Rat Races Van Mices?

Re: Barberization^ ?


Dequilting Platonics ... ? or DecomPart Meantalizing* Plato?  (Related reading problematics**).

* two unread reviews of a "have read".
** un-quilted 
reboot:quil  un-**ted (Not to disparage Sandel ...Slash Segue... but to weave or needle the*** dilemma.)
*** HayesTact (Bonus Straw ? ) O - W


^ Credit: streamica for the following side-bar there.
The Man versus The State (Forward) by Herbert Spencer
views: 1640
@LibertyInOurTime 1485 days ago

Audio presentation of Herbert Spencer's classic 1884 book 'The Man versus The State.' Read and produced by Jock Coats and made available online by the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Herbert Spencer lived long enough to witness both the hey-day of classical liberal reform in the mid-nineteenth century—the repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846 which ushered in a period of virtual free trade in Britain—and the gradual decline of classical liberalism towards the end of the nineteenth century. It is the latter which helps explain the grumpiness expressed in his later writings such as the collection of essays entitled Facts and Comments (1902). Spencer was born in Derby, England in 1820 to a strict, non-conformist family, and died in 1903. As a young man, Spencer worked for the leading free trade journal of the day, The Economist, from 1848-1853 during which time his first significant book appeared—Social Statics (1850). Here he worked with James Wilson, one of the most consistent advocates of laissez-faire in Britain, Nassau Senior, one of the leading members of the classical school of political economy, and Thomas Hodgskin, a radical individualist author. Much of the rest of his life was spent working on an all-encompassing theory of human development based upon the ideas of individualism, utilitarian moral theory, social and biological evolution, limited government, and laissez-faire economics. In his later writings, most notably The Principles of Sociology (1876-1896), he drew a sharp distinction between the peaceful productivity of free market societies ("the industrial type of society") and the social conflict, political privilege, and proclivity to war and empire inherent in societies with "over-legislation" ("the militant type of society"). In The Man Versus The State (1884) Spencer argued that the politics of vested interests and the increasing demand for economic regulation would lead to a new form of "slavery" and a "rebarbarization" of society. The rise of pro-interventionist "New Liberalism" in the 1880s and 1890s and the outbreak of the Boer War in 1899 confirmed his worst fears. (Source: Liberty Fund, Inc.) Read 'The Man versus The State' online: http://www.econlib.org/library/LFBooks/Spencer/spnMvS.htmlLinks

links to more online books and essays by Herbert Spencer: The Right to Ignore the Statehttp://mises.org/daily/2624The Reality of Political Momentumhttp://mises.org/daily/4772Education: Intellectual, Moral, and Physicalhttp://mises.org/resources/4968From Freedom to Bondagehttp://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=313 The Principles of Ethics, Volume 1http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=333The Principles of Ethics, Volume 2http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=334Political Institutions, being Part V of the Principles of Sociologyhttp://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1336Justice: Being Part IV of the Principles of Ethicshttp://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1100Essays: Scientific, Political and Speculative, Vol. 1http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=335Essays: Scientific, Political and Speculative, Vol. 2http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=336Essays: Scientific, Political, and Speculative, Vol. 3http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=337Essays on Education and Kindred Subjectshttp://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2249The Study of Sociologyhttp://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1335Social Staticshttp://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=273The Principles of Psychologyhttp://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1394The Data of Ethicshttp://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=331First Principleshttp://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1390Links to essays about Herbert Spencer and his works: Herbert Spencer: Libertarian Prophet by Roderick T. Longhttp://praxeology.net/herbertspencerlibertarianprophet.pdfHerbert Spencer: The Defamation Continues by Roderick T. Longhttp://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/long3.htmlHerbert Spencer: Social Darwinist or Libertarian Prophet? by Peter Richardshttp://mises.org/daily/4779From Spencer's 1884 to Orwell's 1984 by Henry Hazlitthttp://mises.org/daily/2680The Development of Herbert Spencer's Concept of Evolution by Robert M. Younghttp://www.human-nature.com/rmyoung/papers/spencer.html

FYI: I have a collection of Herber Spencer's Books, having only read First Principles.  

Update: 2-22-14  Images C-Labels /T

 

 

 

GPS- general practice syndrome?

Retro-Gate

Iran-Contra, WMD, October No-Surprise.

Not to preemptively prophet[!]
Not to bring back the draft,
but here are some posts held in draft.

Update: Muffin Gate: Miff In Gate


Pulled from draft today!
[Oops, a bit redundant]
Great Ledership
It's Mad[!]

[!] = sarcasm / spelling as intended = [sp!]
Close enough for journal work?

[10-3-11 Just to be clear, I believe in nuance and the law, but as different fields. What I can't say is that I am clearly satire, but the field might be mis-ledership***. But not to coin a new field, here are some other* perspectives, not to say they are the same field. (two video, two scroll overs)

*after the break: Stewart on NRA / teaching** to the test? NOT!]
** speaking of headings*** or retro
*** footnote to clarify later:
moral economics(INET/Robert Reich)& even later
BTW: sub-heading(Just to be clear...) I did not mean to wind-up a G'Ribble, but you can't judge a target by its aim, fear-mongers need a boogie-man. Aims are directions not bulls-eyes.

Definition: G'Ribble- grand ribbing and riddle

[*4] Ratigan and Perugia: processes

In the Mean Time...

I will have to stop jam packing so much meaning into my posts.
One point, not that I will start counting, is that the President has put so much on the table, the only place to put more may be under it.  Even there may be a tight fit, what with the war on tactics and the given perspectives.
(A- B)
(X-Y-Z)

[speaking of fit ]

Seg way
[emphasis anachronistic: How profit(s)ic? ]
[But an earlier mean time.]

note: C-(s)ic  not the original intent of "mean time".
[1-15-12 meaning pun on prophet(sic) slash pro fits, and what fits on the table.  Speaking of seg ways, "This Week*" covers a few, while I am still digging into Occupy Seattle.]

*and anachronisms: George Will is surprised (at 42:12) there is not more money in speech/politics "considering the stakes of our politics in allocating wealth and opportunity".  And there is a good bit on context.



< previous post >

Said Relief?

Who said, he Said, they said.

Egypt Update.
Speaking of Journalism** or freedom's intent.
Other Associations and Said Groups...

Note preemptive nature of links, as not all are read fully nor sometimes more than scrolled over.

In that vein, here is another mid-read comment--
--
The Prophet Margin* or "Decartes Bones"(not 2 mention) quote:(p.XIX)

Most people seem to be caught between these tidal currents--the pull to faith and tradition in a dangerous world, the argument that religion is at the core of the world's problems and only a revived commitment to individual freedoms and rights will steer humanity into a better future.

Colin Slee said about England:"You have a triangle with fundamentalist secularists in one corner, fundamentalist faith people in another, and then the intelligent, thinking liberals of Anglicanism, Roman Catholicism, baptism and methodism, other faiths--and, indeed, thinking atheists--in the other corner."

--

* my characterization although I do not necessarily appreciate the characterizations that follow, but it is the Ge Oh Me Try, not to mention who is at the table.

** link lost in editing(still looking) maybe found.
[along the same line, the first link is too embedded in comment on journalism and comment, while the last link on "freedoms"(edit to possessive)is embedded with preemptive history and irony
(ex. Alexander Hamilton against the Bill of Rights, yet for a National Bank.)]
[Journalism link now replaced and here is an un-embedded link from it.]

Speaking of Relief:or spin zones or characterizations. 'nO'Really!

[Said Review: Post an achronism. (Relative to perspectivism)]

Cropping the News?

The Daily Show Lewis Black cedes Beck.
The Colbert Report Colbert routes FOX.
Some weep what they so**.
Sow check* your crop.

*thanks to Casey Kasem
** and some misspell
[updates: 5-17-10 Commity(sp?!), Charlie Rich?, the Free*** Market?, Re;-)sources?(Comity Label added)]

*** non-value or non-prophet

There is a point.

If the first casualty of war is the truth.  Information may be a tactic.  It's a difficult Al Gore Rhythm.  Not that I agree with much of the original post-9-11 legislation, it is tricky business to play Jenga with the world it has create.  I don't believe that bulk data collection is tantamount to a violation of the fourth amendment.  Not that protections don't need to be reconsidered*.

*2/20 speaking of filters and prophet ability  

StandUp

This is a wisecrack.
[Actually I did not have the link in mind when I started this post, but unlike many I insert, I have read it completely. I had also previously been wondering why Paul Krugman does not have more influence. I think it is because he does not talk down to his readers, and if he does, the rest of his message is not understood. Not to continue some word play on the letter T, but timing is sometimes everything. Well, nothing is ever everything, but it is always a part of change and existence. So in this case, I suggest that another Key is Obama. Just like the Laugher Curve and one could say that it is more about location, (No Real Estate Pun), please read the above Paul Krugman column with timing, and location in mind. So...sides aside(Keynesian** is not Kenyan) keep in mind that change depends on both timing and location, not to mention that* in other areas***.

* time, location and changes(and our global relationships)
** not to vouch for wisegeek(or ads by google: i.e. Mises, or the Austrian School) let alone wikipedia [And not to emphasize government involvement, but more than just monetary and fiscal involvement.]
*** Field Theory
[Not to be a non-profit prophet, but what about the lameduck congress? And not just to pun, but what is the political calculus of the many bills pending from the House and chance for reconciliation.]
[And speaking of timing, Ed Schultz is not live, but he began his show saying you cannot build a party from the middle. Now by dropping his name I hope you have not tuned out, but I don't mean to agree with everything he says. He was saying this to both parties, or at least to me he was. Maybe he was saying it more to the Democrats, but it should be clear that whatever the Tea Party is, I doubt it is the middle, but it does depend on if you(we) are governing or running, and we should do the former.]

Cherry paraphrasing.

The Seattle Times editorial today titled: Kerry's right to slam the president on Iraq.(see link) I agree when they say his Iraq vote and recent claim was "... not a 'flip-flop.' It is sensible and consistent."

However I might feel like a flip-flopper if I disagree with a Kerry statement. It takes too much nuance to separate from Bush.
Kerry: "The terrorists are beyond reason. We must destroy them. As president, I will do whatever it takes, as long as it takes, to defeat our enemies."

Then Domke and Coe had their column, Bush's fundamentalism: the president as prophet.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2002043481_domke23.html
They conclude "To the great detriment of American democracy and the global public, the president's view looks remarkably similar to that of the terrorist we are fighting."

The "beyond reason" part of Kerry now clicks. It does not mean that reason will be part of the nothing* that Bush claims to be above. Terrorists or anyone beyond reason cannot negate the consideration of what got them there. The words chosen are important to some. For some there is cause and effect, for some it seems out of the blue. Being above or beyond reason does not mean it does not still work in some reality. To some there may be no space between the two candidates, but for one thing Kerry will be no Bush.

We have come a long way from the George who chopped down the cherry tree to George the cherry picker of realities. From the one that turned down a crown, to the one that joked that things would be easier if he were dictator, we now have the comment by the Iraqi leader we should not be having a debate at this time. It does not say much for our recent exporting of democracy. The earlier dismissal of old Europe as our allies says more about our listening to others and now we have new friends telling us about democracy. Who elected them by George?

It seems that there is a Catch 22 here. Times two equals Catch 44. It seems inside out of sorts but the President put it best roughly on intelligence. You got this over here and that over there and more and then you got reality. It should be easy to see why being in charge he must just say, make it so.

* see previous "nothing" post (also I acknowledge this difficult sentence but what about Bush's here. http://blog.seattletimes.nwsource.com/betweenthelines/archives/2004_09_23.html#005342
(A rare case of him meaning what he said, but he did miss the question. Ironically also the topic inserted with in this piece, and he never checks polls, what about votes?)

Then we have an acknowledgement by Rumsfeld that some areas may not vote in Iraq. Sounds familiar. The media is not presenting the good news, because it is unsafe for them to be there, but imagine not being able to hold elections in the capital. Oh. Good model. Times two. It's just getting too much.