Why yes. Once you understand that "the world" could care less about you, things get a lot easier. I mean, really, all the "EarthFirsters" get their panties in a twist about someone having a cookout, but forget what a minute impact all the barbecues in the world in a single year have compared to a single minor volcanic eruption.

Hell, the Goracle and his Gaia worshipers will probably get all their anti-human glow-bull warming crap in place just in time for Yellowstone to erupt.

God truly has a wickid sense of humah. Ayuh...
AW1 Tim | Email | Homepage | 12.30.08 - 4:31 pm | #

Someone needs to explain to your friend the principle of Triage. And we need to apply that principle to our society.

Wonderfully written, Mrs Byrne.
og | Email | Homepage | 12.30.08 - 4:52 pm | #

Entropy rules, though we test against it unceasingly, as we should.
yahyah ibn alli | Email | Homepage | 12.30.08 - 7:03 pm | #

I am perfect, but everyone else sucks, some less than others.

Welcome to me "sucks less than others" list.
Kristopher | Email | Homepage | 12.30.08 - 7:45 pm | #

I operate from the principle that Murphy was an optimist.

I also take much comfort in the wisdom of the Deteriorata
Randy | Email | Homepage | 12.30.08 - 8:29 pm | #

Oh, gods! Don't get me started on this. To my mom, if things aren't perfect, then they're an utter and complete disaster.
Cybrludite | Email | Homepage | 12.31.08 - 2:10 am | #

Wow. This has many applications. The difference between socialists and conservatives, for example.

Socialists think if we all join hands and sing kumbayah life will be good and everyone will love everyone else. People will help their fellow man because it's the right thing to do.

Conservatives think some people do good things most of the time because it's in their best interest to do so because of positive reinforcement (ca$h, needs met, some incentive) or negative reinforcement (prison, death, pain). Some people are bad regardless. Sometimes they're so bad that society must remove them from the planet.
1911Man | Email | Homepage | 12.31.08 - 6:26 am | #

I was having the same discussion last night, trying to explain why Chicago politics was so convoluted in twenty words or less. His first question to me after explaining it was "But Obama stayed out of that, right?"

I think I annihilated a small part of his happy place when I gave him my assessment of ward politics, making nice with neighborhood bosses and ensuring that trash gets picked up as long as people vote the right way. Again his question was "But Obama stayed out of that, right?"

Each time he asked I said "No."

I'd like all Illinois politicians to be honest stewards of public funds, upstanding men and women who listen to their constituents and work to make a better society. I'd also like Vermont carry rules to be enacted across the U.S. Neither is going to happen very soon.
SoupOrMan | Email | Homepage | 12.31.08 - 7:23 am | #

"I'd like all Illinois politicians to be honest stewards of public funds, upstanding men and women who listen to their constituents and work to make a better society. I'd also like Vermont carry rules to be enacted across the U.S."

I'd like a unicorn to stop by each friday in summer and eat my lawn down to the proper height, and poop bags of fertilizer, then stack them in the shed. I bet I get MY wish first!!

As a hoosier who works in Illinois, I feel sorry for my Illinois bretheren, I pray for them, and i thank GOD I don't live there.
og | Email | Homepage | 12.31.08 - 7:45 am | #

Well, humans aren't perfect. One does not need to say "nothing is perfect" to acknowledge that fact, nor does the fact that humans are not perfect prove that nothing is perfect. We can't have any idea of "not perfect" without some idea of "perfect." You're saying that humans are imperfect, and by saying that, you're saying that men lack something that should be there: an imperfection, by its very definition.

As you seem to surmise, it is insanity to hold the idea that imperfect men can make up the difference of their own imperfections. (That the State can make people good, for example.) The most individuals can do is increase their own perfection with help from an outside source, and minimize the damage done by others' imperfections.

In themselves, hard work, diligence and observation can lead to any end, good or evil. That is why you cannot have a war against a negation: you must fill the world with a positive order, but from whence does that order come? Are you able, of your own will and ability, to make yourself more perfect?

The world is imperfect to the degree that the beings in the world do not act in accordance with their natures. Fire is being perfect fire when it burns someone's skin off, and a bullet is acting in accordance with its nature as it speeds out of a barrel. The imperfection comes from the fact that fire and bullets should never have the opportunity to burn someone's skin off or kill another person, especially when the fire or weapon is wielded by some agent of the State trying to make other people good at the point of a bayonet.

Suffering itself is an imperfection. A natural (as opposed to moral) evil. Evil is not an entity itself, but a privation of a good that should exist. Evil only has existence in relation to a positive good. There is no such thing as "pure evil."

As for "needing a government," [State] it pains me to think that some people still believe that a bunch of imperfect men, working with other people's money obtained by force or the threat thereof, and who can force you to fight for their continued existence, somehow pose less of a risk than a few imperfect men operating with their own earned funds.

To paraphrase Joseph Sobran, do you really think that any individual, group of individuals, or corporation, acting on their own earned incomes could have the means or incentive to slaughter 200,000,000 human beings in the span of a single century?

Shopkeepers, tradesmen, homebuilders, fishermen, and the like, have no vested interest in making war. They want to defend what they have from an actual and immediate threat, and go the hell home. Politicians, on the other hand, do have a vested interest in making war. They get the feeling of being important, having obscenely huge amounts of arbitrary violent power over other men, monetary kickbacks of other people's robbed money from weapons manufacturers, and the adulation and support of the young wolf whelps who rely on them for their livelihood (being a hired killer: there's no nice way of putting it.)

If you vote, you like politicians. You think they're more virtuous and less dangerous than common street thugs. Why else would you choose another man to rule over you every four years?
Kolbe | Email | Homepage | 12.31.08 - 8:03 am | #

"To paraphrase Joseph Sobran, do you really think that any individual, group of individuals, or corporation, acting on their own earned incomes could have the means or incentive to slaughter 200,000,000 human beings in the span of a single century?"

Oh hell yes, I do.

Take Ghengis Khan for example, or the various tribes that managed to sack Rome. Throughout history, individuals have banded together in order to make war on others just on the basis of greed or hate. What stops the barbarians at the gates, other than a coalition of individuals who band together to protect their own interests and their allies? That is the vary basis of government, at the most basic level.

All government starts as a coalition of individuals protecting their own interests and recognizing power in numbers. Where it goes from there is the real problem.
Melody Byrne | Email | Homepage | 12.31.08 - 8:19 am | #

"If you vote, you like politicians."

This, of course, is false. I vote, and I dislike politicans intensely.

" You think they're more virtuous and less dangerous than common street thugs. "

This, of course, is also false.

"Why else would you choose another man to rule over you every four years?"

Because NOT choosing means someone else makes the choice for you.
og | Email | Homepage | 12.31.08 - 8:28 am | #

"Where it goes from there is the real problem."

Truer words are rarely spoken. It is PRECISELY because people don't vote, or vote their feelings instead of their brains.
og | Email | Homepage | 12.31.08 - 8:30 am | #

"If we could keep from getting sick, things would be perfect. If we just didn't mess with other people and kept our own boundaries, we wouldn't need government because everything would be perfect."

Right. This is completely true. Nevertheless, my response remains "yes, that's true, and if things worked that way life would be essentially perfect. Now, welcome to Earth, where things aren't that way, and we have to cope with the way things actually are, rather than sitting on our butts fantasizing about how we wish things would be."

It's annoying to have to explain to anarchists that, although I think they're actually closer to being right than the political mainstream is, they're still _wrong_ on a number of details, and those details are of critical importance.

The state was not imposed on mankind by God. We lived without it once, and decided that life with it would be better than life without it. On the basis of evidence in modern cases where it goes away, it looks like that decision had a lot of merit, however much we might justifiably hate the particular states we find ourselves saddled with at any given time. Moreover, whenever it goes away completely, some entity answering to the same functional definition if not actually the same name inevitably emerges...and generally takes a form any sensible person would regard as inferior to the prior state of affairs.

The state should be kept as small as possible, true...but no smaller.
Matt | Email | Homepage | 12.31.08 - 12:34 pm | #

The world and the universe are perfect in harmony or in chaos. It's just another day in Paradise. Now if you do not believe that, well then all you need to do is to change your concept of perfection.

Happy New Year,
Glenn B
Anonymous | Email | Homepage | 12.31.08 - 12:54 pm | #

You guys named your dog after Chris' mom (or at least, gave it a name pronounced the same)??? Family issues aside, that is still all kinds of fucked up.
Netpackrat | Email | Homepage | 12.31.08 - 1:56 pm | #

Another set of assumptions is the old Platonic one, where everything was perfect, and things have degenerated since that Golden Age.

Assumptions like that tend to lead either to crazy ways to "improve" everyone back to Golden Age Perfection or (like Plato) arrest all change on the grounds that further change can (almost) only be further degeneration.

The first way of interpreting a Golden Age assumption is hard to distinguish from normal Progressive "humans can be perfected" assumption, and makes little practical difference from it.

The second way, though, really looks like a "third way" between "people are inherently good or at least can be made so" and "people aren't inherently good but maybe we can do some good with what we've got, fallible as it is".
Sigivald | Email | Homepage | 12.31.08 - 3:18 pm | #

Melody wrote:

"Take Ghengis Khan for example, or the various tribes that managed to sack Rome."

I said, "Acting with their own earned (not sacked, not looted, not pillaged) incomes.)" That tends to exclude barbarians, whether they are independents, republicans or democrats.

Melody wrote:

"Throughout history, individuals have banded together in order to make war on others just on the basis of greed or hate.

What stops the barbarians at the gates, other than a coalition of individuals who band together to protect their own interests and their allies? That is the vary basis of government, at the most basic level."

There is a difference between "government" and "state." I have absolutely no problem with government qua "one who governs another," so long as the enterprise is entirely voluntarily-funded and leaves non-criminals (those who did not violate the life or property of others) alone.

"All government starts as a coalition of individuals protecting their own interests and recognizing power in numbers. Where it goes from there is the real problem."

Yes, where it goes from there becomes illicit and immoral when the coalition thinks that because they are a particularly big gang of men, that they suddenly have a right to force others to subsidize their activities at gunpoint. That is what we call the State: a mental illness, the symptoms of which include the notion that you live in an alternate moral universe where you think you have the right to force others to subsidize your activities through violence or the threat thereof. Another symptom is the delusion that by virtue of a shiny badge or a costume, that you suddenly have more rights than any other man on the face of the earth, and that you can morally initiate violence against others.
Kolbe | Email | Homepage | 12.31.08 - 5:59 pm | #

Kolbe wrote: "If you vote, you like politicians."

Og wrote: "This, of course, is false. I vote, and I dislike politicans intensely."

Kolbe wrote: "You think they're more virtuous and less dangerous than common street thugs. "

Og wrote: "This, of course, is also false."

Kolbe wrote: "Why else would you choose another man to rule over you every four years?"

Og wrote: "Because NOT choosing means someone else makes the choice for you."

Og, I think Stefan Molyneux was right: voting is a slave auction where you get to choose your master. I choose not to participate in choosing a master for myself or anyone else. I have no right to choose someone to take money from others at gunpoint. None whatsoever. Neither do you.

If you really believed politicians were less dangerous than common street thugs, you wouldn't voluntarily put them in positions of extreme power.

If everyone votes, we end up with the same result: a violent state. Each and every time. If no one votes, or even 90% refuse to vote and further refuse to give credence or support to violent men who rob from others, we have an entirely different situation. It's called liberty and self-determination. And people are deathly afraid of it.
Kolbe | Email | Homepage | 12.31.08 - 6:06 pm | #

Matt wrote:

"The state was not imposed on mankind by God. We lived without it once, and decided that life with it would be better than life without it."

According to God, "we" chose unwisely. See 1 Samuel 8. The coercive State was a sign that mankind had refused God as their ruler, and no good would come of their decision to form a State.

Matt wrote:

"The state should be kept as small as possible, true...but no smaller."

States invariably devour your substance and thus grow uncontrollably. The state is a business like any other. It likes to grow. Unfortunately, it is not a free market operator, it is a violent monopoly that takes your business by force.

A "small State" is like a "square circle." An intrinsic impossibility. Have you ever seen a tiger cub that stayed small and cute?
Kolbe | Email | Homepage | 12.31.08 - 6:12 pm | #

So: Kolbe, by NOT voting you have chosen the common street thug as your master. Please tell me why this is preferable. No, wait, you can't, because it is not.

The system began with decent men, and decent men exist now. It is directly our fault that they do not rise to positions of power. Well, not MY fault, because I vote.
og | Email | Homepage | 12.31.08 - 6:22 pm | #

Okay, these last few comments entirely prove my point. There can not be any compromise between the two first principles. Thank you.
Melody Byrne | Email | Homepage | 12.31.08 - 6:31 pm | #

Og wrote:

"So: Kolbe, by NOT voting you have chosen the common street thug as your master. Please tell me why this is preferable. No, wait, you can't, because it is not."

Og, pardon me? By not voting, I have chosen to govern myself. I give no authority to the street thug or his pinstripe-wearing counterpart. I do not say, "Yes, it's all right for you to take my money by violence." It's not all right, and I do not lend my support to their violent actions by giving assent to them in the act of voting. By not voting, I am ignoring them. If enough people ignore them, they will go away. That is what happened to the Soviets in Czechoslovakia. People stopped caring about what they said. They stopped supporting the system, and it crumbled. I am withdrawing my stone from the foundation of the State. That is why I do not vote: I want no part in doing violence. Refusing to vote because it results in violence against one's neigbor is not "choosing a common thug to rule over me." I have defenses enough from the common thug. It is the mental illness of the State that poses a real threat. I will not humor statists by giving them my permission to rob me or others.

Og wrote:

"The system began with decent men, and decent men exist now. It is directly our fault that they do not rise to positions of power. Well, not MY fault, because I vote."

"The system" was based on the flawed premise that one man may not rob his fellow man, because that's wrong, but that if you get a big enough group of people together, somehow, the moral fabric of the universe is amazingly altered, and it is now moral to force others to submit to your will, and to force them to subsidize the policies they would like to emplace. Or die.

You're not starting with first principles, Og. You believe that it is an axiom that some men have the right to take property from others by initiating violence. If an individual man does not have the right to do that, by what logic do you propose that a great number of individuals can have that right? I can't rape, murder, steal or rob. Does that mean a group of men can, because 51% of them say it is moral to do those things?
Kolbe | Email | Homepage | 12.31.08 - 9:39 pm | #

Ah, yes just another day in Paradise - you see it is exactly as we make it. There would be no perfection or chaos if we did not create them because perfection is a concept born in the mind of man. The above comments prove this to be so beyond the shadow of a doubt's shadow.
Glenn B | Email | Homepage | 01.01.09 - 10:17 am | #

So by not voting, you are somehow immune from the decisions and consequences of those men in power over you?

You may claim to be free - but you will pay your taxes or go to jail. You may claim to be independent, but if you work a job you drive on roads paid for by the thuggery of government. Even if you live off the land in a remote area and excise yourself some society, you can still be run out as a squatter by anyone in authority, and sent to jail if you resist.

Not all thugs are created equal. We are all chained to society and civilization, and benefit from it more than we would from not having a society. I'd think most slaves would appreciate the ability to choose their master.
Mike | Email | Homepage | 01.02.09 - 7:49 am | #

I stand with you, Mel. I am, first and foremost, a realist. Well written.
Steve | Email | Homepage | 01.02.09 - 11:17 am | #

Mike wrote: "So by not voting, you are somehow immune from the decisions and consequences of those men in power over you?"

Of course I'm not immune from the decisions of violent men. I suffer from their decisions the same as everyone else. But I am free in conscience. I have nothing to do with the State except what I am forced to do at gunpoint. I can do more good alive and out of prison than dead or in prison. They can have my property, but they will never have my moral support.

Mike wrote: "We are all chained to society and civilization, and benefit from it more than we would from not having a society. I'd think most slaves would appreciate the ability to choose their master."

Mike, you've got a strange definition of "society" if you are able to use it in the same sentence, if not interchangeably with "the state." (I am not saying that you did, in so many words.)

Society is a group of individuals with similar, basic goals, engaging in free-will, mutually-beneficial interactions. Anything besides an action that is free-will and mutually beneficial (one man robbing another of his property, liberty or life, for example) is egregious. Such an action is contrary to true society.

As I have previously said (perhaps not in this thread,) I have no problem with government qua government. Insofar as government is voluntarily-funded and does absolutely nothing but protect the individual rights of men to their life and property, I embrace it. The State, on the other hand, is a monopoly of violence: a monopoly enforced by violence, and supported by violence.

If your lifestyle requires that non-violent people have a gun put to their head, either physically or implied, you have no right to that lifestyle.

Do you see where I'm coming from?
Kolbe | Email | Homepage | 01.02.09 - 7:13 pm | #

Ms. Byrne, I can assure you that, whatever other shortcomings the man has, W. J. Beck III has no delusions about the world ever being "perfect." A fairer accusation would be that he is, in fact, willing to risk a great deal more -imperfection- in the world in the course of obtaining individual freedom on the grounds of self-ownership.
ebrown2 | Email | Homepage | 01.04.09 - 8:01 am | #

"Billy Beck's position could be summed up as..."

That's not true. What you then went on to say it *not* my position. I know my own convictions and I am presenting you with a fact.

Does that matter to you?
Billy Beck | Email | Homepage | 01.09.09 - 6:19 am | #