Disqus - Latest Comments for McClain

Re: Rich in Love

McClain — Wed, 21 Jul 2004 20:56:12 -0000

Don't gloat too loudly, dammit: those working stiffs'll get wise & then it's curtains for all us ne'er-do-well Huck Finn slacker parasites.

Re: Human Nature and Guassian Morality

McClain — Mon, 02 Aug 2004 20:36:17 -0000

Huh.
Not sure I understand what, exactly, is being debated here.
Human nature?
Science vs. Philosophy?
Nihilism?
Whether it's possible for the human stomach to digest the universe?
For what it's worth:
If your argument proves nothing is everything
then your argument proves nothing.

Re: Hawk Logic

McClain — Mon, 13 Sep 2004 06:14:55 -0000

If your philosophy gives the wrong answer, then there's something wrong with your philosophy.
"Overthrowing evil dictators is always good" is the right answer.
"Overthrowing evil dictators is sometimes bad" is the answer your philosophy gave. Where did it go wrong?
I don't know, nor do I much care, but I suspect some sort of shell game whereby the Individual gets all the rights & no responsibilities, the State has all the responsibilities & no rights, and Humanity is left holding the bag, with neither rights nor responsibilities.

Re: Hawk Logic

McClain — Mon, 13 Sep 2004 19:22:51 -0000

3 new dictators? This isn't a hypothetical math problem. Life divided by language does not equal math.

Individual, State, Humanity: positing 3 nodes on a continuum.
Brought it up because: U.S. Libertarians haven't shown any solidarity with Iraqi Libertarians.

Re: Hawk Logic

McClain — Mon, 13 Sep 2004 20:23:02 -0000

Sorry if that last was a bit cryptic.

At length:
If Libertarians were debating how best to overthrow evil dictators in accordance with Libertarian principles, and loudly advertising to all'n'sundry how their solutions were more cost-effective and aesthetically pleasing than Bush's methods...that would be cool.
But all I hear is (self-proclaimed) "Libertarians" making up excuses for NOT overthrowing evil dictators, and then complaining that Bush (and/or anyone else with more spleen than sense) is going about it all wrong.
"What if" taking out 1 tyrant generated 3 more?
Gee, I dunno..."what if" taking out 1 tyrant prevented any other tyrants from ever achieving power? Infinity being greater than 3, my fake math problem trumps yours. Therein lies the rub. This ain't no fake math problem.
"Overthrowing evil dictators is always good" is an axiom which, in practical affairs, all true friends & partisans of Liberty will gladly embrace.

As for Humanity...if I have no moral need nor cognizance of it, what moral need (or cognizance) have I of the proverbial State?
You can work out the rest of that Reductio yourself, but you-know-that-I-know-that-you-know
it doesn't end well for anyone but Solopsits, Nihilists, Anarchists, and other such Crack-Whores.

Re: Hawk Logic

McClain — Tue, 14 Sep 2004 05:43:35 -0000

Well, Luka, I do believe taking out Saddam has brought about more good than bad.
And this good will reverberate into the indefinite future.
I’m calling “overthrowing evil dictators is always good” an axiom because: though we may not, in this fickle and poorly-lit world, always be sure what results our actions will bring, we may yet be sure, so long as we are overthrowing evil dictators, that soldiering on with sanguine confidence is, at the very worst, an act of courage in the face of evil.
Must Libertarians pretend to know the future before they decide if fighting for Liberty is good?

Re: Hawk Logic

McClain — Tue, 14 Sep 2004 20:06:40 -0000

Luces -
Oops, Godwin's Law: you lose. ;-)

Re: Flip Flop! Flip Flop!?

McClain — Tue, 14 Sep 2004 20:24:29 -0000

For what it's worth, I remember you opposed the war before it started, on the grounds that Iraq wasn't a big enough threat.
I disagreed, and still do, but I wouldn't accuse you of "waffling."

Re: The Saint Louis Hegelians, Adam-ondi-Ahman, and the Metaphysically Essential Center of the United States of America

McClain — Tue, 28 Sep 2004 22:50:47 -0000

WORD.

Knowh'I'msain?!

Re: Spoil Me Rotten!

McClain — Wed, 20 Oct 2004 22:43:34 -0000

Dude, c'mon:
I'm a registered Libertarian, and I'm not voting for that asshat.
If I care about Individual Human Rights, why should they stop at the water's edge?
Who the hell is speakin up 4 all the proto-Libertarian Iraqis & Afghanis out there?
And since when did Libertarian "philosophy" morph into a senile defence of tribal privilege?
You care about our troops dying in the cause of Liberty?
"Well this is new: respect for Ceasar!/
Til now this has been nocticeably LACKING!"
(JC Superstar, yeah...)
Yet you don't give a damn - worse yet: you have a bone to pick with anyone who DOES give a damn - about all those other human beings struggling outside the borders of our primitive nation-state?
And you presume to speak of ethics?
On a, like, "humanistic" level?
Dude: c'mon!

Re: Spoil Me Rotten!

McClain — Thu, 21 Oct 2004 06:58:31 -0000

Sera sera, Luka.

Actually, that last comment of mine was a bit of a drunken rant (sorry, Will!)
"nocticeably" should be "noticeably"
And, once I got up a full head o'steam (by which I mean, uh, beer,) I think I blew right past Mr. Wilkinson's position and tore off on a tangent. Tilting @ strawmen, or something....
Anyway, I still think there's a coherent point in there somewhere, but I understand if nobody noticed.
More heat than light, and all that.

Re: Spoil Me Rotten!

McClain — Thu, 21 Oct 2004 20:42:51 -0000

Sweeet!
:-)

Re: Fundraiser!

McClain — Tue, 02 Nov 2004 20:59:27 -0000

Good Lord, man!
Villanelles?!?
That's just indecent....

Re: Red Blue Bed Rue You Do Not Do Black Shoe

McClain — Sat, 06 Nov 2004 08:23:57 -0000

If voters grow more conservative with age, the Right will always "know its enemy" better than the Left.

Re: Minarchy & Anarchy: Both Utopian, and also not.

McClain — Sun, 07 Nov 2004 19:40:11 -0000

When the Perfect is the enemy of the Good, is the Gawd-Awful a friend, or just another enemy?
"Only Nixon can go to China," so they say.
Kerry wouldn't have won by proposing to legalize weed.
But is Bush's re-election, therefore, a step toward ending the War on Drugs?
Hell if I know....

Re: The Moral of the Story?

McClain — Mon, 08 Nov 2004 22:22:07 -0000

Even if I weren't a Christian, I might take pleasure in calling myself one, since a simple profession of Christian faith is, evidently, enough to induce anile paroxysms of terror in certain members of the self-appointed intellectual elite.

Re: Puce America

McClain — Sat, 13 Nov 2004 04:55:27 -0000

Politics is a sport. Blue and Red are the team colors. Yeah, it's kinda stupid.

Re: The Achievement Gap

McClain — Wed, 17 Nov 2004 19:57:26 -0000

Ever notice the overlap between indie/alterna-hipster geeks, academics, artistes, and leftists?
All of whom fancy themselves out on the good tail of a bell curve.
Elites, or underappreciated outcasts, but NEVER the 'Normal Average.' (Perish the thought!)
But America really IS a democracy, so the 'Normal Average' is King.
How the Democratic Party expects to win the favor of 'King Normal Average' while publicly professing its love for the 'Anti-Normal-Average' crowd is beyond me.

Re: Hey! Whatcha Chewin’ on There Buddy?

McClain — Tue, 23 Nov 2004 19:12:06 -0000

Yeah! Now that's what I'm talkin about, knowh'I'msain?!
PANDA Bear, biyatch! What!?

Re: Getting Serious About Getting Serious

McClain — Wed, 24 Nov 2004 20:28:31 -0000

That rant was posted by me: McClain.
Don't know why my name didn't show up in the "Posted by" field.

Re: Getting Serious About Getting Serious

McClain — Thu, 25 Nov 2004 04:13:12 -0000

I'm not talking about the poor, sick, collective farmers. (And you know this....)
I'm talking about OTHER LIBERTARIANS.
You're against helping them? Then why be one?
Why not just say "I'm lookin' out for #1; it's all about ME all day, every day," and leave it at that?
What kind of wuss needs a fake political movement as cover for raw selfishness?

Re: Getting Serious About Getting Serious

McClain — Thu, 25 Nov 2004 05:27:30 -0000

OK, so: Iraqi libertarians don't exist.
But, if they did, we'd be under no obligation to help them.
Such discernment, foresight, and moral nobility!
No wonder people are falling all over themselves to vote Libertarian....
;-)

Re: Getting Serious About Getting Serious

McClain — Thu, 25 Nov 2004 18:24:41 -0000

Micha: I don't share your antiquarian enthusiasm for failed Soviet agricultural experiments, so I got nothin for ya on that tangent.
The "massive political coercion" part, though...I gotta ask: what the heck are you talking about?
Our armed forces are ALL-VOLUNTEER, remember?
And they're commanded by a duly elected representative of the people, remember?
Where's the coercion?
Oh wait...PLEASE tell me you're not talking about the income tax! ('Boo-hoo! The government used several of my precious dollars to overthrow a genocidal tyrant! It's SO not fair!')

Re: Getting Serious About Getting Serious

McClain — Thu, 25 Nov 2004 18:30:41 -0000

Bernard: Yeah, the opinion split doesn't necessarily render libertarianism untenable.
I'm just pointing out that it seems to split along nationalist/internationalist lines.
Which is a topic I haven't really seen addressed; just thought I'd throw it out there, with a few arguments for my side attached.

Re: Getting Serious About Getting Serious

McClain — Thu, 25 Nov 2004 18:34:39 -0000

Mr. Henley,
I'm glad you're having a good time Rocking Out with Micha!
Sounds like fun.
Maybe you should stick to the rocking, though, since rational argument doesn't seem to be your main strength....
:-)

Re: Getting Serious About Getting Serious

McClain — Fri, 26 Nov 2004 14:33:32 -0000

Ah, so it IS taxes.
Well, good luck with your quest for representation without taxation.
:-)

Re: Getting Serious About Getting Serious

McClain — Fri, 26 Nov 2004 21:00:32 -0000

The point I've been trying to get across, (which you would easily grasp, if it weren't for your vanity) is this:
He who overthrows an evil dictator strikes a blow for liberty.
He who opposes this, shows himself no friend of liberty.
Many of us are under the impression that "Libertarian" means: "in favor of liberty."
Sorry to hear that's not the case.
Evidently, (according to you, at any rate,) The "Libertarian" Party doesn't really represent what its name implies.
Kinda like those "People's Democratic Republic of..." totalitarian hellholes.
But, hey: those are Someone Else's totalitarian hellholes, right? Not our problem, are they?
As good, doctrinaire 'Libertarians,' we don't have to trouble our pretty little heads about such things, now do we?
Sweeet!
Thanks for the...uh...'enlightenment.'

Re: Getting Serious About Getting Serious

McClain — Sat, 27 Nov 2004 09:05:04 -0000

Well, Micha, that all looks very reasonable at first glance.
And I can see why those who worship a god called "Lassez-Faire" would object to this war.
But if you can't go to war until you've first saved all the starving children in Africa, then you can never go to war.
Worse yet, you seem to claim we should never go to war so long as "war" means "someone gets hurt." Are you a secret pacifist?
Is this what you're trying to pass off as serious foreign policy? "We promise never to fight, unless invaded." Would've been unacceptably different outcomes to the Civil War and WWII, had that policy been followed!
Maybe it's just my bias, but I hear your objections as excuses, not principles. The only actual principle I hear you asserting is wholly negative: "The Government Must Never Do Anything."
Oh, and since you seem genuinely unclear on this: killing tyrants and handing out food stamps are not indistinguishable activities. If you can't see why the government should do one but not the other, well, I suspect it's not because you can't tell the difference, but because you don't really believe the government has any right to do anything at all.

Re: Getting Serious About Getting Serious

McClain — Sat, 27 Nov 2004 21:01:22 -0000

"What would be unacceptable about those outcomes...?"
Gee, I dunno: why don't you tell me how the world would be a better, more Libertarian place if the U.S. hadn't defeated the festering slave empire of the Confederacy, or the Axis of WWII?

"The basic libertarian principle is this: Government must never do anything that an individual has no right doing."
OK, I can see where you're coming from with that.
An over-idealistic principle, perhaps, and easy to refute by reductio ad absurdum, to be sure, but worth stating and defending nevertheless.
I'll agree with you on that point, to a point.
But a thief who picks a few pockets, uses the money to buy a gun, and uses his ill-gotten gun to assassinate a serial killer will never be convicted if I'm on the jury.

I am aware that a significant number of well-intentioned people oppose this war.
I'm trying to make at least a few of them understand that at least a few equally well-intentioned people support it.
Thanks, Bernard, for clarifying the "Laissez-Faire" issue.
The paleo-cons object to this war because it doesn't serve the national interest, and the leftists object because it does.
I'm in the center, where Libertarians, according to me, belong.
I'm not keeping my argument "straight" because, when you're the center, your arguments need to be circular.
After all, everything that's not a contradiction is a tautology....
:-)

Re: Getting Serious About Getting Serious

McClain — Sun, 28 Nov 2004 07:03:29 -0000

"The proper role for the U.S. government, from a libertarian perspective, is not to make the world a more libertarian place, but to make the U.S. a more libertarian place. We are not the world's policeman."

See, that's the part where you get all tangled up.
"We" libertarians, or "we" the U.S. of A.?
The proper role of a libertarian is to do whatever it takes to increase the amount of liberty in the world.
The proper role of the U.S. government is to do whatever the voters tell it to do.
Thank God the majority of American voters understand liberty much better than many self-styled "Libertarians."

Re: Getting Serious About Getting Serious

McClain — Mon, 29 Nov 2004 20:05:12 -0000

If you don't believe in anything except non-coercion, that doesn't make you a Libertarian: it makes you some kind of Pacifistic Nihilist.
And, sorry to disillusion you, but the U.S. government's only reason for existence really is just to serve the will of the people. Our Constitution is only the more-or-less settled expression of the majority's will, long-term. Binding on the government unless and until we say otherwise, yes, but 'We the people' reserve the right to rewrite it.
Also, despite what you said to Bernard, this IS a popularity contest.
Obtaining political power in a democracy is, pretty much by definition, always gonna boil down to a popularity contest.
But Libertarianism, as defined by you, consists almost entirely of complaining about the United States government. Particularly its taxes and wars. News flash: a government which can't levy taxes and wage war isn't a government.
So now we're talking Libertarian = Pacifistic Nihilistic Anarchists.
This may explain the nearly total failure of any Libertarian politicians to ever get elected to any office at any level of government anywhere in the country.
You may be right on one level.
Registered Libertarian voter though I am, my vision of Libertarianism may be largely at odds with that of the party. My more expansive and positive vision of Libertarians siding with like-minded folks around the world to fight for more liberty everywhere for everyone may never be embraced by more traditional Libertarians such as yourself.
Fortunately, the feckless, navel-gazing fantasies of "pure" Libertarians have never been and never will be embraced by a voting majority in America or anywhere else.
So I guess I won’t worry too much about it. Especially since you tell me it’s “Not Libertarian” to care about other Libertarians.

Re: Getting Serious About Getting Serious

McClain — Tue, 30 Nov 2004 05:32:42 -0000

“International Populist;” I kinda like that. Not quite as sexy as “International Pop Star,” but I’m not playing in bands anymore, so I’ll take what I can get. Beats being an anarchist, that’s for sure (although props to you, Micha, for admitting it.) Even at my most punk rock (1980s) I felt anarchy was a good symbol, not a good philosophy.
As for Marx, well, utopian Victorian blowhards don’t interest me much. I guess he had good intentions, but you know what they say about the road to hell. Tried to read that ‘Communist Manifesto’ once, but I just put it down once it started trying to run some shell game with property rights.
As for “Why I’m a Libertarian:” the Republicans wanna ban gay marriage, abortion, drugs, and porn. The Democrats wanna ban guns and drugs, and kowtow to the U.N.
Neither party is real great about unpopular free speech, nor at reining in the invasive overgrowth of Federal bureaucracy. Both of them lard up on the pork, acting like we need to give out Federal grant money for everything in sight. So: I would like both major parties to move in a more Libertarian direction on domestic issues. We don’t need to make a Federal case out of everything.
HOWEVER, I don’t find it a baffling paradox to support BOTH a more Libertarian domestic policy AND a ruthlessly hawkish foreign policy explicitly designed to forcibly advance the interests of libertarians and democratic populists around the world AT THE EXPENSE OF evil dictators who hate my country.
I think it’s called ‘enlightened self-interest.’
Oh, and Matt? We already have a theme song, thanks. It's "The Battle Hymn of the Republic."

Re: Getting Serious About Getting Serious

McClain — Tue, 30 Nov 2004 18:56:53 -0000

You disappoint me, Micha.
I expected a witty retort or reasoned rebuttal,
Instead you take a simple satiric inversion and run it into the ground for 8 or 9 labored paragraphs.
*sigh*
Oh well, at least Will approves of your efforts!
:-)

Re: Getting Serious About Getting Serious

McClain — Wed, 01 Dec 2004 10:16:46 -0000

Lawd-a-mercy! Guess there are some folks who would take all that nonsense seriously.
I agree: it's sad that wasn't satire.
But I still don't see how a monomaniacal fixation on the illegitimacy of taxes is enough to constitute a real political party.
Maybe that's the difference: I'm talking about "How can the Libertarian Party grow and have some serious impact in the real world?"
You're talking about "What views should a strictly orthodox, ideologically pure libertarian espouse?"
I'm thinking of principles as inspirations and compass points ("Let's go that way: towards more liberty and justice for all!")
You're taking principles as axioms and trying to work out some coherent political agenda deductively.
Bottom line: Democracy demands compromise in return for power. It's not a bug, it's a feature.
Kicking people out o'your party for not being ideologically pure enough is not just kinda creepy.
It's also a recipe for political impotence.

Re: Getting Serious About Getting Serious

McClain — Wed, 01 Dec 2004 10:21:53 -0000

Oh, and I do have a rule about going to war:
If and whenever the question comes up "Should we go to war against this evil dictator or not?" the answer is always yes.
If your philosophy doesn't give that answer, then there's something wrong with your philosophy.

Re: Getting Serious About Getting Serious

McClain — Wed, 01 Dec 2004 13:02:58 -0000

How do you know I'm not in Iraq?
No, it's true, I'm actually in Boston.
But there are reasons the "chickenhawk" argument doesn't work on me, which I won't divulge on the internet.
And, yeah, that's a long list of evil dictators.
If I had my way we'd just start at the beginning and keep pluggin away until they were all gone.
Which we may be doing, actually (yay!)
But I did say 'if and whenever it comes up.'
I haven't seen any big controversy over whether we ought to invade Saudi Arabia right now.
If it becomes a serious national debate, somewhere down the road, I know which side I'll be on. Until it does, I know we've got other fish to fry first. The Saudis will just have to wait their turn.

Re: Getting Serious About Getting Serious

McClain — Wed, 01 Dec 2004 19:29:58 -0000

Huh - didn't know you had a blog. What's the link?
I gotta admit, much as I disagree with you on certain points, I find the arguments thought-provoking.
It's usually more useful for me to hear thoughtful people making arguments with which I disagree than people who are already on the same wavelength as me.
And you're certainly verbose enough to update regularly.
(I don't mean that as a dig at our host - Will's no Instapundit, but he's been bloggin a lot more than he used to.)

As for those latest points:
"Always yes" not in an absolute, mathematical sense, more like a default setting that could, in principle, be over-ridden. But, if the question is already a serious topic of national debate, then, almost certainly, the answer should always be: "YES."

George Orwell said a lot of cool things. I admire that guy. Related quote: "Short words are best and old words, when short, are best of all." - Churchill. Another man I admire.
(And, yeah, 'tomfoolery' is good - sounds kinda Mark Twain-ish to me, since we're on the topic of dead white guys I look up to.)

As for war being hell; cruelty, ghastly ugliness and tragedy in its DNA, something no-one in their right mind could take lightly: yes.
That's true. This war, like every other, is like that. Still, it is a just war.
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori."

Re: Getting Serious About Getting Serious

McClain — Thu, 02 Dec 2004 06:05:56 -0000

Catallarchy. Got it.
I'll being keeping an eye on you and your shady, more-libertarian-than-thou arguments over there, then.
Think I'm all typed out on this topic for now.
And this comments thread is getting a little long to scroll through (particularly considering it's basically only been the 3 of us shouting past each other!)
Cheers, then....
:-)

Re: Would Vouchers Endanger Science and Liberal Order?!

McClain — Thu, 09 Dec 2004 20:17:03 -0000

Don't apologize for the free-association!
I, for one, applaud it.
And it's your blog, anyway: if people don't buy the free free-association, that's their lookout, innit?

Re: Would Vouchers Endanger Science and Liberal Order?!

McClain — Thu, 09 Dec 2004 20:27:02 -0000

Oh, and yeah...evolution's true and all, BUT people who believe in evolution *without really understanding it* often fall for social-Darwinist/racist pseudo-science.
(Some animals are "more evolved" than others, yadda yadda....)
Whereas folks who believe in the bible are not usually guilty of any modern innovations in the field of Evil. Just the usual, age-old stuff, y'know?
Reason enough, perhaps, to believe it's OK for folks to believe in talking snakes AS LONG AS they learn NOT TO TRUST a talking snake.

Re: What is Big Government?

McClain — Mon, 20 Dec 2004 06:13:42 -0000

Spy cams and secret police aren't free.
So the intrusiveness of the state is tied to its finances.
But making the hanged man pay for the rope is merely adding insult to injury.
I'm not so worried about the government getting a good deal on its spy cams.
I just don't want any *!@?#@$%!&* government spy cams in my house, knowh'I'msain?

Re: Are Libertarians Cheerier?

McClain — Mon, 20 Dec 2004 21:19:52 -0000

I guess ham-fisted gloating isn't, technically, 'cheerful.'
The 'Right' still seems fairly happy, nevertheless.
It IS nice to sit on the sidelines and make snarky comments while someone you dislike beats up someone you despise.

Re: Rorty Phones It In

McClain — Wed, 22 Dec 2004 21:13:01 -0000

Gee whiz, guys:
Will writes, like, multiple paragraphs about the impact of science on moral philosophy and you just keep fussing about Social Security?
Do you really care SO MUCH about refining the American system of socialist pension tax that you need to spew about it in the comment section of a wholly unrelated blogpost?
Can't you, at least, confine it to the comment section of a blogpost that actually addresses (*yawn, shrug*) Social Security?
Don't you have your own blogs where you can kvetch ad nauseum about all that tiresome garbage?
I thought the philosophical point about evolution impinging on morality was kinda interesting.
Not so with the policy-wonk-fest on how best to micromanage other peoples' retirement funds.

Re: PosnerBlogging: Take One

McClain — Wed, 29 Dec 2004 20:01:15 -0000

Re: "fruitful debating of God's existence...."
If you're brought up believing in "Santa-God," you might lose that belief after enough talk (and thought.) (And growing up.)
And you might go on to think and talk about what the Real Reasons are for all that stuff you used to believe "Santa-God" did.
At that point, you'd be calling yourself an atheist or agnostic. (You'd also probably be in your teens-through-twenties, and into 'progressive/edgy' music, politics, and clothes.)
Later on, after even more talk and thought, you might, surprisingly enough, find yourself believing in God, just not "Santa-God."
(Yeah, you might have guessed, this is all from personal experience.)
So: belief is neither innate nor immutable.
Talking about such things is far from futile.
Also, what's more fruitless:
A - debating God's existence,
or
B - debating whether it's fruitless to debate God's existence?
If 'B' then shouldn't we keep going and debate whether the debate of the debate...ah, you know the rest.

Re: PosnerBlogging: Take One

McClain — Thu, 30 Dec 2004 05:52:54 -0000

Didn't mean to patronize, Wili - just relating my personal experience, for what it's worth.
I don't see atheism as merely a juvenile affectation.
It makes sense enough, as far as it goes, and suits some personality types better than any other belief would.
There are folks who would serve God better if they didn't believe in Him. (Her. It. Whatev....)

Re: Oxygen is My Achilles Heel!

McClain — Fri, 07 Jan 2005 18:55:12 -0000

McGehee: Please don't shoot the fishes.
Re: "isms" of sex....
It's an ancient taboo for a reason.
People are sensitive about that shit.
If you're gonna crack, 9 times outta 10 you'll crack along that line.
No wonder people get all weird about it and make up stupid ideologies that pretend to fix everything but actually screw things up even worse....

Re: PosnerBlogging: Take One

McClain — Mon, 10 Jan 2005 20:26:30 -0000

Wow, I think that 'comment spam' served as an excellent meta-whatever.

Re: When Men Were Men and Women Were . . .

McClain — Mon, 10 Jan 2005 20:36:28 -0000

"Wearing wigs and makeup, lace and silk, even high heels for crying out loud..."
Sounds like early 70's glam-rock and mid-80's hair-metal to me.

Re: When Men Were Men and Women Were . . .

McClain — Mon, 10 Jan 2005 20:53:30 -0000

Oh, and Will didn't imply there was anything wrong with joining the Shakers, for example.
He just implied that most people wouldn't.
Which may have made the Shakers' lives more challenging. And, perhaps, had some causal relation to the human race still existing, but the Shakers' religious sect not....
Whether anyone should care about the continuance of the human race is an open question.
The fact that underlying genetic imperitaves generate stereotypical sex roles in all human cultures is not.

Re: When Men Were Men and Women Were . . .

McClain — Mon, 10 Jan 2005 20:57:00 -0000

"imperatives"

Re: When Men Were Men and Women Were . . .

McClain — Tue, 11 Jan 2005 05:47:41 -0000

And who still is a kid? (Under 24 counts.)
;-)
It's true, you couldn't rightfully call me "unmarried and childless."
(And I'm pushing 40.)

Re: When Men Were Men and Women Were . . .

McClain — Thu, 13 Jan 2005 05:33:50 -0000

"just finding a complementary mix, between two people, of personality traits that don't depend at all on gender"
Yeah, that's the trick right there!
Especially when thinking beyond the one-night-stand, it's really the personality traits that make all the difference.
And don't most of us informally sort people by "personality traits" with little regard to gender? (I'm thinking "cranky," "lazy," "funny," etc.)

Re: Social Security and “Moral Values”

McClain — Fri, 14 Jan 2005 20:06:42 -0000

New Deal, New Wave, New Age...that's the trouble with naming something "New."
Just sounds dated after a while.
Reminds me of a corny joke I heard back in the early 80's: "If New Wave doesn't last, it'll be called Shortwave; if it does, it'll be called Permanent Wave."
Guess some folks wanna make the New Deal the Permanent Deal.
Kinda creepy when you put it that way, innit?

Re: Social Security and “Moral Values”

McClain — Sun, 16 Jan 2005 19:12:40 -0000

Zero out the DEA budget, while legalizing and taxing currently illegal drugs, and you have a libertarian solution to the deficit. Sadly, that's a pipe dream. Oh well, whatever, nevermind...might as well fuss about social security instead.

Re: Social Security and “Moral Values”

McClain — Mon, 17 Jan 2005 19:45:33 -0000

Hey, Micha, I've got an idea:
Let's make the perfect the enemy of the good!
:-)

Re: Inauguration Speech: Trotskyite Christian Big-Government Libertarianism

McClain — Thu, 20 Jan 2005 21:46:10 -0000

I was hoping for:
"Yeah, we have a list and, yeah, 'Saudi' Arabia, you're next."
But I'll take what I can get....
:-)

Re: Inauguration Speech: Trotskyite Christian Big-Government Libertarianism

McClain — Fri, 21 Jan 2005 06:41:17 -0000

Oh THAT'S the question!
Right....
;-)

Re: Big Day!

McClain — Thu, 27 Jan 2005 20:08:11 -0000

Cheers!
Here's to many more - (*swigs scotch*)

Re: Meta-atheism, Death by Accident, and the Mysteries of Religious Experience

McClain — Wed, 02 Feb 2005 20:53:37 -0000

A secret, pantheistic mysticism disguised as orthodoxy is probably far more common than meta-atheism.
And I second Matt's assertion that a lot of us 'religious types' don't worry much about the next world.
We're in this one for a reason.
"Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof."
One world at a time.

Re: Meta-atheism, Death by Accident, and the Mysteries of Religious Experience

McClain — Thu, 03 Feb 2005 12:16:13 -0000

Hell isn't Christian, necessarily.
The name "Hel" belonged to the Norse goddess of the underworld. Like Yule logs, mistletoe, and bunny eggs, it's now part of the larger, mainstream, Christian cultural tradition.
The afterlife was not, originally, a central point of concern for Christians.
(What is and always was?
Love.
With a capital "L.")
Nor is there, to this day, any ecumenical consensus on what happens to a Christian after death.
Jehovah's Witnesses, and some others who pride themselves on their biblical literalism, believe we all die, full stop. Just stone dead, like an atheist would think.
At some future time, the Lord will return, Heaven and Earth will pass away, and the righteous dead will be raised into new life.
The unrighteous will just stay dead forever.
The Catholics have their "Purgatory," which mitigates their fear of 'damnation.'
The Calvinists think it's all 'predestined' anyhow. And so on....

The passages where Jesus speaks of the Lake of Fire, Sheol, or Gehenna are, like the rest of His parables and aphorisms, not normally regarded as flat statements of plain and simple fact.

For what it's worth: I, as a Christian, have faith that God created me, God will kill me whenever He pleases, and I'm happy for God to save whatever aspects of me are worth saving, destroy the rest, and send whatever subsequently constitutes "me" wherever He sees fit, seeing as how He has a better handle on what's best than I do.
So I just don't worry my pretty little head about the afterworld.

At the risk of belittling some of my more fervently pious co-religionists, I'd agree that people who claim to believe in eternal damnation, yet don't act like it, are either lying to you, lying to themselves, or just fucking bat-shit crazy.

Re: Arms Races, Happiness, and other Goods

McClain — Wed, 09 Feb 2005 19:15:28 -0000

Poems aren't widgets?

Re: Arms Races, Happiness, and other Goods

McClain — Wed, 09 Feb 2005 19:18:23 -0000

No, I'm pretty sure a poem is just another sort of widget.

I give up: why do you find it less convincing, Mr. McGrew?

Re: Arms Races, Happiness, and other Goods

McClain — Sat, 12 Feb 2005 08:06:41 -0000

"The United States will be spending more on its military than the rest of the world combined.

And its doing it on money borrowed from foreigners."

That's hilarious! The rest of the world are massive chump suckers to let us screw them over that badly.
Sucks to be them....
:-)

Re: Arms Races, Happiness, and other Goods

McClain — Mon, 14 Feb 2005 04:24:01 -0000

Okay, doom'n'gloom boyz!
America's going to hell in a handbasket, boo hoo.
Read a little history, do a little traveling, and get back to me on that, OK?
Wish I could bet money against that sort of wishful pessimism. Oh wait: I do! Stock market's lookin' pretty good this year....
;-)

Re: Arms Races, Happiness, and other Goods

McClain — Mon, 14 Feb 2005 04:29:42 -0000

Oh, and 'monkyboy:' in your eagerness to play the troll, you've tripped over your own metaphor.
What's the difference between a hair plug and a nuke?
I'm sure you'll be able to puzzle out that riddle if you sit still and think about it a little bit....

Re: Arms Races, Happiness, and other Goods

McClain — Mon, 14 Feb 2005 18:58:34 -0000

Fear of hair plugs is funnier than fear of nuclear annihilation.
Also, you can get all the hair plugs you'll ever need with a single nuke.
But one hair plug won't even get you on the subway.

Re: Questioning Layard

McClain — Tue, 15 Feb 2005 20:12:17 -0000

P.S. That was me, McClain, talking all that trash just now. Don't know why my name didn't show up....

Re: Questioning Layard

McClain — Tue, 15 Feb 2005 21:52:57 -0000

I wish!
No, it's just in the Declaration.
Close, but not enough to justify case law....

Re: Meta-atheism, Death by Accident, and the Mysteries of Religious Experience

McClain — Wed, 16 Feb 2005 19:36:20 -0000

Depends on the theist.
I don't, others do.

Re: Meta-atheism, Death by Accident, and the Mysteries of Religious Experience

McClain — Wed, 16 Feb 2005 21:58:25 -0000

"Party in the city where the heat is on
All night on the beach till the break of dawn
Welcome to Miami
'Buenvenidos a Miami'
Bouncin in the club where the heat is on
All night on the beach till the break of dawn
I’m goin to Miami
'Welcome to Miami'"

Re: Capitalism and Human Nature

McClain — Wed, 16 Feb 2005 22:05:50 -0000

"Ad hominid"
I like that.
I like the article too, "ad hominid" as it may be....

Re: Capitalism and Human Nature

McClain — Thu, 17 Feb 2005 19:47:22 -0000

The evolutionary-psych approach clarifies and resolves a lot of 'nature vs. nurture' debates.
It gives a reason why, and predicts when, the 'tabula rasa' theory will be wrong about human behavior.
If vertebrates generally exhibit behavior X, then 'tabula rasa' is definitely wrong about that behavior in humans. If just a few other primates exhibit behavior X, 'tabula rasa' is only questionable...if 40% of mammals, if 2 out of 3 great apes: very likely, probably, etc....
Many of the predictions, while falsifiable in princible, are difficult to test in practice, given the moral hazards of experimenting on humans.
That said, there will always be 'just-so stories' made up to 'explain' things in 'evolutionary' terms.
Caveat emptor!
Remember, evolution was a philosophical idea BEFORE Darwin discovered natural selection, and Darwin knew nothing of DNA.

Re: Capitalism and Human Nature

McClain — Fri, 18 Feb 2005 07:08:13 -0000

Are you building on sand or rock?
Yeah, we can rise above our primal instincts.
I'm all for it.
But, if you try building a society and culture without taking those underlying instincts into account, don't be surprised when it collapses.
Like the U.S.S.R., for example.

Re: Capitalism and Human Nature

McClain — Fri, 18 Feb 2005 13:51:58 -0000

If "you can't understand more complex phenomena in terms of less complex," then in what terms DO you propose to understand it?
Only understanding complex phenomena in terms of equal or greater complexity? This seems self-evidently false.
Although it would make grade-school math classes more fun: "Children, I need you to take this equation and turn it into a much more complicated equation."
English classes would suck, though: "Your book report must be as long as, or longer than, the original book. And you must use more vocabulary words than your author." Though, come to think of it, that seems to describe a lot of po-mo lit-crit.
I just think you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
We DO need to beware of 'just-so stories.' Cultural evolution is Lamarckian, not Darwinian. This doesn't mean evolution is false, nor sterile, nor that we can learn and infer nothing at all from our animal heritage.

Re: Capitalism and Human Nature

McClain — Sat, 19 Feb 2005 07:07:07 -0000

Uh, let's see...we got some nouns, verbs, gerunds....
Less facetiously, Steven Pinker's "The Language Instinct" is a good book.

Re: Sandefur on the Third Letter

McClain — Thu, 03 Mar 2005 22:00:17 -0000

Yeah!
In other words:
I am agitating for the government to create everyone's happiness.
I am, therefore, good.
Because we know that the gov't will do whatever we tell it to do.
And if I tell it to do something good, it will.
Therefore, if I tell the gov't to make everything nice for everybody, right now, then I deserve to win a million dollars for doing such a good thing.
Therefore, the gov't should take your money and give it to me.
Because it owes me a million dollars, right?
And where else will it get a million dollars from?
The million dollars is something you give me for being good, or it's something the gov't makes up, right?
So why won't you give me your money, dammit?

Re: Strategic Vagueness vs. Rallying Clarity

McClain — Wed, 16 Mar 2005 19:41:21 -0000

Bush is very good at rope-a-dope. It's a favorite move of his.
Any plan he proposes will suffer bitter, cornered-rat hostility from his political opponents. So he'll get them to tire themselves out chasing and barking at trial balloons before he sends his real plan into the arena.
After the anti-Bush pundits and pols have vented all the knee-jerk spleen they can vent, he'll know their strong and weak points. The general public, meanwhile, tires of such wonky drivel and ceases to pay attention. Hell, I wearied of Social Security debates the minute I heard one.
But I think Bush has a mind to do something about it, so I'm sure something will get done.
Whether it'll be an improvement...eh...who knows? I, for one, don't care enough to worry about it.

Re: Strategic Vagueness vs. Rallying Clarity

McClain — Thu, 17 Mar 2005 21:04:18 -0000

Um, you seem to assume there's some stash to loot, which seems doubtful.
And also to imply that Michael Jordan was defeated at baseball by opponents who were angry about his basketball career. More doubtful still.
The God'n'Guns reference is...well, I really don't know what that's supposed to mean. You disapprove of God? Or guns? OK, so...how d'you feel about devils'n'roses, then?
;-)

Re: Distributed Wealth-Enabling Conditions and Collective Entitlement

McClain — Thu, 14 Apr 2005 21:22:00 -0000

I *heart* telekinetic dwarves working for hot dogs.
:-)
Bit of a tangent, but...
I remember seeing a similar argument about taxes, something like: it's not really YOUR money, since you depend on society for enabling you to make it, and on the gov't for printing it, etc.
Therefore, don't complain about taxes: taxation doesn't mean the gov't is taking YOUR money, it just means the gov't is KEEPING some of ITS money.

Re: Distributed Wealth-Enabling Conditions and Collective Entitlement

McClain — Fri, 15 Apr 2005 21:15:53 -0000

Calm down, 'Lima.'
'Monkeyboy' likes to play the troll.
Spewing invective in response is, perhaps, entertaining for you and him, but not so much for the rest of us.

Re: Relatively Relativistic

McClain — Thu, 28 Apr 2005 20:22:49 -0000

Relativism: true?
Well, that's ONE way to look at it....
Who's to say?
;-)

Re: Notes on Modularity, Value Pluralism, Cultural Variation, etc.

McClain — Mon, 09 May 2005 21:48:58 -0000

So crazies'n'druggies see what's real, but overlooked, maybe....
Different mental perception modules activated, different hot/cold mental bias.
Same reality.
Religious visionaries (like witch doctors, mediums...) as well?
It's a long-standing, nagging fear for many folks, I think.
The fear that THEY'RE NOT JUST CRAZY, IT'S NOT JUST THE DRUGS, etc.