Top Comment: "Speaking at Fashion Week on Cardassia Prime, captain Picard implored Gul Madred to upgrade his wardrobe and 'Wear our fall lines'"
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Mea Culpa
What I wrote previously is not sufficient. I owe John an apology. I rigorously hold others to standards, as a matter of standard procedure. These usually constitute what I consider "honest" dialog. I justify this by claiming to hold myself to an even more stringent policy, but I'm almost certainly clouded by ego in judging how strictly I police myself. Like a dieter justifying a pint of haagen-daz by pointing to the salad he had for lunch, I suspect I'm dishing out more than I'm taking.
I feel that I have an argument to make against John's views on the contraception battle, but I'm too tired to adequately make it. But I read his blog compulsively, and comment compulsively. I know what I want to say, but I don't have the energy to mobilize.
What I should have done is stated that fact openly. Instead, I acted immediately on impulse and baser emotions. Worse yet, I insinuated that I was sick of fighting an uphill battle and would quit a lost cause. That's dishonest. Also cheap. It's just a very base rhetorical ploy to inspire sympathy. I owe John better than that.
I apologize.
In the future, I'll try to remember that unless I'm prepared to see an argument through, while keeping within the limits of acceptable civil discourse, I should essentially keep my dumb mouth shut. I stooped too low. I will try my hardest not to do it again. If I do, I should be called out for it.
I feel that I have an argument to make against John's views on the contraception battle, but I'm too tired to adequately make it. But I read his blog compulsively, and comment compulsively. I know what I want to say, but I don't have the energy to mobilize.
What I should have done is stated that fact openly. Instead, I acted immediately on impulse and baser emotions. Worse yet, I insinuated that I was sick of fighting an uphill battle and would quit a lost cause. That's dishonest. Also cheap. It's just a very base rhetorical ploy to inspire sympathy. I owe John better than that.
I apologize.
In the future, I'll try to remember that unless I'm prepared to see an argument through, while keeping within the limits of acceptable civil discourse, I should essentially keep my dumb mouth shut. I stooped too low. I will try my hardest not to do it again. If I do, I should be called out for it.
Break Time
I've been writing fairly steady since mid-December so I'm going to throttle back for a little while.
It's unseasonably warm in Cincinnati, and I feel like doing outside things. I've got ideas floating around, but I haven't been able to motivate myself to write them, and the feeling of obligation is starting to get counter-productive. It should feel like a treat, not a chore.
So I'm going to take a few weeks time.
UPDATE: I should comment on the brouhaha over at John's blog too. My energy for this endevour is, at the moment, very low, so I'm coming off pretty poorly. I'm motivated by baser feelings of revulsion and outrage, but not any of the more aspirational impulses that often accompany them. I'm just going through the motions over there.
I can't muster the will to do it right, so I might as well recharge the batteries. I'm partly feeling dispirited because John's anti-my-position positions are getting deeper entrenched, in spite of my efforts. The contraceptive battle is getting louder and more vitriolic, and we seem to be reflecting that situation on our blogs.
I'll respond, of course, still. But I'm not going to campaign offensively until I can recharge and regroup.
Also. I'm done following the GOP campaign until the convention. Mitt's got it. We're just going through the motions. Be thinking about good tie breakers for the mustard of glory...
It's unseasonably warm in Cincinnati, and I feel like doing outside things. I've got ideas floating around, but I haven't been able to motivate myself to write them, and the feeling of obligation is starting to get counter-productive. It should feel like a treat, not a chore.
So I'm going to take a few weeks time.
UPDATE: I should comment on the brouhaha over at John's blog too. My energy for this endevour is, at the moment, very low, so I'm coming off pretty poorly. I'm motivated by baser feelings of revulsion and outrage, but not any of the more aspirational impulses that often accompany them. I'm just going through the motions over there.
I can't muster the will to do it right, so I might as well recharge the batteries. I'm partly feeling dispirited because John's anti-my-position positions are getting deeper entrenched, in spite of my efforts. The contraceptive battle is getting louder and more vitriolic, and we seem to be reflecting that situation on our blogs.
I'll respond, of course, still. But I'm not going to campaign offensively until I can recharge and regroup.
Also. I'm done following the GOP campaign until the convention. Mitt's got it. We're just going through the motions. Be thinking about good tie breakers for the mustard of glory...
Monday, March 12, 2012
On Truth and Self-Awareness
Introduction
I'm feeling a little sick of myself. On my best days, I write because I want to try to inform myself and others. When I react because of outrage, and the desire to smite mendacity - that's slightly less noble. Worst of all is when I act out of the desire to contradict, and enhance my own ego. In reaction to John's blog event I started off pretty well, but degenerated quickly into anger and wrath, ending with my gorging myself on self-gratifying conjecture. I believe I had a point, but that's not so important. I made recently made a commitment to lead this blog in a positive direction, describing what is good, not merely railing against what's wrong. So far, I'm failing miserably.
What is it so hard for be to describe what I value? If I want to persuade anyone, this is a skill I need to master. People don't vacate a position because it's invalidated. They need to be shown greener pastures in which to relocate. I must describe a better way.
Truth
My principle value is truth. Although I was religious for a relatively short time, I can't shake the effect of religion from my mind. I still picture myself serving an external force, like God. Of course, I don't call it God anymore, I call it truth. This is deceptive, and probably counter-productive. I don't actually believe that truth is accurately described as a value. Values come from someplace else. One doesn't devote oneself to 2+2=4. Similarly, one cannot serve the principle behind 2+2=4.
Still, everything I have that's any good is thanks to the pursuit of truth. Besides physical goods that are the fruit of science, mathematics and technology, the benefits of true understanding are manifold. Without it, honest relationships, ethics, and self-awareness are impossible. I don't need truth like I need clean food and water; but still, I'm utterly dependent on it.
Truth is the wellspring of all good things. I horde true understanding for myself and those I love. I deny it like a miser to enemies. With it, all things are possible. Without it, things fall apart.
Self-Awareness
Carl Sagan described science as more than just a methodology for arriving at fact. He described it as a special way of thinking. A way of skeptically interrogating the universe, which is inherently good and wholesome for human minds. I share this notion.
This special way of thinking is something unique, that sets us apart from other life on Earth. It plays to our strengths as thinking animals. It is uniquely human. To engage in it is do something intrinsically right and good, because it is so tied to our special nature. It's an affirmation of everything human.
And what are we? What does it mean to be human? What is our nature? I don't claim to have even a fraction of the answer to this. I will say this. We are perceiving animals. We are a collection of "stuff" that is self aware. We're aware, not just of what our senses and instincts tell us, but of how things truly are. We are capable of understanding. We can see the way that truth manifests itself in nature, through interrogation of facts. And we're aware of what we ourselves are. We are stuff. We are a collection of organic matter that is aware that we are merely organic matter.
My "poetry" leaves a lot to be desired, but these facts are, to me, simply amazing. The wondrous miracle of a single human mind. The potential is staggering. When a religious person says something like, "I am nothing compared to God", or when an astronomer says "We are tiny little specks compared to the awesome vastness of the universe", I find the sentiment disturbing. A human mind, however small and temporary, is astonishing. When a human being makes a valuation of something, anything, it is astonishing. To teach a single person to reason, to enable him to think and expand and grow for life - is a greater feat than moving a planet. If I can help to provoke that in one single human brain, I'll die happy.
Self-awareness, like any kind of understanding, is an open-ended process. There is not absolute certainty in scientific inquiry. One gathers more data, finding more and more consistent evidence, attaining more certainty - but total and absolute certainty is not possible. Similarly, self-awareness is a process that human beings must struggle to attain. This is a constant, never-ending struggle for more and more. There is no goal post. There is no "nirvana" or total state of enlightenment.
Like natural science, self-awareness is earned through constant, rigorous skeptical inquiry. It involves interrogating every nook and cranny of one's sense of self. Ethics, values, assumptions, insecurities, petty foibles, strengths, weaknesses, desires, ideals. Everything must be held up to the light and examined, constantly, with a deliberate effort at objectivity and consistency. This sometimes means putting efforts at cultivating self-esteem and gratification aside, if only for a while.
We all make an effort at this, to varying degrees. But we don't always do this consciously or deliberately. We do this as a part of attempting "maturity" or "virtue". We try to align ourselves to what we see as good principles. I give western religion some credit in encouraging this. Those who truly accept the call to "serve god" are probably rarely narcissists or sociopaths. Their vocation demands rigorous personal inquiry, which those individuals are incapable of performing.
Conclusion
I don't want to give the impression that I have mastered any of this. I am not giving instructions from inside my ivory tower. I fail at this discipline - constantly. I'm making an attempt here to flesh this notion out. For myself, and readers.
This is what is in my life, filling the void of religion. I firmly believe that there is something very important to this, and I owe it to myself to explore it fully. To refine it and find a way to package it and disseminate it.
I would appreciate any help.
I'm feeling a little sick of myself. On my best days, I write because I want to try to inform myself and others. When I react because of outrage, and the desire to smite mendacity - that's slightly less noble. Worst of all is when I act out of the desire to contradict, and enhance my own ego. In reaction to John's blog event I started off pretty well, but degenerated quickly into anger and wrath, ending with my gorging myself on self-gratifying conjecture. I believe I had a point, but that's not so important. I made recently made a commitment to lead this blog in a positive direction, describing what is good, not merely railing against what's wrong. So far, I'm failing miserably.
What is it so hard for be to describe what I value? If I want to persuade anyone, this is a skill I need to master. People don't vacate a position because it's invalidated. They need to be shown greener pastures in which to relocate. I must describe a better way.
Truth
My principle value is truth. Although I was religious for a relatively short time, I can't shake the effect of religion from my mind. I still picture myself serving an external force, like God. Of course, I don't call it God anymore, I call it truth. This is deceptive, and probably counter-productive. I don't actually believe that truth is accurately described as a value. Values come from someplace else. One doesn't devote oneself to 2+2=4. Similarly, one cannot serve the principle behind 2+2=4.
Still, everything I have that's any good is thanks to the pursuit of truth. Besides physical goods that are the fruit of science, mathematics and technology, the benefits of true understanding are manifold. Without it, honest relationships, ethics, and self-awareness are impossible. I don't need truth like I need clean food and water; but still, I'm utterly dependent on it.
Truth is the wellspring of all good things. I horde true understanding for myself and those I love. I deny it like a miser to enemies. With it, all things are possible. Without it, things fall apart.
Self-Awareness
Carl Sagan described science as more than just a methodology for arriving at fact. He described it as a special way of thinking. A way of skeptically interrogating the universe, which is inherently good and wholesome for human minds. I share this notion.
This special way of thinking is something unique, that sets us apart from other life on Earth. It plays to our strengths as thinking animals. It is uniquely human. To engage in it is do something intrinsically right and good, because it is so tied to our special nature. It's an affirmation of everything human.
And what are we? What does it mean to be human? What is our nature? I don't claim to have even a fraction of the answer to this. I will say this. We are perceiving animals. We are a collection of "stuff" that is self aware. We're aware, not just of what our senses and instincts tell us, but of how things truly are. We are capable of understanding. We can see the way that truth manifests itself in nature, through interrogation of facts. And we're aware of what we ourselves are. We are stuff. We are a collection of organic matter that is aware that we are merely organic matter.
My "poetry" leaves a lot to be desired, but these facts are, to me, simply amazing. The wondrous miracle of a single human mind. The potential is staggering. When a religious person says something like, "I am nothing compared to God", or when an astronomer says "We are tiny little specks compared to the awesome vastness of the universe", I find the sentiment disturbing. A human mind, however small and temporary, is astonishing. When a human being makes a valuation of something, anything, it is astonishing. To teach a single person to reason, to enable him to think and expand and grow for life - is a greater feat than moving a planet. If I can help to provoke that in one single human brain, I'll die happy.
Self-awareness, like any kind of understanding, is an open-ended process. There is not absolute certainty in scientific inquiry. One gathers more data, finding more and more consistent evidence, attaining more certainty - but total and absolute certainty is not possible. Similarly, self-awareness is a process that human beings must struggle to attain. This is a constant, never-ending struggle for more and more. There is no goal post. There is no "nirvana" or total state of enlightenment.
Like natural science, self-awareness is earned through constant, rigorous skeptical inquiry. It involves interrogating every nook and cranny of one's sense of self. Ethics, values, assumptions, insecurities, petty foibles, strengths, weaknesses, desires, ideals. Everything must be held up to the light and examined, constantly, with a deliberate effort at objectivity and consistency. This sometimes means putting efforts at cultivating self-esteem and gratification aside, if only for a while.
We all make an effort at this, to varying degrees. But we don't always do this consciously or deliberately. We do this as a part of attempting "maturity" or "virtue". We try to align ourselves to what we see as good principles. I give western religion some credit in encouraging this. Those who truly accept the call to "serve god" are probably rarely narcissists or sociopaths. Their vocation demands rigorous personal inquiry, which those individuals are incapable of performing.
Conclusion
I don't want to give the impression that I have mastered any of this. I am not giving instructions from inside my ivory tower. I fail at this discipline - constantly. I'm making an attempt here to flesh this notion out. For myself, and readers.
This is what is in my life, filling the void of religion. I firmly believe that there is something very important to this, and I owe it to myself to explore it fully. To refine it and find a way to package it and disseminate it.
I would appreciate any help.
Friday, March 9, 2012
Blog Event: Greatest Threat to Religious Freedom?
Like Leslie, I'm going to have to go with radical Islam.
I'm worried about the state of theocracy in the U.S., but I can't say that I consider it a legitimate threat yet. Islam, on the other hand, is already a theocratic sitation in many countries. Islamic states like Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran and Saudi Arabia exist, with little to no separation between church and state. It's not illegal for non-Muslims to live in these countries, but it is not permitted for Muslims to convert.
So, there's that.
While that's the case, I don't think I can advocate any course of action to take. It's not simply the case of an evil dictatorship stripping religious liberty from the people. The people seem to want at least some restriction of expression and religious demonstration. I was reading a poll several months ago regarding which "democratic" scenarios they would like to see permitted in the future. At the far end of the scale was something like "People should be allowed to mock the Prophet Muhammed". No takers, at all. 0%. Some kinds of expression are simply too much to be allowed.
So, in as much as Islam is the chief offender, it's hard to get too worked up on it, except when Islam leaves it's own home territory to bomb cartoonists and journalists. That's not understandable or acceptable.
That's all I got.
I'm worried about the state of theocracy in the U.S., but I can't say that I consider it a legitimate threat yet. Islam, on the other hand, is already a theocratic sitation in many countries. Islamic states like Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran and Saudi Arabia exist, with little to no separation between church and state. It's not illegal for non-Muslims to live in these countries, but it is not permitted for Muslims to convert.
So, there's that.
While that's the case, I don't think I can advocate any course of action to take. It's not simply the case of an evil dictatorship stripping religious liberty from the people. The people seem to want at least some restriction of expression and religious demonstration. I was reading a poll several months ago regarding which "democratic" scenarios they would like to see permitted in the future. At the far end of the scale was something like "People should be allowed to mock the Prophet Muhammed". No takers, at all. 0%. Some kinds of expression are simply too much to be allowed.
So, in as much as Islam is the chief offender, it's hard to get too worked up on it, except when Islam leaves it's own home territory to bomb cartoonists and journalists. That's not understandable or acceptable.
That's all I got.
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Rush Controversy: Enough
Quick points.
- I despise Rush Limbaugh. Every couple of weeks I catch a whiff of his filth and it makes me sick. The fact that he commands so much sway over conservatives is a disgrace.
- He apologized for what he said. It's over. It doesn't matter if it was sincere or not, it's over. I've heard many other similar comments from Limbaugh that didn't catch fire, and thus didn't demand an apology. Anyone that is genuinely shocked over this hasn't been paying attention.
- Intimidating sponsors into leaving is perfectly legal, but bad form. If you claim to support free speech, then confront Limbaugh's message but don't try to manipulate the system into silencing him.
- This is not news anymore. News outlets should move on.
- I don't believe that the "liberal media" invented this controversy, but their addiction to sensational news blew it out of proportion. That's happening more and more. In controversies of all kinds, but especially to fringe right-wingers.
- I don't really care whether Rush suffers as a result. I hope he does suffer, actually. He sucks. I don't want to make loony right wingers feel secure and happy, I just don't like the general idea of unconventional ideas being mocked and skewered for the sake of ratings. It's a moral hazard, it encourages mainstream orthodoxy and homogenous patterns of thought.
- Kirk Cameron is being called a hate monger on the interwebs because he responded, as any other evangelical would, to a question on homosexuality from Piers Morgan by saying that it's wrong. I, along with many Americans, find that statement to be backwards and wrong. It doesn't make him a hatemonger, though. That's ridiculous.
- I feel that after the Tea-Party led backlash, the pendulum is beginning to swing back to center. Opportunistic liberals, as well as weak-minded individuals who can't help going with the flow (like me) are trying to use the momentum to score some points against the religious/social right. That's a bad idea. It's just sowing the seeds of backlash for the next cycle. The viewpoint that "wins" is the one that holds the middle, by being moderate, temperate and fair in it's outlook. Scoring points against Rush Limbaugh and Kirk Cameron doesn't result in real progress. It makes you feel better, while making your side look unfair, intemperate and mean.
Monday, March 5, 2012
Super Tuesday
Tomorrow is Super Tuesday, and I live in Ohio. Ohio is a major battleground state, and it has open primaries.
A few months ago I described my moral dilemma over who to nominate for the GOP in this year's presidential race. I won't rehash all of my motivations but it basically boils down to supporting someone that I sincerely like (Ron Paul), or supporting someone I think the GOP base identifies with (and consider a "true conservative"). Right now that would be Rick Santorum, who I despise.
I still grudgingly admit that ethically speaking, I should play this straight, but I don't know if that's what I'll do.
I've been watching the race closely for the last several weeks. The pattern that I've noticed is this. Up to a week before most close contests, people latch onto a non-Romney candidate. Mostly Santorum. The polls start off with a strong lead for that candidate. Then the Romney campaign begins carpet-bombing the state in question with ads attacking that candidate. Within the span of a few days, the gap narrows and Romney manages to squeak by. I've seen it happen in Florida, Michigan and now Ohio. It's neck-and-neck here.
I feel that my vote matters. Which would I regret more: being stuck with an ideologue because of my cynicism, or being stuck with someone who most Americans don't actually want, and whose defeat (or victory) means nothing, all because of my own naivety?
I guess I'd rather be cynical than naive. I doubt that comes as a surprise to anyone reading this.
A few months ago I described my moral dilemma over who to nominate for the GOP in this year's presidential race. I won't rehash all of my motivations but it basically boils down to supporting someone that I sincerely like (Ron Paul), or supporting someone I think the GOP base identifies with (and consider a "true conservative"). Right now that would be Rick Santorum, who I despise.
I still grudgingly admit that ethically speaking, I should play this straight, but I don't know if that's what I'll do.
I've been watching the race closely for the last several weeks. The pattern that I've noticed is this. Up to a week before most close contests, people latch onto a non-Romney candidate. Mostly Santorum. The polls start off with a strong lead for that candidate. Then the Romney campaign begins carpet-bombing the state in question with ads attacking that candidate. Within the span of a few days, the gap narrows and Romney manages to squeak by. I've seen it happen in Florida, Michigan and now Ohio. It's neck-and-neck here.
I feel that my vote matters. Which would I regret more: being stuck with an ideologue because of my cynicism, or being stuck with someone who most Americans don't actually want, and whose defeat (or victory) means nothing, all because of my own naivety?
I guess I'd rather be cynical than naive. I doubt that comes as a surprise to anyone reading this.
Friday, March 2, 2012
On Authority
For the past few months I've been trolling around the blogosphere, and I'm being exposed to points of view that I don't usually get exposed to. It's been good and bad.
I came across a kind of... literary style in radical libertarians (like, the kind that believe that basically any state presence is too much). When analyzing whether a particular government action is good or bad, they'll use the phrase "put a gun to your head" to describe the execution of government authority.
Example: "I don't believe it's right to tax people for anything other than what they themselves need. They're putting a gun to your head and screaming 'Give me your money!'"
On one hand, this isn't a bad, or totally erroneous shorthand for state authority. The power of the state is the power to make certain kinds of violence legitimate. Remember the scene in The Dark Knight when the Joker was explaining how some kinds of violence are all "part of the plan"? Same deal. State and military (and/or police) are tightly bound together.
So, on the one hand, that quote is kinda true.
However, on the other hand it's hysterically absurd on it's face. Yes, ultimately total disobedience will result into you being carried away to prison. If you violently object, you may be shot at some point (however, you've almost got to be trying to be shot to reach that point). But that's not the reason why people submit to authority. People buy into the notion of legal authority. They willingly enter into it like a contract. Even if it's just an intangible, abstract notion, authority is still very real - violence aside. As an idea that we all share, it has weight in the real world.
It's easy to forget, but when we grow up we make an implicit decision to accept or reject our society. We go into this thinking we'll play ball (and accept the judgement of society's "authorities") or we go in thinking that we reject it all as bull (I mean "we" as in Charlie Manson, perhaps; Not "we" as in "people reading this blog"). That doesn't mean we have to agree with everything that the authorities do, but it does mean that we have to acknowledge it's right to exist. It means we look at it as real and legitimate, not just some sort of phony illusion.
We collectively legitimize the notion of "Authority", vested in the State.
The State thus legitimizes certain actions taken against individuals or other states.
It's not a case of threating each individuals life everytime you need to get something done. That's not even being implied. It's not the hidden message behind the laws. It should be the case that people obey because they bought in, they accepted their role.
I wish it were possible to institute exile as a "corrective action". It doesn't make sense to force a criminal into a prison life because of their willful disobedience. If they don't want to obey, expel them. See how they do without the benefits of a cooperative society. Send them back to the jungle. Let them fend for themselves in a place where might makes right. As long as they don't find their way back here.
Or, if they don't want to be exiled, they could choose (of their own free will) to go to prison, and freely accept whatever term the court decides is necessary to rehabilitate.
For that matter, it would be nice to make explicit that "decision" that we all implicitly make, regarding whether to accept or reject society. It could be a kind of coming-of-age ritual. Entering the world as an adult and a citizen.
But, the world's too small and too crowded. There is no place that's sufficiently "away" to send the banished. It's just not practical. But it seems like the most just way to correct the system, in response to anti-statists - or, alternatively, anti-social personalities - who believe state power to be illegitimate.
I came across a kind of... literary style in radical libertarians (like, the kind that believe that basically any state presence is too much). When analyzing whether a particular government action is good or bad, they'll use the phrase "put a gun to your head" to describe the execution of government authority.
Example: "I don't believe it's right to tax people for anything other than what they themselves need. They're putting a gun to your head and screaming 'Give me your money!'"
On one hand, this isn't a bad, or totally erroneous shorthand for state authority. The power of the state is the power to make certain kinds of violence legitimate. Remember the scene in The Dark Knight when the Joker was explaining how some kinds of violence are all "part of the plan"? Same deal. State and military (and/or police) are tightly bound together.
So, on the one hand, that quote is kinda true.
However, on the other hand it's hysterically absurd on it's face. Yes, ultimately total disobedience will result into you being carried away to prison. If you violently object, you may be shot at some point (however, you've almost got to be trying to be shot to reach that point). But that's not the reason why people submit to authority. People buy into the notion of legal authority. They willingly enter into it like a contract. Even if it's just an intangible, abstract notion, authority is still very real - violence aside. As an idea that we all share, it has weight in the real world.
It's easy to forget, but when we grow up we make an implicit decision to accept or reject our society. We go into this thinking we'll play ball (and accept the judgement of society's "authorities") or we go in thinking that we reject it all as bull (I mean "we" as in Charlie Manson, perhaps; Not "we" as in "people reading this blog"). That doesn't mean we have to agree with everything that the authorities do, but it does mean that we have to acknowledge it's right to exist. It means we look at it as real and legitimate, not just some sort of phony illusion.
We collectively legitimize the notion of "Authority", vested in the State.
The State thus legitimizes certain actions taken against individuals or other states.
It's not a case of threating each individuals life everytime you need to get something done. That's not even being implied. It's not the hidden message behind the laws. It should be the case that people obey because they bought in, they accepted their role.
I wish it were possible to institute exile as a "corrective action". It doesn't make sense to force a criminal into a prison life because of their willful disobedience. If they don't want to obey, expel them. See how they do without the benefits of a cooperative society. Send them back to the jungle. Let them fend for themselves in a place where might makes right. As long as they don't find their way back here.
Or, if they don't want to be exiled, they could choose (of their own free will) to go to prison, and freely accept whatever term the court decides is necessary to rehabilitate.
For that matter, it would be nice to make explicit that "decision" that we all implicitly make, regarding whether to accept or reject society. It could be a kind of coming-of-age ritual. Entering the world as an adult and a citizen.
But, the world's too small and too crowded. There is no place that's sufficiently "away" to send the banished. It's just not practical. But it seems like the most just way to correct the system, in response to anti-statists - or, alternatively, anti-social personalities - who believe state power to be illegitimate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)