27.5.08
The only winning move...
...is to wordpress.com, it turns out. Josh launched his own personal website and hosts his blog there, too, which provided for me the impetus to move sourcefilter over to wordpress.com. This is it for sourcefilter.blogspot.com. All the old posts have been imported to wordpress, and that's where I'll be posting for now. Readers, kindly change your links (i.e., Josh, change your link) to keep the blogosphere orderly. The new location is sourcefilter.wordpress.com.
20.5.08
Left-Leaning Libertarianism
Short (and derivative) post today, but, hey, short (derivative) posts are better than no posts at all (under the questionable assumption that I am, in fact, a blogger).
Anyway, Josh points to some hints that Bob Barr will be the Libertarian Party presidential candidate, which reminded me of a recent Cato-at-liberty post on how non-libertarian Bob Barr was as a representative.
Anyway, Josh points to some hints that Bob Barr will be the Libertarian Party presidential candidate, which reminded me of a recent Cato-at-liberty post on how non-libertarian Bob Barr was as a representative.
16.5.08
I'm back?
Okay, so the last post before this is more than a year old. I've been meaning to get back to blogging, but, clearly, haven't done so (until now). Why now? Two reasons:
1. Josh linked to this blog today, and on the off chance that he has readers that follow that link, I wanted my blog to be less pathetic than a year old post about which serenity character I am most like would suggest it is.
2. I've gotten back into the habit of reading Pharyngula, and there was a silly thing written there today.
Specifically, PZ Myers wrote, in support of a new law in California making gay marriage legal, that "if you want to do something more substantive, promote equal rights legislation in your state, so that all 50 states someday offer this basic privilege to everyone."
The silliness resides in the idea that government can (and should) be offering a 'basic privilege' to everyone.
Privilege, by definition, does not get offered to everyone. This may simply be a semantic nit to pick, but it caught my attention because it is typical of left-leaning gay marriage advocates to discuss gay marriage in terms of rights, not privileges.
In any case, the government should only be in the marriage business insofar as marriage is a form of contract and the legal system may be called upon to protect one or another party's property interests. It is clear to me that pairs of gay adults, like pairs of any adults, should be allowed to enter into any contract, as long as they do so by choice.
That's all for now. I hope to blog more regularly in the (near) future, though it's almost certain I won't be doing so as prolifically as Josh has been lately.
1. Josh linked to this blog today, and on the off chance that he has readers that follow that link, I wanted my blog to be less pathetic than a year old post about which serenity character I am most like would suggest it is.
2. I've gotten back into the habit of reading Pharyngula, and there was a silly thing written there today.
Specifically, PZ Myers wrote, in support of a new law in California making gay marriage legal, that "if you want to do something more substantive, promote equal rights legislation in your state, so that all 50 states someday offer this basic privilege to everyone."
The silliness resides in the idea that government can (and should) be offering a 'basic privilege' to everyone.
Privilege, by definition, does not get offered to everyone. This may simply be a semantic nit to pick, but it caught my attention because it is typical of left-leaning gay marriage advocates to discuss gay marriage in terms of rights, not privileges.
In any case, the government should only be in the marriage business insofar as marriage is a form of contract and the legal system may be called upon to protect one or another party's property interests. It is clear to me that pairs of gay adults, like pairs of any adults, should be allowed to enter into any contract, as long as they do so by choice.
That's all for now. I hope to blog more regularly in the (near) future, though it's almost certain I won't be doing so as prolifically as Josh has been lately.
3.4.07
It's been a while, but this is very, very important.
I should be working on a presentation I have to give in a week to a potentially very tough crowd, but instead, I'm following Josh's lead and taking the 'Which Serenity Character Are You?' quiz (at least, I think it's the same quiz Josh took - his results didn't show up as they should have when I looked, and there was no link, so I had to resort to Google). Anyway, my results are, um, odd (and the bar graphs don't look good in preview, so they probably won't look good in the final post):
You scored as The Operative.
You are dedicated to your job and very good at what you do. You've done some very bad things, but they had to be done. You don't expect to go to heaven, but that is a sacrifice you've made for a better future for all.
All in all, it looks good. Unlike Josh, neither 'A Reaver' nor 'Alliance' appear on my list at all, but then again, I'm apparently most like the completely amoral Operative (with a close second for Zoe!).
Good fun, and it's given me a reason to revive my blog (at least in the short term).
Update: My wife's results (this says something about our family, I'm sure, but who knows what exactly):
You scored as The Operative.
You are dedicated to your job and very good at what you do. You've done some very bad things, but they had to be done. You don't expect to go to heaven, but that is a sacrifice you've made for a better future for all.
Which Serenity character are you? created with QuizFarm.com |
All in all, it looks good. Unlike Josh, neither 'A Reaver' nor 'Alliance' appear on my list at all, but then again, I'm apparently most like the completely amoral Operative (with a close second for Zoe!).
Good fun, and it's given me a reason to revive my blog (at least in the short term).
Update: My wife's results (this says something about our family, I'm sure, but who knows what exactly):
Which Serenity character are you? created with QuizFarm.com |
27.1.07
14.12.06
Pinochet vs. the Free Market
I haven't been posting much to this blog lately, for obvious reasons. However, I did involve myself in a discussion in response to another blog's post recently.
To make a long(ish) story short(ish), Glenn Greenwald was disturbed to see the Washington Post praising recently deceased Chilean ex-dictator Augusto Pinochet. He drew parallels between US support for Pinochet's foreign lawlessness back then and support for domestic lawlessness today (note that he did not draw explicit parallels between Bush and Pinochet - he's not dumb, and he's not dishonest [Greenwald, not Bush or Pinochet]). I felt that the Post's editorial was less awful than Greenwald felt it was, and I posted a comment to that effect.
I argued that, as a historical case study (as opposed to a model on which to base one's own plans), Pinochet's 'free-market' economic policies are distinct from the violent poitical oppression of his regime. I made some facile comparisons between Castro and Pinochet and argued that the relative stability of Chile over the years was due, at least in part, to Pinochet's economic policies.
Others shot back that Pinochet's economic policies weren't even that beneficial, that they don't justify the political oppression (which I explicitly agreed with, even before this 'objection' was made to my argument), that welfare states 'just work', that laissez faire capitalism is equivalent to Dicken's London, and that I am a lying Nazi-sympathizer (way to respect the level of discourse that Glenn studiously maintains, 'truth machine'!).
I don't actually know that much about Pinochet's economic policies. It may well be the case that they were not good for Chile. It does seem to be the case that Chile has been more economically stable, and more economically healthy, than most other Latin American countries for much longer, but I'm happy to admit that this could be for reasons independent of Pinochet's economics. I remain unconvinced that welfare states 'just work' and that laissez faire capitalism is a bad idea. In addition, I value honesty very highly and, for what it's worth, I'm not a big fan of the Nazis.
All that said, it's kind of embarrassing to admit that this morning - a full two days after getting into the discussion at Unclaimed Territory - it occurred to me that Pinochet's economics and politics are not, in fact, separate. I am pro free market primarily because I don't like the idea of someone else making my decisions for me. It seems to me that no government official, whether democratically elected or installed from abroad, has the wisdom to plan an economy better than the mass of humanity participating in a market can. There's certainly no reason to think that any government officials are better suited than individuals are to make day to day decisions about who to associate with, what to buy, what to sell, or how hard to work. I think everyone would be better off, at least in the long run, if they had the opportunities afforded them by free markets.
It should have been obvious to me on Tuesday that imprisoning, torturing, and murdering political opponents is 100% antithetical to these values. It is as clear as day (today anyway) that Pinochet's political oppression of Chileans represents an utter lack of respect for private property, a crucial underpinning of any truly free market. After all, if a person's self is not owned by that person, then what is?
To make a long(ish) story short(ish), Glenn Greenwald was disturbed to see the Washington Post praising recently deceased Chilean ex-dictator Augusto Pinochet. He drew parallels between US support for Pinochet's foreign lawlessness back then and support for domestic lawlessness today (note that he did not draw explicit parallels between Bush and Pinochet - he's not dumb, and he's not dishonest [Greenwald, not Bush or Pinochet]). I felt that the Post's editorial was less awful than Greenwald felt it was, and I posted a comment to that effect.
I argued that, as a historical case study (as opposed to a model on which to base one's own plans), Pinochet's 'free-market' economic policies are distinct from the violent poitical oppression of his regime. I made some facile comparisons between Castro and Pinochet and argued that the relative stability of Chile over the years was due, at least in part, to Pinochet's economic policies.
Others shot back that Pinochet's economic policies weren't even that beneficial, that they don't justify the political oppression (which I explicitly agreed with, even before this 'objection' was made to my argument), that welfare states 'just work', that laissez faire capitalism is equivalent to Dicken's London, and that I am a lying Nazi-sympathizer (way to respect the level of discourse that Glenn studiously maintains, 'truth machine'!).
I don't actually know that much about Pinochet's economic policies. It may well be the case that they were not good for Chile. It does seem to be the case that Chile has been more economically stable, and more economically healthy, than most other Latin American countries for much longer, but I'm happy to admit that this could be for reasons independent of Pinochet's economics. I remain unconvinced that welfare states 'just work' and that laissez faire capitalism is a bad idea. In addition, I value honesty very highly and, for what it's worth, I'm not a big fan of the Nazis.
All that said, it's kind of embarrassing to admit that this morning - a full two days after getting into the discussion at Unclaimed Territory - it occurred to me that Pinochet's economics and politics are not, in fact, separate. I am pro free market primarily because I don't like the idea of someone else making my decisions for me. It seems to me that no government official, whether democratically elected or installed from abroad, has the wisdom to plan an economy better than the mass of humanity participating in a market can. There's certainly no reason to think that any government officials are better suited than individuals are to make day to day decisions about who to associate with, what to buy, what to sell, or how hard to work. I think everyone would be better off, at least in the long run, if they had the opportunities afforded them by free markets.
It should have been obvious to me on Tuesday that imprisoning, torturing, and murdering political opponents is 100% antithetical to these values. It is as clear as day (today anyway) that Pinochet's political oppression of Chileans represents an utter lack of respect for private property, a crucial underpinning of any truly free market. After all, if a person's self is not owned by that person, then what is?
5.12.06
Solomon T Silbert
My son - Solomon T Silbert - was born on Monday, December 4, 2006 at 10 AM.
Here is a picture of him when he was about one minute old:
More here.
Here is a picture of him when he was about one minute old:
More here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)