Disqus - Latest Comments for Polybius

Re: "Stochastic Terrorism" Is About Suppressing Free Speech

Seth B Benjamin — Wed, 16 Nov 2022 09:48:55 -0000

The comments are fine, both for an against, even if one could say quite fairly that Chris Rufo's point is well made. I think, however, Chris did not articulate clearly enough that the attack on him personally is outside the confines of normal discourse. In fact, there is no intention to have a discourse with him. So, his solution is lacking because it assumes that one can. The answer is to return fire with fire and place one's own 'argument' outside the confines of discourse. Only then, I think, will one make progress against the insanity of the attack.

Re: In Defense of the Electoral College

Seth B Benjamin — Fri, 13 Nov 2020 12:56:48 -0000

I have not read all the comments, so this may be a little repetitive. In essence, the Electoral College was a design to accommodate what Madison says, in the Federalist Papers No. 9, that these united states were 'small republics' within a 'confederate republic' (quoting Montesquieu). That the U.S. Constitution was a compact among the states is further enhanced by the equality among these states (hence the U.S. Senate). The Electoral College thus serves the purpose of ensuring the equality of the states. That also explains the clause in the U.S. Constitution that prohibits the formation of compacts among the states without the approval of the Congress. It is sad that there is so little understanding of the structure of these United States.

Re: Inside the Academic Destruction of a University: 10 Blocks podcast | City Journal

Seth B Benjamin — Fri, 26 Apr 2019 14:46:59 -0000

"And it really is one of the best programs of its sort in the country is
that we are the kind of institution that actually continues to educate
people in the liberal arts to maintain the precious cultural tradition..."
That says it all. Corporatism, maybe. Social Justice Warriors, maybe. What really is afoot is the re-education of the American population in order to erase the founding of the nation. This is actually an almost word for word enactment of George Orwell's 1984. It is your duty not to love 'Big Brother' but fight back. In the end, the 'warriors' will be forced to use the only means of persuasion they have left - violence.

Re: EH Carr’s sense of history | Books & Essays | spiked

Seth B Benjamin — Wed, 09 Aug 2017 09:42:07 -0000

Off the top of my head, it does not ring a bell, but, of course, that does not mean anything to a senex! Perhaps, a la Times crossword, a cryptic clue may help!

Re: EH Carr’s sense of history | Books & Essays | spiked

Seth B Benjamin — Mon, 07 Aug 2017 11:32:30 -0000

Lindner is right. Carr (and, of his ilk, Collingwood) were caught up in the heady days of 'change' as the promise of the future. They intellectualised history with out regard to the individuals who lived it. Elton, who was a generation later, saw the reality of living history as an individual. I suppose Hegel was right when he said, " As for the individual, every one is a son of his time".

Re: What Is Sophistication?

Seth B Benjamin — Thu, 11 May 2017 12:02:39 -0000

Interesting article and interesting comments. I do not think, however, that Jewish humour is about sophistication. At least, it is possible American Jewish humour may be but even then I am not convinced. No, Jewish humour is a remarkable phenomenon - certainly one the global elite may wish to appropriate. It has an appeal that strokes the elite's ego. It is born of the dilemma of faith. In a sense, it is the logic of absurdity. Or, it could be the opposite - the absurdity of logic. How else could the man's wife be called "sitting shiva"? Just a thought.

Re: The Battle for New York | Foundation for Economic Education

Seth B Benjamin — Fri, 23 Oct 2015 12:13:08 -0000

A very interesting article. Never underestimate, however, the power of the entrenched interests to fight back, tooth and nail, to stop this transformation of the business model. Incidentally, this week the Economist has a Leader on how technology has started to change the understanding of what makes a corporation. Years ago, the then mayor of Indianapolis, Steven Goldsmith, tried to upend the role of local government as regulator. One of the questions he asked himself was, "why should there be a limit to the number of taxis on the streets of Indianapolis?". His answer was that there should be no limit and what government should be concerned with, instead, was "are they safe and are they clean?". He was partially successful. Technology, on the other hand, can be a more powerful driver of change than debate and argument (alas!).

Re: Efforts for regional revitalization

Seth B Benjamin — Thu, 20 Aug 2015 09:15:51 -0000

The proposal for an upper house modelled on the U.S. Senate is an interesting idea for Japan. For that to be a reality, though, the prefectures must accept a sense of full responsibility and independence from the central government. Then, and only then, can they demand a more real devolution of power from the centre.

Re: Hey, Remember Teaching?

Seth B Benjamin — Mon, 02 Feb 2015 11:53:59 -0000

This is an interesting article and, although I have not read all the comments, they seem to be well thought out too. I am left, however, with a nagging feeling that Professor Berlinbrau has not addressed the real issue. Perhaps, also, the commenters have responded only to him and his argument, which, of course, is to be expected. Yes, he has talked about the fate of the university teacher (adjunct or otherwise). In fact, he has talked about what the university should do to address the 'teacher' problem. You could substitute 'research' for teacher if you like.
Surely, however, the question is why is he there teaching anyway? That requires him to ask who are the 'students'? I have done the adjunct thing, then gave up - not for lack of interest or 'passion'. Also, I have been the teaching fellow standing in for the 'famous' professor, causing a mild rumpus by marking the students according to a standard that obviously was unheard of that 'prestigious' university. That leads me back to the question, "who are the students?". That is a huge subject to discuss so I shall just give an assertion and close with premiss that supports that assertion.

Not everybody should go to university. Further education, perhaps. And don't get me started on the standards of the secondary schools - my children were educated in a relatively privileged school district and to me those standards were woeful. When you can answer the question, "who are the students?", then you can answer the question, 'teaching' or 'research' or both. The premiss is that each person is an individual, differing in abilities and desires from other individuals. Universities represent (or should represent) knowledge for knowledge's sake (teaching and research are both compatible). So, Who are the students? Universities fail when they try to be something they are not intended to be.

Re: The Rise and Fall of the U.S. Government by John J. Dilulio Jr. | The Washington Monthly

Seth B Benjamin — Wed, 21 Jan 2015 10:41:45 -0000

This is an interesting review. I am not sure I understand fully the point being made by the reviewer but I am relatively sure that Fukuyama is wrong-headed in his assessment of the nature of government as a curative for the ills of society, if, of course, that actually is what he is saying. Having read Louis Hartz's seminal work as the basis of my own Ph.D., I can only say that his perspicuity about the fundamental nature of the paradox of the American psyche has stood the test of time. This is just a comment (and so only allows for assertion as opposed to careful reasoning) but it seems to me that the American Experiment (and that it was and is) understood precisely what 'government' stood for. In the 18th Century and now, regardless of the accretions of time, the Americans have steadfastly rejected government as a curative. My suspicion is, as our now famous Dr. Gruber has gently let us in on the secret, one can only impose on the American people something antithetical to their nature by the connivance of deception. It is no wonder, then, that our disdain for national politics is mirrored by our sense of control locally. To me, this is a replay of the Kant-Hume debate. So, who would have guessed? Fukuyama is a Humean! And Dilulio?

Re: Ayn Rand, the Movies, and the Idea of America : The Freeman : Foundation for Economic Education

Seth B Benjamin — Wed, 22 Oct 2014 12:21:13 -0000

I think that the essential point to be made about Ayn Rand is her concept of the bright line distinction. Her philosophy may not have been as rigourously worked out as, say Hobbes or Immanuel Kant, but she understood the nature of precise definition. So, to her, 'individualism' is a concept that must stand in stark contrast to 'collectivism'. Her definitions were often clarified by opposites. There can be nothing in 'individualism' that even by hint is contained in 'collectivism'. That is the problem with Aristotle's opening lines of The Politics. His is an assumption of the collective. Hobbes, on the other hand, is clear that the individual is paramount and sovereign. For him, the state is but a contract - inviolable, yes, but nonetheless only valid as long as the parties honour it. It is to Ayn Rand's credit that she saw the implications of those opposites.

Re: MANHATTAN MOMENT: On Obamacare's second birthday, whither the HSA?

Seth B Benjamin — Fri, 17 Oct 2014 10:53:45 -0000

As one who convinced his wife to set up an High Deductible Policy with an HSA some five years ago now, all I can say is that they are essential for real reform. What is most important though is the clarity in pricing. It is a burden for doctors but it can be done relatively easily and allows for doctors to provide a no insurance pricing as well. It would be well worth looking at what Oklahoma has done in forcing hospitals and surgical centres to list prices for various procedures. it has had a salutary effect on how consumers choose where to go. My suggestion for Congress (that is, the Republican Party) is to stop worrying about repeal (for the moment) and just add all those parts to the law that it considers will make it easier for the consumer - namely, expand HSAs, FSAs, writing policies across state lines, individualise all options so as to allow employers to provide monetary incentives for insurance without penalty and so. Once you load up the law with so many inconsistencies (not that it has not got those already) then the individual has no fear of what government may or may not say one can do.

Re: A theory of jerks

Seth B Benjamin — Wed, 24 Sep 2014 12:46:26 -0000

Having just read this, the author I think is conflating two different concepts. There is the condition of morality and the condition of breeding. Though the two are often linked and one can argue that breeding is an expression of morality, they are in essence exclusive to each other. What the author seems to be talking about is the nature of one's breeding; that is to say, how to behave in society as a gentleman or a lady. The foundation for such behaviour is truly the respect one must give another by virtue of being an individual endowed with, as the Founding Fathers put it, Natural Rights. We may justify certainly our lack of breeding in the clothing of morality. Morality, however, is a condition of religion; that is to say, a belief in permanent truths. It is not behaviourally determined. The best example I can think of is the oft-quoted statement, "though the signpost points to Boston, one may choose not to take that road". I suppose being a 'jerk' merely makes one uncouth. In no way can it be said that being judgemental or discerning qualifies one as a 'jerk'. When Charlie Rose asked Harold Bloom if 35 million readers can be wrong about Harry Potter, Mr. Bloom's response was simply, "yes they can". My suspicion is the author is justifying his argument through the lens of the multi-culturalist, which as anyone who has had time to analyse the term properly realises that it is a uni-cultural phenomenon.

Re: Millennials Shifting to the Right

Seth B Benjamin — Tue, 09 Sep 2014 12:26:08 -0000

Steven, what you say in a somewhat flowery way is all well and good. The saddest part of the discussion, however, is not the divide between conservative and socialist (let us be clear about the fundamental principles driving the nomenclature). What it is, in fact, is the mis-statement of the question. In no way does any individual not have access to health care services, whether or not he is covered by an insurance contract. Who pays for those services is a little less clear and may well include taxpayers through various state laws that govern re-imbursements as well as write-downs for corporate tax purposes, beyond the usual methods. The question then becomes one of individual versus collective responsibility. If we talk 'individual' then contract determines the exposure to cost of services provided, which of course should be transparent. If we talk 'collective' then contract becomes moot since the exposure to cost of services is dependent on political will.

Ideally, the millennial individual should have been educated to understand this difference and the consequences that flow from these options. That not being the case means that us 'oldies' should take on the role without a pre-disposition to obfuscate.

So? The question that should be debated is how far do we want the individual, in a general sense and not any particular individual, to take on the responsibility for the risks he may face with regard to his health? This is precisely the way in which the question was put by Dr. Benjamin Carson. At birth, each individual (based on the capacity to pay) would open or be provided with a health savings account out of a recommended annual stipend, the rest of which would purchase an insurance contract that provides for the coverage of conditions or treatments that would normally be outside the scope of the individual to afford. That is the fundamental principle of insurance; namely to transfer the risk of an event to an agent able and willing to assume it. The key here is "at birth". This is the general statement of the principle and that is the question that should have been put to the Millennials. Only then are you going to determine their disposition for political preferences. Not that, of course, one can determine what the political parties actually stand for on principle!

Re: Bereft of sense, government does what it can

Seth B Benjamin — Thu, 21 Aug 2014 15:02:33 -0000

What one wonders is how such an article would be thought appropriate for the Japan Times's Japanese audience. George Will is defining a truism that another great Founding Father once stated; namely, that all men would be tyrants if they so could. Their solution, so often misunderstood, if ever really comprehended by those wise ones of the Supreme Court, was to make this fledgling country known as these United States of America an exception to all that had gone before (and one might say after, as well). This exception was that government by its nature is limited to its defined role in its founding documents. These days, as George Will says, government has strayed from its defined role but more insidiously so since today the tyrants are the bureaucrats (they at least are somewhat hidden from the purview of the ordinary man). Madison said, in Federalist 51, "If men were angels, no government would be necessary.
If angels
were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on
government would
be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by
men over
men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the
government to
control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control
itself". I am sanguine about the ordinary man - he feels this sentiment in his bones.

Re: The Two Abysses of the Soul

Seth B Benjamin — Thu, 07 Aug 2014 09:34:45 -0000

I think the comments, so far, have missed the point of this article. Whether or not there have been atrocities elsewhere and at other times in the world is not his point. His point is that, for Russia, its thinking can be seen in centuries not merely years. Its acts are not event specific, rather nature specific. His choice of Dostoevsky is apt only because Dostoevsky has a unique manner in describing the Russian mind. Putin is but a manifestation of the Russian gene, so to speak. Perhaps, this is a peculiarly mainland Asian thing and has something to do with geography. There is an excellent book, written by Robert Payne in 1951, called 'Zero, the story of terrorism'. Zero is the definition of 'just because...' And, not surprisingly, Russia and China feature prominently.

Re: The start of the First World War was a seminal moment in modern history

Seth B Benjamin — Fri, 01 Aug 2014 16:17:39 -0000

Whereas I suggest the onset of World War One was in part the separation of identities that the 19th Century concept of the Balance of Powers Doctrine demanded, and so the reference point for each country was its own reflected image, now we are haunted by a much worse condition. The seeming interconnectedness of one and all means we have no reference point at all. Every event crowds in on us as though it is indistinguishable from any other event - political, financial, cultural, you name it. Added to that is a general decline in our respect for our cultural heritage - you know, that multicultural thing. We have been set adrift. It is an irony that Kenneth Clark, in his television series, Civilisation, talked of two factors that were essential for the civilised state to survive and thrive: namely, a sense of permanence and an enthusiasm for the future. We have neither, as far as I can see. At least, we are being led by those who do not possess them. What is more, the ordinary man has been cheated of an education where he could hold these pusillanimous 'leaders' to account - all in the name of progress. Ha! How sad and so, perhaps, we shall drift as we did a hundred years ago into another fruitless conflagration - eyes wide shut, I think someone said.

Re: Why Are All the Cartoon Mothers Dead?

Seth B Benjamin — Tue, 01 Jul 2014 09:51:00 -0000

Thank you. I was waiting for someone to state the obvious!

Re: Government Bias

Seth B Benjamin — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 10:54:05 -0000

As a student in England during the 1970s, Monty Python was required watching. Their original television series and the early films had an overabundance of philosophical allusions - what would you expect from Cambridge graduates? This article, however accurate in the practical portrayal of the State, misses, I think, a fundamental aspect of the Liberal Democratic State.
'The people cannot delegate what they don't possess.' In fact, they do possess the power to delegate. Even Hobbes recognised that for a society to flourish the people in their individual capacity lacked the assurance of the essentials for a well-ordered society. His 'state of nature', more properly defined as anarchy, therefore, was to be 'nasty, brutish and short'. It is for that reason man 'covenants' with man to create the supreme power that will guarantee the inherent 'rights' each individual wishes to protect and enjoy. Remember, these 'rights' pre-date the covenant. They are 'natural'. I get into to trouble with the political science fraternity by insisting that Hobbes represents limited government. For him, of course, the supreme authority (Leviathan) is constrained by the limits of its purpose as 'delegated' in the covenant. The Declaration of Independence is a superb restatement of the Hobbesian premiss. I have often argued that constitutions are in fact self-denying documents. That is to say, the people (or whoever are the agents entering into such a covenant) as sovereign expressly delegate or give up certain powers to a Leviathan in order to preserve and enjoy those very same 'rights' or powers that would be unprotected in a state of anarchy.
Thus, you are right that an individual in a Liberal Democratic State has a bias against government. Indeed, he must be ever watchful that the Leviathan remains within its sphere of authority. As John Adams, who I have argued is the 'Invisible Hand of American Constitutionalism', said most appropriately, "quis custodes custodiet?". Moreover, he does possess the power. How else can we explain the War Between the States (and I use that term because the South understood precisely what the nature of that War was)?