Anarchist quote of the day (0)
Posted 27 August, 2007 in Politics
Freedom, morality, and the human dignity of the individual consists precisely in this; that he does good not because he is forced to do so, but because he freely conceives it, wants it, and loves it. – Mikhail Bakunin
I hold the view that anarchism is a fundamentally flawed political position because it does not properly put the rights of an individual - namely life, liberty and property - in the correct context.* However, it is built on a solid premise: that the good of a society can only come from the good of the individuals within that society. ‘Freedom, morality, and the human dignity of the individual’ cannot be created by legislation, rules, or dictators be they brutal or benevolent. At least not for the long term.
The Open Society is only permitted by the morality of the citizens. If we do not have the courage or will to make the correct moral choices the best society we can hope for is a tribal one, à la most Arabs or Africans in this moment of human history.
Unfortunately for most anarchists they never build upon this solid premise, and once the foundations of their philosophy are laid they start entertaining deluded fantasies, usually left-wing, about how their Utopia will evolve. Hence the rational person, even when infused with strong anarchist leanings, will move on to some flavour of classical liberalism.
* And of course some versions of anarchism don’t like property rights at all, but those ones are utterly flawed.
Wikipedia as a tool to manipulate the masses (0)
Posted 19 August, 2007 in General
A bright spark by the name of Virgil Griffith has come up with WikiScanner, which has caused a bit of a stir. Who’d of thunk it: people manipulate Wikipedia to suit their own purposes, and the bigger the organisation (i.e. major corporations and government) the cleverer and more clandestine they are at manipulating it!
This is hardly a surprise, even with the checks and balances of the Wikipedia staff. Of course the CIA is going to have a vested interest in this, of course a politician will cover up their inconvenient indiscretions, and of course major corporations will see this as a cheap way to maintain corporate image. This is the information age, after all.
I think this really just reveals two things. Firstly, the free information approach offered by the internet is still valid and these kind of operations are just part of that market. Wikipedia is still just as relevant now despite these things being brought to light. In fact, as more of history is recorded in this forum and others like it, it will probably become a more accurate record over the years than the ‘official’ histories. Secondly, despite the first point there will always be a user pays market for premium information services that guarantee a level of impartialiality, accuracy and security from manipulation.
A palindromic song (0)
Posted 19 August, 2007 in Humour
This is just too clever not to get put in the archives: a song in the vein of Bob Dylan with every line a palindromic sentence. I think it’s quite old, but I’ve never seen it before. Excellent geek humour.
(via Tim Blair)
Further research reveals this song is ‘Bob’ by Weird Al” Yankovic. Does anyone know the relevance of the Jews in the background of the clip? Is it because Bob Dylan was Jewish, and this Weird Al’s tribute to him? (I always throught Weird Al himself was a Jew, but Wikipedia indicates otherwise).
Christian contradiction? (1)
Posted 19 August, 2007 in Philosophy
Dave Bath at Balneus believes he has come up with a contradiction within Christianity. To be fair, many people have pondered this question since year zero as it is the core of the faith: salvation through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ due to him bearing the suffering for all our sin. However, to Dave’s credit, I’ve never heard it put as succinctly or heard anyone point out the obvious contradictions with such clarity. Dave writes:
Christianity’s Core Non-Sequitur
February 22nd, 2007 — Dave Bath
There is a central problem with Christian theology not found in the other Abrahamic religions. It may have been raised elsewhere, but I figured it out independently, and it has left theologically-trained people flummoxed and disturbed.First, a thought experiment: Imagine a person faced with the problem of pushing a child (or pregnant woman, person of high value to the community, whatever) out of the way of a bus, and inevitably sacrificing themself in the process. That person decides to take action, and dies. Who is make the greater sacrifice: someone who believes in continued existence in an afterlife or someone who believes that he|she will cease to exist?
The answer is fairly obvious: the one who believes that there is one life and that’s it. The believer in an eternal afterlife is not giving up that much, merely a few early years, and may by the sacrificial act end up in heaven rather than hell.
According to the bible, Jesus was convinced not only of a continued existence after the death of his body, but even his continued corporeal existence on the Earth. Therefore his “sacrifice” was, in his own estimation, fairly low-impact. Where is the redemptive power in in that?
So, either Jesus was mortal, in which case his death was no big deal, or he wasn’t giving up much, in which case the “sacrifice” can’t have redemptive power.
As for the pain: if you know you’ll get through something, it is bearable, like undergoing torture and keeping silent in a good cause. Again, the afterlife-deniers who don’t believe an act will help earn them an eternity of happy harp-playing are suffering more than a believer who thinks the act might help avoid an eternity of brimstone and pitchforks.
This line of thought does not invalidate the existence of a deity, even a benevolent one, or even the details of the Abrahamist deity, but it does pull apart the central thesis of Christianity, the thing making it different from all other religions.
Dave’s response to his own post is also quite thought provoking:
The sacrifice of Jesus Christ definitely holds some mystery, as does His existence as fully man and fully God. My understanding of what happened at the cross was not merely a physical offering. If the penalty for sin is eternal condemnation, then Jesus must, to pay the penalty adequately, suffer the equivalent of that condemnation. I say the “equivalent” because as fully God, He cannot cease to exist, nor continue in a state of separation from Himself (which is the to core of what “Hell” is). But because He is outside of time (for He created all things, including time) He can suffer the equivalent of eternal condemnation in, what seems to us, a moment of time. The physical torture was simply a horrible, but temporary, partner in His sacrifice. I, too, have pondered the mystery of this and have not solidified all conclusions, but the mystery does not make it unbelievable for me. There are plenty of things in my experience that I do not understand, yet still believe.
Unlike Dave, who appears to be able to reconcile these apparent mystical contradictions somewhat with a faith he evidently continues to hold in the ‘real world’, I continue to struggle with the contradictions embodied at the core of the Christian religion. The greatest of these is altruism, as for the vast majority of the time altruistic behaviour to the point of total sacrifice is irrational. Since the very fact human beings know and understand anything about anything is based on their capacity to reason, why would you throw reason out the door when considering the virtues of a religion? Does Dave’s response to his post indicate that there is a reasonable explanation? I don’t believe it’s complete, and evidently his closing sentences would suggest he doesn’t either, but it does suggest there might be something further in this story. I, however, still struggle with the concept of needing something to be a ‘faith’ in order to explain it.
He works at Carphone Warehouse but he’s too classy for Idol (0)
Posted 9 August, 2007 in General
Apparently this guy really is a ‘rags to riches’ story. He works at Carphone Warehouse, loves opera, sings in his spare time, and thought he’d give Idol a shot. The only giveaway is that he’s Welsh, and everyone knows how well those crazy bastards can sing.
His name is Paul Potts. To my untrained ears this is as good as any rendition of Nessun Dorma I’ve ever heard, including Pavarotti, the master himself.
Libertarian parties: rate the websites (2)
Posted 5 August, 2007 in Politics
As a keen libertarian I’d like to see a bit of classical liberalism appear somewhere on the Australian political landscape. Whether that be in an active faction of the Liberal Party (Australia’s leading conservative party), or through an Australian micro-party, I don’t really care.
With regards to micro-parties I’m a long time supporter of the Liberty and Democracy Party (formerly the Liberal Democratic Party), with my wife running as a candidate in the 2004 ACT elections (I can’t run due to being in the military), and myself doing a brief stint on the Federal Executive in 2006. The party has existed for six years now, about to federally registered, and hopefully will get some press coverage in the 2008 Federal Election.
I’ve just come across what appears to be a Scottish micro-party that subscribes to classical liberal values: the Scottish Progressives. Their policies are not specified but they claim to ‘hold to the values of the Scottish Enlightenment – the values of individual liberty, progress, free trade and scientific advancement. I like it.
More to the point, they’ve got a great looking website. I’ll personally vote this as the best looking website I’ve seen for a classical liberalist party. This is even more significant if they are actually a micro-party, and I give them extra points due to the fact that www.westernvalues.org directs to their website, which I actually think is quite cool. Their only negative is that they haven’t adhered to the blue and yellow colour scheme that tends to be used by ’small-l’ liberal parties.
While I’m at it, I’ll throw my second vote to the Free Democratic Party of Germany, and my third to the Libertarian Party of the US, and my fourth to ACT of New Zealand.
Just because he’s a priest doesn’t mean he’s Jesus Christ (0)
Posted 5 August, 2007 in Politics
Catholic priest finds sk8ter punkz skating all over his sandstone church. They’re repeat offenders having done this quite a few times over the years, despite being told to go away. Catholic priest loses it, starts yelling at them to leave, gives one of them a little smack over the head, gets a little racist in his tirade and generally uses language not becoming of a man of the cloth. Unfortunately for him one of the skaters records a video of it on his phone and posts it on YouTube:
While Monsignor Baron (that’s a great name!) has received quite a bit of support in the media he has also been effectively stood down.
I’m sure many will call me simplistic but I think the morality of this case is pretty much cut and dried. The skaters were trespassing, had continued to trespass despite being asked to leave at that time and over the preceding years, and had caused $32k damage to private property. As far as I’m concerned these property crimes were undoubtedly the greatest sins committed that afternoon, and they are serious crimes. As for the priest, as far as being a citizen goes he has no special obligation to behave any differently to what he did, any more than someone of any other profession would, when protecting their own property or any property which the owner has entrusted them with. As he was rightfully on private property and the skaters were trespassing he is fully in his rights as a citizen to use racist or foul language towards them as he is free to say what he wants on his own property, and even to use violence to an appropriate level if they refuse to leave.
Now, as he is employed by a private organisation, they are free to assess his conduct as they see fit. If they find it unbecoming, or that he acted in a way that was not how they wanted him to act, then they are free to sack him or otherwise. Members of that organisation, being members of the Catholic church, are free to voice their opinions of him according to the rules of that organisation. After all, they pay his wages.
However, it would appear to me that the generic condemning of him by the non-Catholics and non-religious people, who are claiming some high moral ground because he is a priest, is in fact morally questionable. He has no obligation to them to behave in any other way than what he did.