and unproductive (and potentially destructive if the establishment GOP takes control of the executive *and* legislative branch - think of the Bush terms). This is exactly what the GOP establishment wants, and is far too often what it gets. Resist the urge. Try to look at the big picture and think of the long run.
So no, don't vote for Obama, but also don't vote for Romney. Vote third party (preferably Libertarian, since Gary Johnson, the LP candidate, will be on the ballot of all 50 states, and the LP is the largest third party in the US). Accept the very strong probability that Obama would win as a result of us voting this way - but realize the benefits of this happening.
[missing IMG link]
Write-ins (for Ron Paul) will be pointless. They will not be counted, only ignored. They certainly won't be reported. It might make you feel a little better, but practically speaking - a completely wasted effort.
Some advocate not voting at all - as some form of protest. This accomplishes (and has accomplished) nothing, in and of itself, and has been proven completely impotent in discouraging further Statism. One merely needs to look around to realize that our current state of affairs illustrates this fact. The vast, vast majority of Americans already have not been voting for decades, if not since the(se) United States were founded. What happens instead is that the Statists are simply *further* encouraged. They only see and acknowledge percentages of the *voting public* supporting either the 'blue' or 'red' version of oppression. It actually gives them a greater feeling of legitimacy, regardless of how invalid that feeling is (self-deception and rationalization play a big part here), and despite the fact that reality actually reflects a colossal rejection of the left/right false-choice dichotomy, along with the entire political system itself.
This is not to say that voting by itself can and will accomplish what we want - but voting is not mutually exclusive from other methods of achieving socio-economic change. See my post on 'Why Even Anarchists Should Vote'. But I digress.
Given the situation in the subject line of this post, I think as many of us (old-school conservatives, libertarians, independents, anarchists, et al) voting for Gary Johnson sends the strongest message, and pushes forward the future potential of a stronger foundation for a third party (especially while working at the same time to take over the GOP party apparatus). It will also at least shock both the Republican and Democrat tribes into realizing how much they are falling out of favor - and how truly fiscally conservative and truly socially tolerant ideas are becoming increasingly popular. This could incentivize them to move in our direction if they wish to retain their power in the meantime, and/or it could further legitimize the third-party option as a real alternative for many more Americans.
For all intents and purposes, during this election... 'right is worse'.
This post is a COPYPASTA that was originally published under my old pseudonym, 'Sentient Void', at the Ron Paul Forums Blog, on 07-27-2012.
Before I state who I'd rather have win - give me a second while I change my clothes...
/puts on flame retardant suit
Okay. That's better. Between Romney and Obama, I would rather have Obama win. Now, before I am labeled as a traitor and a hypocrite - hear me out.
There are at least five good reasons off the top of my head as to why we should all prefer this.
1) A divided, gridlocked government is certainly preferable to one that is mostly if not totally controlled by the Statist, militarist, hypocrite GOP (I think Republicans will probably end up taking control of the Senate as well as holding the House, or at least holding the House).
2) When the proverbial $#@! really starts to hit the fan under Obama - at least the dems and everyone can't say, 'See?! See what happens when you elect and institute free market policies?!'. Clearly, none of the policies would be free market ones, but we all know a Romney presidency will be painted that way, regardless.
3) The GOP establishment deserves the punishment of not having our votes and thus losing to Obama (while I wouldn't vote for Obama, I certainly won't vote for Romney) due to their heavy use of dirty tricks and treatment of Paul and Paul supporters... This will set in the reality that they need us, and that without us (independents, libertarians, constitutionalists, and old-school conservatives), they will rarely, if ever, win the presidency again. See my post 'Ron Paul Supporters are a Scourge on the Republican Party' for more context.
4) If the GOP wins, they will be encouraged to continue to do what they've always done.
5) It would make for good entertainment just to see the GOP establishment go apoplectic over a second term for Obama.
Remember, take this all within the context of Obama and Romney really being only inches apart. It's not like one is that much different than the other, anyways. Obama's rhetoric may be socialistic - but his policies are corporatist. Romney's rhetoric may be much more free-market, but his policies would be corporatist as well. They both support the drug war. They both support imperialism, militarism, war, and have talked about pre-emptive war with Iran and elsewhere (Syria, etc). They both ultimately support big, bloated federal government. They both support the IRS and income taxes. Neither has any plan for significant cuts, anywhere. They both support domestic welfarism and foreign aid. They both support the IMF and the UN. They both support bailouts. They are both owned and funded by the largest players on Wall Street and special interests. They both support the Federal Reserve. They both support massive deficit spending. They both support Keynesianism. They both support the Patriot Act, SOPA, and NDAA - deplorable violations of civil liberty.
NEITHER offer any real change and are mere inches apart on substantive issues.
Understand, I'm *not* saying we should vote for Obama. Absolutely not. What I'm implying is that you might think supporting and voting for Romney *over* Obama out of a more or less greater fear of Obama sounds like the best alternative between two crummy outcomes. Please understand that this sentiment is short-sighted and unproductive (and potentially destructive if the establishment GOP takes control of the executive *and* legislative branch - think of the Bush terms). This is exactly what the GOP establishment wants, and is far too often what it gets. Resist the urge. Try to look at the big picture and think of the long run.
So no, don't vote for Obama, but also don't vote for Romney. Vote third party (preferably Libertarian, since Gary Johnson, the LP candidate, will be on the ballot of all 50 states, and the LP is the largest third party in the US). Accept the very strong probability that Obama would win as a result of us voting this way - but realize the benefits of this happening.
[missing IMG link]
Write-ins (for Ron Paul) will be pointless. They will not be counted, only ignored. They certainly won't be reported. It might make you feel a little better, but practically speaking - a completely wasted effort.
Some advocate not voting at all - as some form of protest. This accomplishes (and has accomplished) nothing, in and of itself, and has been proven completely impotent in discouraging further Statism. One merely needs to look around to realize that our current state of affairs illustrates this fact. The vast, vast majority of Americans already have not been voting for decades, if not since the(se) United States were founded. What happens instead is that the Statists are simply *further* encouraged. They only see and acknowledge percentages of the *voting public* supporting either the 'blue' or 'red' version of oppression. It actually gives them a greater feeling of legitimacy, regardless of how invalid that feeling is (self-deception and rationalization play a big part here), and despite the fact that reality actually reflects a colossal rejection of the left/right false-choice dichotomy, along with the entire political system itself.
This is not to say that voting by itself can and will accomplish what we want - but voting is not mutually exclusive from other methods of achieving socio-economic change. See my post on 'Why Even Anarchists Should Vote'. But I digress.
Given the situation in the subject line of this post, I think as many of us (old-school conservatives, libertarians, independents, anarchists, et al) voting for Gary Johnson sends the strongest message, and pushes forward the future potential of a stronger foundation for a third party (especially while working at the same time to take over the GOP party apparatus). It will also at least shock both the Republican and Democrat tribes into realizing how much they are falling out of favor - and how truly fiscally conservative and truly socially tolerant ideas are becoming increasingly popular. This could incentivize them to move in our direction if they wish to retain their power in the meantime, and/or it could further legitimize the third-party option as a real alternative for many more Americans.
For all intents and purposes, during this election... 'right is worse'.
This post is a COPYPASTA that was originally published under my old pseudonym, 'Sentient Void', at the Ron Paul Forums Blog, on 07-27-2012.
Friday, March 23, 2012
On 'The Zeitgeist Movement', 'The Venus Project', and a 'Resource Based Economy'
... This is from an old forum debate with a Zeitgeister in regards to TZM and an RBE.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...highlight=borg...
Prior to my current career as a Banker, I was actually a certified computer technician. Quite a difference in career choices, I know. I still harbor my passion for technology, I always will, and have the strong desire to get back into the industry...
But I digress.
Being someone who has read much on austrian economics, and am quite familiar with how computer software and hardware functions... I can confidently say that any computer, however powerful/'fast' - will *not* be able to solve the coordination, information, and calculation problems that *any* form of central planning results in.
Not to mention that such a computer would have to be literally omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent of all situations in all places at all times between all individuals (and in a sense, 'within' all individuals). This computer would have to be both programmed and maintained by human beings - an 'elite' and ultimately privileged class - that are corruptible, imperfect and fallible. This can lead to disastrous consequences under such an omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent computer trying to coordinate and calculate where all resources should go and when, especially according to the constantly changing, sometimes even fleeting, subjective demands of individuals.
The alternative to the elite 'programmers' and 'maintainers' of this computer, which would ultimately be oppressive, corrupt and a miserable economic failure, is however further into the future, giving these responsibilities (of maintenance and programming) over to a *true* AI. However, while it may be able to constantly program/update itself software wise, and perhaps even fix and update itself hardware wise (through controlled machines), it would still have serious trouble with the coordination/information/calculation problems.
Honestly, The only way I could possibly fathom any such system ever working within an environment of *finite resources* is if this true AI was not only omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent *generally speaking*, but if this true AI also omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent *within* every individual (in order to tackle the legitimate coordination/calculation/information problem according to the changing subjective demands of individuals). Meaning every individual would literally need to have cybernetic hardware/software hardwired/connected into their brains, with some sort of wireless connection (to ensure 'free' mobility, I put 'free' in quotes because of the obvious loss of freedom and individuality involved in being part of such a system) to the central true AI.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this legitimately alludes to some sort of hivemind Borg-like techno-collective. This, to me, seems to be the only way such a system that Peter Joseph is envisioning could even *possibly* function efficiently and effectively.
If I'm correct, honestly - as I still speak on the behalf of my subjective and individual mind, I really would *not* want to be part of such a system. But I speak for myself - others may very well prefer to be part of it. If so, then that's their choice.
Who knows if such a system might be able to refrain from violating the NAP (in regards to those who choose to be free individuals) based on resource needs of this entire techno-collective. Will 'it' (I say 'it', because it would be questionable if you could call this techno-collective any longer a group of individuals anymore or one legitimate entity) remain peaceful, or might they claim that 'resistance is futile'?
Should I/we begin referring to the Zeitgeist Movement techno-collectivists as 'The Borg'?
I'm completely serious.
This post is a COPYPASTA that was originally published under my old pseudonym, 'Sentient Void', at the Ron Paul Forums Blog, on 03-23-2012.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...highlight=borg...
Prior to my current career as a Banker, I was actually a certified computer technician. Quite a difference in career choices, I know. I still harbor my passion for technology, I always will, and have the strong desire to get back into the industry...
But I digress.
Being someone who has read much on austrian economics, and am quite familiar with how computer software and hardware functions... I can confidently say that any computer, however powerful/'fast' - will *not* be able to solve the coordination, information, and calculation problems that *any* form of central planning results in.
Not to mention that such a computer would have to be literally omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent of all situations in all places at all times between all individuals (and in a sense, 'within' all individuals). This computer would have to be both programmed and maintained by human beings - an 'elite' and ultimately privileged class - that are corruptible, imperfect and fallible. This can lead to disastrous consequences under such an omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent computer trying to coordinate and calculate where all resources should go and when, especially according to the constantly changing, sometimes even fleeting, subjective demands of individuals.
The alternative to the elite 'programmers' and 'maintainers' of this computer, which would ultimately be oppressive, corrupt and a miserable economic failure, is however further into the future, giving these responsibilities (of maintenance and programming) over to a *true* AI. However, while it may be able to constantly program/update itself software wise, and perhaps even fix and update itself hardware wise (through controlled machines), it would still have serious trouble with the coordination/information/calculation problems.
Honestly, The only way I could possibly fathom any such system ever working within an environment of *finite resources* is if this true AI was not only omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent *generally speaking*, but if this true AI also omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent *within* every individual (in order to tackle the legitimate coordination/calculation/information problem according to the changing subjective demands of individuals). Meaning every individual would literally need to have cybernetic hardware/software hardwired/connected into their brains, with some sort of wireless connection (to ensure 'free' mobility, I put 'free' in quotes because of the obvious loss of freedom and individuality involved in being part of such a system) to the central true AI.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this legitimately alludes to some sort of hivemind Borg-like techno-collective. This, to me, seems to be the only way such a system that Peter Joseph is envisioning could even *possibly* function efficiently and effectively.
If I'm correct, honestly - as I still speak on the behalf of my subjective and individual mind, I really would *not* want to be part of such a system. But I speak for myself - others may very well prefer to be part of it. If so, then that's their choice.
Who knows if such a system might be able to refrain from violating the NAP (in regards to those who choose to be free individuals) based on resource needs of this entire techno-collective. Will 'it' (I say 'it', because it would be questionable if you could call this techno-collective any longer a group of individuals anymore or one legitimate entity) remain peaceful, or might they claim that 'resistance is futile'?
Should I/we begin referring to the Zeitgeist Movement techno-collectivists as 'The Borg'?
I'm completely serious.
This post is a COPYPASTA that was originally published under my old pseudonym, 'Sentient Void', at the Ron Paul Forums Blog, on 03-23-2012.
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Why Even Anarchists Should Vote... at Least as a Matter of Self-Defense
Every election cycle, the anti-voting anarchists and libertarians wind up the same old memes and quotes to discourage as many people from voting as possible, seeking a kind of absolution in their forced relationship with the State. However, this rationale is confused and short-sighted, ultimately supporting the democratic theorists' position while making their greatest adversaries' jobs easier than ever for them.
On this, even the patron saints of deontological individualist anarchism Lysander Spooner and Murray Rothbard groan at the rationale of the non-voting anarchist population:
This much is clear -- Rothbard and Spooner both recognized that the question of whether you 'should vote' or not is very similar to the question as to whether you 'should defend yourself' from attack. Both saw that there is a war waged against your liberty, and it is under attack by those who wish to take it away from you via the ballot box. It's as if there are two sides of line infantry standing mere meters across from eachother -- with each shot fired being a guaranteed kill against the other side. One side is always attacking with the other side always defending -- as neglected and crumbling as it is -- the vestiges of whatever institutionalized liberty is left. Each vote is a bullet, and if the attackers overwhelm the defenders, then, whether you voted or not, another piece of your liberty will, in fact, be destroyed, and the attackers get that much more powerful. Liberty is a fragile thing, and all it takes is one bullet-vote to get past the defenders for it to be taken out, once again.
Shots have been fired and exercising your vote is firing a shot back.
I would, of course, never claim that libertarians and anarchists not voting is 'the problem'. There are a lot of problems, beginning with our values and culture and stretching all the way up to the law and the nature of the State. Solving these problems does not start and end at voting, but if libertarians of all stripes actually, regularly voted, then it would certainly help in stemming the unrelenting tide of assault against our liberty.
At the end of the day, you will be oppressed by a president and his government. His vision of morality will be brought to bear on you under the machine of the State, whether you like it or not, regardless of your values -- so you might as well honestly reflect on who you prefer, and thus vote for someone who will limit the oppression you will have to deal with and/or maximize as much individual liberty in your life as much as possible. At the very least, even to the extent liberty may not be increased at all with someone voted into office, this can still help in keeping the authoritarian, collectivist hordes at bay and minimizing the damage they can and want to do, in the meantime -- like throwing a wrench in that vast machine that's been created to slowly grind up your liberty.
On this, even the patron saints of deontological individualist anarchism Lysander Spooner and Murray Rothbard groan at the rationale of the non-voting anarchist population:
"In truth, in the case of individuals, their actual voting is not to be taken as proof of consent, even for the time being. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, without his consent having ever been asked, a man finds himself environed by a government that he cannot resist; a government that forces him to pay money, render service, and forego the exercise of many of his natural rights, under peril of weighty punishments. He sees, too, that other men practise this tyranny over him by the use of the ballot. He sees further that, if he will but use the ballot himself, he has some chance of relieving himself from this tyranny of others, by subjecting them to his own. In short, he finds himself, without his consent, so situated that, if he use the ballot, he may become a master; if he does not use it, he must become a slave. And he has no other alternative than these two. In self-defence, he attempts the former. His case is analogous to that of a man who has been forced into battle, where he must either kill others, or be killed himself." -- Lysander Spooner, 'No Treason'
...
"Many anarchist libertarians claim it immoral to vote or to engage in political action--the argument being that by participating in this way in State activity, the libertarian places his moral imprimatur upon the State apparatus itself. But a moral decision must be a free decision, and the State has placed individuals in society in an unfree environment, in a general matrix of coercion. As Lysander Spooner pointed out, in an environment of State coercion, voting does not imply voluntary consent." -- Murray Rothbard, 'Ethics of Liberty'
...
"I'm interested to talk about that. This is the classical anarchist position, there is no doubt about that. The classical anarchist position is that nobody should vote, because if you vote you are participating in a state apparatus. Or if you do vote you should write in your own name, I don't think that there is anything wrong with this tactic in the sense that if there really were a nationwide movement – if five million people, let's say, pledged not to vote. I think it would be very useful. On the other hand, I don't think voting is a real problem. I don't think it's immoral to vote, in contrast to the anti-voting people.
Lysander Spooner, the patron saint of individualist anarchism, had a very effective attack on this idea. The thing is, if you really believe that by voting you are giving your sanction to the state, then you see you are really adopting the democratic theorist's position. You would be adopting the position of the democratic enemy, so to speak, who says that the state is really voluntary because the masses are supporting it by participating in elections. In other words, you're really the other side of the coin of supporting the policy of democracy – that the public is really behind it and that it is all voluntary. And so the anti-voting people are really saying the same thing.
I don't think this is true, because as Spooner said, people are being placed in a coercive position. They are surrounded by a coercive system; they are surrounded by the state. The state, however, allows you a limited choice – there's no question about the fact that the choice is limited. Since you are in this coercive situation, there is no reason why you shouldn't try to make use of it if you think it will make a difference to your liberty or possessions. So by voting you can't say that this is a moral choice, a fully voluntary choice, on the part of the public. It's not a fully voluntary situation. It's a situation where you are surrounded by the whole state which you can't vote out of existence. For example, we can't vote the Presidency out of existence – unfortunately, it would be great if we could – but since we can't why not make use of the vote if there is a difference at all between the two people. And it is almost inevitable that there will be a difference, incidentally, because just praxeologically or in a natural law sense, every two persons or every two groups of people will be slightly different, at least. So in that case why not make use of it. I don't see that it's immoral to participate in the election provided that you go into it with your eyes open – provided that you don't think that either Nixon or Muskie is the greatest libertarian since Richard Cobden! – which many people, of course, talk themselves into before they go out and vote.
The second part of my answer is that I don't think that voting is really the question. I really don't care about whether people vote or not. To me the important thing is, who do you support. Who do you hope will win the election? You can be a non-voter and say "I don't want to sanction the state" and not vote, but on election night who do you hope the rest of the voters, the rest of the suckers out there who are voting, who do you hope they'll elect. And it's important, because I think that there is a difference. The Presidency, unfortunately, is of extreme importance. It will be running or directing our lives greatly for four years. So, I see no reason why we shouldn't endorse, or support, or attack one candidate more than the other candidate. I really don't agree at all with the non-voting position in that sense, because the non-voter is not only saying we shouldn't vote: he is also saying that we shouldn't endorse anybody. Will Robert LeFevre, one of the spokesmen of the non-voting approach, will he deep in his heart on election night have any kind of preference at all as the votes come in. Will he cheer slightly or groan more as whoever wins? I don't see how anybody could fail to have a preference, because it will affect all of us." -- Murray Rothbard
This much is clear -- Rothbard and Spooner both recognized that the question of whether you 'should vote' or not is very similar to the question as to whether you 'should defend yourself' from attack. Both saw that there is a war waged against your liberty, and it is under attack by those who wish to take it away from you via the ballot box. It's as if there are two sides of line infantry standing mere meters across from eachother -- with each shot fired being a guaranteed kill against the other side. One side is always attacking with the other side always defending -- as neglected and crumbling as it is -- the vestiges of whatever institutionalized liberty is left. Each vote is a bullet, and if the attackers overwhelm the defenders, then, whether you voted or not, another piece of your liberty will, in fact, be destroyed, and the attackers get that much more powerful. Liberty is a fragile thing, and all it takes is one bullet-vote to get past the defenders for it to be taken out, once again.
Shots have been fired and exercising your vote is firing a shot back.
I would, of course, never claim that libertarians and anarchists not voting is 'the problem'. There are a lot of problems, beginning with our values and culture and stretching all the way up to the law and the nature of the State. Solving these problems does not start and end at voting, but if libertarians of all stripes actually, regularly voted, then it would certainly help in stemming the unrelenting tide of assault against our liberty.
 |
| Just don't go in expecting that voting, by itself, is enough in the pursuit of liberty. |
At the end of the day, you will be oppressed by a president and his government. His vision of morality will be brought to bear on you under the machine of the State, whether you like it or not, regardless of your values -- so you might as well honestly reflect on who you prefer, and thus vote for someone who will limit the oppression you will have to deal with and/or maximize as much individual liberty in your life as much as possible. At the very least, even to the extent liberty may not be increased at all with someone voted into office, this can still help in keeping the authoritarian, collectivist hordes at bay and minimizing the damage they can and want to do, in the meantime -- like throwing a wrench in that vast machine that's been created to slowly grind up your liberty.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)