A Pox On All Their Houses

Image via WikipediaI don't know if I am more depressed at the prospects of human liberty or the density of the average human mind. But I am finding it more and more difficult to rant with enthusiasm. It is almost like yelling at a wall to get out of my way.

Years back when I used to lurk on the alt.atheism newsgroup finding comfort in the company of like-minded apostates, I learned two things (only two):

1. Disputes over ideas are a proxy for dispute over territory. Even the intellectual man is a territorial animal.
2. Atheists are as much given to bouts of irrationality as those who believe in the concept of God.

The above hold true for any kind of intellectual. Even Anarchists. If there is anything an Anarchist hates more than aggression against his person and property, it's another Anarchist who doesn't agree with him completely.

I am understandably world-weary.

I have decided to stop my Intemperate Remarks against God, State, and mankind. I have decided to be more poised, stoic, and graceful in the face of the slings and arrows of outragous fortune. In other words develop a sense of humour. I'll not be posting here any more. Not regularly, anyway. I'll be posting at my new blog, Strange Blue Planet. I have also changed my profile from,

I am a radically misfit Desi living on the periphery of polite society. I am a tax-slave by occupation and an anarchist by inclination. I have a problem with authority.

...to something more tempered. Hope to see you at my new blog.

PS: The title of this post is borrowed from Adem Kupi's blog of the same name.

Quip of the Day: H L Mencken

"Democracy is also a form of worship. It is the worship of Jackals by Jackasses."
-- H L Mencken

Thanks, Bryan Caplan, for the quote.

George Carlin, RIP

Thanks, Anthony Gregory.

The Impossibility of Altruism

"Brainpolice" at the Polycentric Order has a wonderful essay on the immorality of altruism. I'll not repeat what the essence of altruism is. I'll let Brainpolice do the talking:

"It [altruism] essentially proposes that the individual has an unchosen positive obligation to serve others and that their fundamental purpose in life is to serve others. On the flip side, self-interest is essentially demonized as immoral...Altruism as an ethic implies unchosen positive obligations. If an individual does not live up to this positive obligation they are viewed as immoral rights violators and they are supposed to be compulsed to live up to the obligation."

But consistent altruism is impossible in practice, and inconsistent altruism (the only type possible in practice) is immoral. I have often wanted to put this in words, but Brainpolice beat me to it, and with greater eloquence:

"If the principle of altruism were universally applied to all human beings, and of course it never is and it would be impossible to do consistently enforce it in the real world, the implication is that everyone is each other's slave. Since this cannot be realized in practise, since it defies fundamental facts about human existence, motivation and behavior, what one ends up with is at least two distinct classes of people: the masters and the slaves."

Let me explain the paradox with a lifeboat scenario.

Let say 10 people are in a boat and the boat is taking in water. If one of them leaves the boat (and drowns) the other 9 can be saved. On the other hand, if all the 10 people are "selfish" and no one choose to sacrifice his lives, the boat sinks and they all drown.

How can this dilemma to be resolved? The usual response is to appeal to altruism. Sacrifice of the individual for the greater good, and that sort of thing. But altruism cannot resolve this problem, as we'll see.

Let's say we live in an altruist society and all the 10 in the boat are sincerely altruistic. There will still be an impasse, since everyone will want to sacrifice his life to save the other 9. In such case all the 10 will leave the boat and drown, since no one wants to be seen wanting in his/her altruistic duty.

What is required is one person to be altruistic and the rest to benefit from his sacrifice. How is it to be decided who sacrifices himself for the greater good?

Traditionally there have been several ways to determine who gets to sacrifice. Usually it is someone whose loss has the least impact on the future prospects of those surviving. E.g., it's customary for men to sacrifice for women, and women for children. The implication being that women and children are more valuable to the race or species than men. From the species' collectivist perspective this makes perfect sense, but it makes no sense at all for the individual (unless he values the survivors above his own life).

It is also customary for people of inferior rank to sacrifice themselves for their superiors. The politician, the military officer, or the nobleman can expect the riff-raff to sacrifice for their benefit.

In both the above cases, those surviving are being selfish, whereas the one dying is either altruistic or expected by the survivors to be so. This creates two classes of people on the boat: those in position of privilege and those in position of weakness. In other words, the hypocrites and their scapegoat, or masters and slaves.

This isn't altruism, and if it is, altruism is not a moral ethic and no one has a duty to submit to it.

Get Your Own Gun Free Zone Today!

Finally, an affordable and effective solution to gun violence: get yourself a "Gun Free Zone".

Check out a demo of how this revolutionary product works. It's a charm.

In case you wondered, yes, this blog is a Gun Free Zone! So put your gun away, cowboy!

Petroschadenfreude

Greenies and lefties in general hate SUVs, and for good reason. SUVs are supposed to be the single largest cause of pollution, climate change, war, terrorism, water-table depletion, deforestation, droughts, floods, third-world poverty, unwed teen-pregnancy, drug-trafficking, corruption, low prices, extreme pornography, and really bad music. All right, I am overstating my case, but SUVs are, like, totally bad.

Obviously the lefty solution for SUVs (like every other problem) is some sort of governmental action. It doesn't occur to them that the market can solve the problem, if there is one, peacefully and without the use of a gun. But lefties don't believe in the market. So they can't see the irony when they celebrate an outcome they desire brought about by the market. To wit, this Ted Rall cartoon:


"Market Justice" rocks, if I may say so.

Your Property Are Ours

The Indian nanny state is on the march. From 2nd Oct, 2008 (a day after Mohandas Gandhi's birth anniversary) smoking in "public places" will be banned. The Times of India reports the glad tidings with unmistakable glee:

"Your employer may no longer take kindly to your smoking in office, and may even go to the length of forcing you to quit smoking altogether!"

Gee, am I thankful! If you ever believed that the media was fighting for your rights, believe no more. The media is the right-hand of the State in the crusade to save you from yourself. It actually may be throwing in some ideas on what else to improve in you.

The scare quotes around "public places" are needed because public places don't no more mean what they used to. Public place is any place where the general public is allowed or invited to enter. A private restaurant is a "public place" under this definition. So is a hotel or an office building. So is your house during a garage sale.

Under the modern concept of property rights you may no longer set the terms under which people may visit your property. A third party--the Govt, uninvited by you, sets the terms. To the uninitiated it might look like the Govt owns the property, and you are merely the manager. This is true in other situations, too. You cannot refuse the Govt entry to your premises. (If you do they will violently break in anyway.) The Govt can "buy" your property from you at any price it deems fit, and you may not refuse. And more importantly, you have to keep paying the Govt rent on the property (also known as property tax) which if you don't, will lead to the Govt throwing you out of your property without any compensation. If one looks at the arrangement with the eyes of the uninitiated one has to wonder if any such thing as private property even exists!

Readers impatient with splitting hairs might want to consider this: The nannyism of the Govt doesn't have to, and will certainly not, stop with the oppression of smokers. Once it is accepted in principle that it is all right to force someone to quit what is popularly considered harmful, it sets a dangerous precedence. Nothing stops the self-appointed do-gooders from banning other things today generally considered acceptable: alcohol, bhang, fried snacks, ice creams, candies, potato chips, red-meat, white meat, beef, non-vegetarian food in general, cheese, butter, soda--the list is endless. And it doesn't need to stop at food. Once your freedom to choose is subordinated to the will of the omniscient social planner, you'll be told exactly what (and what not) to read, watch, listen, or do. After all hasn't it been established in principle that a bunch of do-gooders sitting in New Delhi know more about your own good that you yourself do? And they have the legislated right to force you to do it.

This might sound like a lot of scaremongering, and in fact the Govt and the media will tell you as much, but one just needs look around in other countries. They haven't stopped at drugs and tobacco. There's is no reason to imagine the Indian Govt will stop at drugs and tobacco either. There's actually more for us to fear. The proclivity for nannyism and the public's acceptance of it is much more pronounced here than in the Anglo-Saxon countries.

Ultimately, each one of us has to answer this question: do I wish to live and die the way I like--often foolishly and dangerously but always in freedom, or do I wish to live and die in (presumed) safety but according to the diktats of unknown people holding a gun to my head.

If your answer is the first, tell the totalitarian busybodies to get off your property and go fornicate with themselves. If your answer is the second, well, go home and leave us in peace. We seek not your council, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our country men.

PS: Obligatory confession--I don't smoke, though every "World No Tobacco Day" I am heavily tempted to take up smoking, if only to give the powers that be the finger.