Finally got the time to read this in one go - not only
does it engender cheerful agreement,
self-congratulatory vindication, unpleasant
self-recognition, and nodding determination, but it
also ties-in to recent threads from 'Lord of the
Rings' through Robert Kagan to Official Statements.
--- Bryon Daly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
Have you guys read Dr. Brin's keynote speech for the
Libertarian Party National
Convention? He's published it here:
http://www.kithrup.com/brin/libertarianarticle1.html
What do you think of it?
From page 2:
According to the philosophical tradition first
expressed by Plato, our world is made up of essences
or quasi-linguistic elements that are more fundamental
than the murky world of complex physical people and
objects. Belief in these essences retarded the arrival
of Galilean science for 2,000 years, because it was so
widely assumed that a real thinker would prefer to
spend time pondering pure thoughts, than getting dirty
with experiments.
To a religious person these essences are articles of
faith. To men of reason, they can be logical
syllogisms or well-wrought ideological principles.
(Ain't it odd that faith and reason are so often
viewed as polar opposites? To a pragmatist, they look
like very close cousins, operating under the same very
questionable assumption -- that words can somehow
over-rule gritty reality.)
Oh, I like! ;)
While I'm not sure I agree with everything he says,
I thought that overall, it was a
brilliant speech. For me, there were several Wow -
I never thought of it *that way*!
moments and other ideas that really gave me some new
perspectives on things.
Frex, the 'objective reality' folks (whom I was unable
to articulate my distrust of, but felt nevertheless):
Rather than deal in gritty tests and iterative
experimentation, [Ann] Rand used objective reality
as a mantric phrase -- an incantatory touchstone that
served as a rock, an unquestionable axiomatic
foundation. In effect, an article of faith.
Around this she would go on to weave cajoling and
persuading rhythms, almost identical in form to the
Plato's Socratic dialogues, such as Phaedrus -- and,
indeed, similar to much of the Marxist dialexctic --
...Central to this zeitgeist is the implied and
desired assumption of mental superiority...
smugness
About regulations, he notes That the urge to regulate
should always face a steep and constantly renewed
burden of proof.
Science has learned recently that contempt and
indignation are addictive mental states. I mean
physically and chemically addictive. Literally! People
who are self-righteous a lot are apparently doping
themselves rhythmically with auto-secreted surges of
dopamine, endorphins and enkephalins. Didn't you ever
ask yourself why indignation feels so good?
...Can we step back to see that this emotional need
to feel superior runs deeper than any of our
superficial differences over politics and ideology? It
makes you far more like your opponents than you would
ever like to admit.
In other words, spanning all extremes of reason and
morality, it's human.
shakes head from karmic slappage Ouch!
Thou shalt not offend others.
Thou shalt not allow thyself to be offended too
easily.
I think I can try to live with that.
In an echo of one of Kagan's themes, on page 4 he
notes: In other words, the precondition necessary for
creating paradise is... near-paradise. And, viewed in
the context of human history, that is exactly what
we've got right now. (Although Kagan felt that
America was denied that state, I think Brin's view is
closer to current reality.)
I also would like to see what other people think
about this specific excerpt from the
speech (from pg. 3):
I snipped this further
When it comes to imposing or eliminating
government regulation, which of the major parties is
the 'lesser of evils'?
Not enough of a hint? Well, for now, just try
on one irony. We are used to the cliché that
Democrats favor
freedom in the bedroom while Republicans favor
freedom in the boardroom. But look over the last 30
years. How many industries have been
deregulated to a degree that's more than cosmetic? I
count trucking, banking, real estate,
telecommunications, airlines and parcel post. And
the 'industry' of the
Welfare Program. Now ask, how many or these
major steps were taken as Republican initiatives and
how many Democratic?
I haven't been a serious political follower, so I'm
not sure about the origins of all those initiatives,
but I suspect they were mostly Republican ones - (am
I wrong on this?)
NAFTA (trucking, among others) came in under Clinton,
but I don't know if Dems initiated it. My political
saavy is still in infancy... :)
As my last reading of anything Heinlein was over 2
decades ago, I'll consider re-trying. Maybe. :/
Deborafu Harureruru
__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
