Just Because You Hold a Peace Meeting...

By -
it doesn't mean peace is what you'll get.

Similarly, just because you are dismantling regulations in the name of achieving a true free market doesn't mean a true free market is what you'll get.

Comments

  1. Anonymous1:53 PM

    Well, that's certainly a leap now, isn't it?

    ReplyDelete
  2. gcallah1:55 PM

    What is, Joseph? The idea that unintended consequences might apply to *you*, too?

    Ridiculous, I know.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Warren2:53 PM

    I think what Joseph means is that its *a bit* of a cheap shot.

    I agree with your broader point though. The idea that deregulation could run into the law of unintended consequences shouldn't be surprising to people well versed in the potential consequences of government action.

    In fact experience shows that its almost certain to cross paths with that particular law at some point or another.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous3:32 PM

    Unintended consequences are pretty much a constant as far as I am concerned. I was talking more about your comparison of a display of political theater (with a conclusion that is already set in stone) vs that of an entirely different economic reality altogether.

    I just don't think that the two can be comparably set alongside one another. The variables between the two have very little in common.

    That's all I am saying.

    ReplyDelete
  5. gcallah4:47 PM

    "I think what Joseph means is that its *a bit* of a cheap shot."

    Sorry, Warren, I really don't understand why.

    "a display of political theater"

    Where is your evidence that this was what was going on in South Sudan? It's certainly not in the article?

    "(with a conclusion that is already set in stone)"

    You think that most of the people there knew what was going to happen?! Including those gunned down?!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous5:22 PM

    No, I think that often political bodies put on a show for the masses. In fact, I would presume to say that that was probably the primary motivation for the attack (a loss of confidence in their local system of governance).

    From the article, "It appears that the U.N. team was not the target of the attack but were at the wrong place at the wrong time and were caught up in the incident,"

    Right... Okay... Sure...

    I can't wait to see which side of this the UN stands on in the long-term. Just to venture a guess, I would put my money on the guys with the guns.

    ReplyDelete
  7. gcallah6:18 PM

    "Right... Okay... Sure..."

    Joseph, that's really not *much* of an historical analysis of the situation, is it?

    I mean, I could say "The Allies landed at Normandy on June 6, 1944," and you could respond "right... OK... sure..." and sound like the worldly-wise cynic to me naive fool. But that wouldn't change the fact the Allies really did land there. Nor does your cynicism have the least bit to do with what really went on at this meeting in the South Sudan, to discover which you'd have to actually, you know, *investigate*, and not merely adopt a cynical posture.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous7:59 PM

    I'll admit guilt in assuming a higher level of power pulling the strings, but that is a reflection of my own experiences, I guess. IOW, when supranational bodies are involved, I automatically assume some predetermination of events.

    So kill me.... ;)

    I believe X and you believe Y: where do we stand? In more cases than not, we stand nowhere between X and Y, but I am sure we're funding it in some way. In fact, I'd probably guarantee it.

    ReplyDelete
  9. gcallah12:02 PM

    "So kill me.... ;)"

    You think my agents haven't been in place for some time already, Joseph?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anonymous1:45 PM

    They will have their work cut out for them, I am well-trained, well-armed and I do not lose my concentration in battle. LOL

    In all seriousness, I wouldn't be at all surprised if there is *somebody* keeping an eye on me. I am not exactly quiet about my distaste with certain developments and I do so using my true name. In fact, it would almost be irresponsible of certain "authorities" if they weren't checking me out to determine my intentions. However, they would probably come to the correct conclusion that I am a peaceful man who only believes in using violence as a means of defense against violence.

    I am just a big walking, talking teddy bear... with guns. Ha!

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose...
Read more