Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts

Via Instapundit. INTERESTING FT PIECE FROM THE DIRECTOR OF THE EUROPEAN COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS: The Chinese are wary of Donald Trump’s creative destruction: The president is the first US leader in decades to challenge China on multiple fronts

Donald Trump is leading a double life. In the west, most foreign policy experts see him as reckless, unpredictable and self-defeating. But though many in Asia dislike him as much as the Europeans do, they see him as a more substantial figure. I have just spent a week in Beijing talking to officials and intellectuals, many of whom are awed by his skill as a strategist and tactician. . . .

Few Chinese think that Mr Trump’s primary concern is to rebalance the bilateral trade deficit. If it were, they say, he would have aligned with the EU, Japan and Canada against China rather than scooping up America’s allies in his tariff dragnet. They think the US president’s goal is nothing less than remaking the global order.

They think Mr Trump feels he is presiding over the relative decline of his great nation. It is not that the current order does not benefit the US. The problem is that it benefits others more in relative terms. To make things worse the US is investing billions of dollars and a fair amount of blood in supporting the very alliances and international institutions that are constraining America and facilitating China’s rise.

In Chinese eyes, Mr Trump’s response is a form of “creative destruction”. He is systematically destroying the existing institutions — from the World Trade Organization and the North American Free Trade Agreement to Nato and the Iran nuclear deal — as a first step towards renegotiating the world order on terms more favourable to Washington.

Once the order is destroyed, the Chinese elite believes, Mr Trump will move to stage two: renegotiating America’s relationship with other powers. Because the US is still the most powerful country in the world, it will be able to negotiate with other countries from a position of strength if it deals with them one at a time rather than through multilateral institutions that empower the weak at the expense of the strong.

My interlocutors say that Mr Trump is the US first president for more than 40 years to bash China on three fronts simultaneously: trade, military and ideology. They describe him as a master tactician, focusing on one issue at a time, and extracting as many concessions as he can. They speak of the skilful way Mr Trump has treated President Xi Jinping. “Look at how he handled North Korea,” one says. “He got Xi Jinping to agree to UN sanctions [half a dozen] times, creating an economic stranglehold on the country. China almost turned North Korea into a sworn enemy of the country.” But they also see him as a strategist, willing to declare a truce in each area when there are no more concessions to be had, and then start again with a new front.

For the Chinese, even Mr Trump’s sycophantic press conference with Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, in Helsinki had a strategic purpose. They see it as Henry Kissinger in reverse. In 1972, the US nudged China off the Soviet axis in order to put pressure on its real rival, the Soviet Union. Today Mr Trump is reaching out to Russia in order to isolate China.

The heading is a quote from Richard Feynman which in this case is addressed to all of those foreign policy experts who constantly tell us how wrong PDT is about almost everything he does.

This entry was posted in American politics, International. Bookmark the permalink.

59 Responses to Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts

  1. mh

    China is certainly not used to a US leader challenging them.

    Chinagate and the Clintons

    https://spectator.org/chinagate-and-the-clintons/

  2. RobK

    Trump doesn’t want to trade sovereignty for a new world order. I think he believes in competition not only in trade but also in ideology.

  3. IainC of The Ponds

    I submit that the converse phrase about Trump is more apt – “destructive creation”. Trump comes in like a bull in a china shop (so to speak), charges around and appears to smash a heap of stuff, but once he leaves, everything is less broken than it was before.

  4. Schumpeter would understand Trump.

  5. W Hogg

    Presumably the meeja believes that under a less incompetent Pres Illary, GDP would be 6% in Q2, the EUSSR would have offered even larger tariff concessions, DPRK would have unilaterally denucularised, Assad would have resigned and ISIS (with no more work to do) disbanded, unemployment would be sub 3% and a polite request would have ended the southern invasion despite the lure of her 11m amnesties.

    Also healthcare and college would be free, fewer CO2s would exist and there would be no wildfires.

  6. I submit that the converse phrase about Trump is more apt – “destructive creation”. Trump comes in like a bull in a china shop (so to speak), charges around and appears to smash a heap of stuff, but once he leaves, everything is less broken than it was before.

    Perhaps he’s like a genuine bull in a china shop: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xzw2iBmRsjs

  7. jock

    Feynman? Where have i seen that name before?

  8. Iampeter

    The whole problem with politics for you Steve, along with that of many conservatives, is that you have no scientific approach to politics. You don’t really have any alternative ideas to the left.

    So in the absence of this you have just gone all in on uncritically supporting dear leader hoping things will work out.

  9. .

    You think scientific positions can be dictated by political preferences peter.

    Please don’t tell Our Steve how to suck eggs.

  10. Tel

    You don’t really have any alternative ideas to the left.

    Says the guy who doesn’t even respect other people’s property rights. Calls them “racist” for just the simple claim that a group of people should be able to decide who joins their group and who does not (not even for any particular decision, but simply for the act of asserting the right to make any decision whatsoever).

  11. Iampeter

    Says the guy who doesn’t even respect other people’s property rights.

    I’m the only one here respecting peoples property rights, which is why I oppose things like letting the government regulate who gets to live where.

    Calls them “racist” for just the simple claim that a group of people should be able to decide who joins their group

    I wouldn’t call you racist just for that, as there isn’t enough information, but racist or not that is a collectivist position and is therefore leftist.

    If I was to describe the conservative movement today in a sentence it would be: the religious and politically illiterate arm of the left wing. Lenin would call today’s conservatives “useful idiots”. You’re mindless advancing leftism.

  12. .

    I wouldn’t call you racist just for that, as there isn’t enough information, but racist or not that is a collectivist position and is therefore leftist.

    So individuals cannot choose to have majoritarian rules in their own clubs because *you said so* and deviation from this is “collectivist” and “therefore left wing”.

    Peter you dink, they’re free to leave and form their own club at any time.

    Do you really think shareholders of ANZ or FMG want to use consensus-based rulemaking?

    This is fucking stupid Peter. Get your head out of your arse.

  13. Tel

    I wouldn’t call you racist just for that, as there isn’t enough information, but racist or not that is a collectivist position and is therefore leftist.

    So you are back to the position of saying that a club for gay men should be forced to accept all customers, because for them to decide who they want in their club is “collectivist”.

    That sure sounds like interference in other people’s right of association and also diminishes their right of ownership of their land. By the way, who should be responsible for supervising these people and applying force to their lives? Some sort of government perhaps?

  14. mh

    I see the Soros operative has started early today.

  15. Tel

    Iampeter is just young and a bit confused, needs time to think it over. Randians are a cult, and deprogramming requires patience.

  16. .

    He’s not even a good Randian.

    Practice young man!

    Practice, practice, practice.

  17. Iampeter

    So you are back to the position of saying that a club for gay men should be forced to accept all customers

    Well as was explained in the previous threads you brought this up, what a gov does is not determined by what private enterprise does, its the other way around. To determine what a government should do requires political ideology which is precisely what conservatives do not have so you’re left grasping at straws instead. This is what I mean when I say you don’t have a scientific approach to politics.
    This is why you guys “booo hissss socialists” when Obama passes trillion dillar spending bills but cheer “yay deregulation” when Trump does the same thing. Conservatives have no idea what’s going on.

    PS guys,posts just attacking me are the equivalent of progressives calling everyone they disagree with racists because they can’t argue. You’re just proving my point even more.

  18. .

    You say “boo hisss socialists” when private clubs have majority rule instead of consensus.

    This, of course, Peter, fucking stupid.

    Who died and made you Ayn Rand!?

  19. Tel

    Believe me, politics also operates inside a club, or in a corporation.

    These are structured groups of individual people. Nothing magical happens when one of these groups declares itself “government”.

  20. Leo G

    The heading is a quote from Richard Feynman which in this case is addressed to all of those foreign policy experts who constantly tell us how wrong PDT is about almost everything he does.

    The nescience of experts is settled science.

  21. I see Iampeter has started early for his daily flogging.

    Trump has fooled them all by doing away with the pretence of doing stuff, actually is doing stuff.

  22. mh

    PS guys,posts just attacking me are the equivalent of progressives calling everyone they disagree with racists because they can’t argue.

    Peter, have a good day at school.

  23. By actually doing stuff /editfail.

    Yeah, isn’t it terrible to find a politician that actually does, or makes the best effort to do what he promises to do? This is what the establishment and Leftists can’t comprehend, they’ve never experienced anything like it, and it goes against their very being.

  24. Tel

    This is an interesting discussion on Columbia and Chicago and organized cartels.

    http://www.economicrockstar.com/chris-blattman-crime-cocaine-chicago-gangs-colombia-mafia/

    He goes right through describing how the cartels operate exactly like government operates (taxing people for protection, taking a slice on trade, especially high-profit items like drugs). Then he carefully refuses to draw the comparison and just presumes government is “legitimate” but can’t explain what makes it “legitimate”. Interestingly he describes a cartel confederate system in operation in Columbia (which sounds to me like a much better design than most federal governments), and also explains how the cartels focus on maintaining lines of trade, because the profit motive makes it in their interest to protect their income.

    Anyway, like I said above, you have groups of people and they find ways to organize themselves to work together. That’s how a club operates, and a business, and a cartel, and a government. After that it’s simply a question of what you decide your purpose should be and why.

  25. .

    Tel

    Look at the history of government.

    Why does government exist? The utopian version is that village elders started to make wise decisions for us paternalistically, including limiting aggression internally and from roving bands. The supposed error is that the process was not democratic or consensus-based.

    It is complete nonsense. Roving bands took over the village and installed themselves as top dogs with their boss as a retconned false messiah.

    It is like the English monarchy. What is the ultimate claim to the Queen’s authority? This apparently underpins our system, democratic as it may or may not be.

    Ancestors who were better thugs than everyone else.

    If you want to know why government exists, look at those who seek power.

    The problem is that anthropologists answered “what good reasons may justify the existence of government” instead of “how did governments actually come into existence”.

  26. Entropy

    Dot, you just have to look at how chimps or gorillas are organised to understand that human organisation is a slightly more complex ( I won’t say sophisticated) version of primate behaviour.
    I suspect iampeter is a bit rigid in his worldview.

  27. Death Giraffe

    Hypothesis A: Trump is a bumbling fool and a knave who lucked into the Presidency by accidentally appealing to the majority of voters in the states he needed with no actual strategy, and has since been breaking every sensible protocol and policy due to naivety and arrogant foolishness.
    Hypothesis B: Trump, like every other sucessful presidential candidate, had a carefully thought out strategy to maximise the votes in the places needed to win. He has an ideology of America First, which he vigorously espouses, and is pursueing policies within the constraints set, to achieve his ideological goal of retaining Americas place as the world’s biggest superpower.
    Which hypothesis best fits the known facts?

  28. Speedbox

    The commentary on Trump’s actions has usually been superficial at best. Indeed, there is no greater demonstration of the sheer hatred of the Left for Trump than the shallow and deliberately misleading analysis of his actions. I have a personal theory that those at the very highest levels of the Left actually understand what Trump is doing (and the implications for the established world order that was shifting Left) and whip up hysteria amongst the foot soldiers using low grade easy-to-understand memes.

    And yes, even many Trump supporters often can’t seem to see the wood for the trees.

    Much of what you need to know about Trump and his modus operandi is laid out for you in his book. Just read up and understand negotiation theory – Trump uses some highly advanced principles. Couple that with a man who is driven not by politics per se but by his overwhelming drive to right the wrongs he sees against the American nation both domestically and internationally, and you have everything you need.

    If you think Trump is a (insert disparaging adjective here), then you can continue to complain loudly. Those who “get it” see a remarkable man who is using strategies never before utilised to reaffirm and cement America’s place in the world order.

    Trump will likely be President for eight years and if you have any sense, you will use the next few years to leverage his incumbency for your own comfort and profit. Meanwhile, the drones or those motivated by the prospect of diminishing global socialist influence will continue to howl at the moon.

  29. Leo G

    PS guys,posts just attacking me are the equivalent of progressives calling everyone they disagree with racists because they can’t argue. You’re just proving my point even more.

    You premise appears to be that you are equivalent to everyone with whom other Cat commenters disagree. Your argument is that criticism of you is like water off a duck’s back.
    But then, who would disagree?

  30. Iampeter

    You say “boo hisss socialists” when private clubs have majority rule instead of consensus.

    A club can’t be socialist or capitalist its not government.

    Believe me, politics also operates inside a club, or in a corporation.

    But clubs and corporations and private enterprise in general is not government.
    Understanding difference between government and private enterprise is kinda entry-level.
    This is why I use the terms “politically illiterate”.

    Peter, have a good day at school.

    These are my favorite responses.
    Firstly, if I was really in high school I don’t know how you guys can survive the embarrassment. Although most teenage SJW’s aren’t as confused as posters here.
    Secondly, it’s almost to suggest that having clarity and knowing what you’re talking about is a “childish” habit and once you outgrow it and become a confused, clueless person like MH, that’s when you become an adult.

    Yea I’m sure “the left” is shivering in their pantaloons at the fearsome approach of you intellectual giants.

  31. .

    A club can’t be socialist or capitalist its not government.

    Sure it can, an investor’s club for example or the Marxist-Leninist club that loves grant money.

  32. Leo G

    Sure it can, an investor’s club for example or the Marxist-Leninist club that loves grant money.

    But a mere commenter trying to steer a blogthread is not government.

  33. mh

    These are my favorite responses.

    Of course they are! Which is why you have to vigorously refute them.

  34. .

    Peoples

    Peter does not represent the Randian view point very well.

    I recommend you read some Peikoff, Branden or Rand herself.

    Rothbard could be scathing towards Objectivists as well.

    Rand’s best book is, of course, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.

    Only about 200 pages of A5, well written, a general exposition of the minimal role for government in society.

  35. mh

    Dot, I would think the biggest turn off to Ayn Rand would be the people who have said they have been heavily influenced by Rand. First one that comes to mind is House Speaker Paul Ryan. I believe that Randism stops people seeing the changing world around them and analysing the results. To quote Pat Buchanan from his short piece It’s Trump’s Party Now:

    How could the Beltway GOP not see that its defining policies — open borders, amnesty, free trade globalism, compulsive military intervention in foreign lands for ideological ends — were alienating its coalition?

    What had a quarter century of Bushite free trade produced?

    About $12 trillion in trade deficits, $4 trillion with China alone, a loss of 55,000 plants and 6 million manufacturing jobs.

    We imported goods “Made in China,” while exporting our future.

    U.S. elites made China great again, to where Beijing is now challenging our strategic position and presence in Asia.

    Could Republicans not see the factories shutting down, or not understand why workers’ wages had failed to rise for decades?

  36. Nicholas (Unlicensed Joker) Gray

    It’s always good if you can personalize a philosophy with a name. I think of myself as Lockean, with a cross-section of Hayek thrown in. Locke was strong on property rights.

  37. .

    Dot, I would think the biggest turn off to Ayn Rand would be the people who have said they have been heavily influenced by Rand. First one that comes to mind is House Speaker Paul Ryan. I believe that Randism stops people seeing the changing world around them and analysing the results. To quote Pat Buchanan from his short piece It’s Trump’s Party Now:

    You’re forgetting Malcolm Fraser!

  38. .

    About $12 trillion in trade deficits, $4 trillion with China alone, a loss of 55,000 plants and 6 million manufacturing jobs.

    Dumb and entirely wrong. Nothing to do with Ayn Rand.

  39. Death Giraffe
    #2775990, posted on July 30, 2018 at 10:21 am

    Which hypothesis best fits the known facts?

    Well that’s easy. There are numerous Youtube videos and magazine articles going back decades where Trump espouses the very same things he does today, in some cases word for word.
    The answer is B

  40. .

    Could Republicans not see the factories shutting down, or not understand why workers’ wages had failed to rise for decades?

    Good god that is not even true.

    Average (total) wages certainly have risen.

    Looking at median household wages without benefits or the changes in the demographic profile is really, really dumb.

  41. Iampeter
    #2775894, posted on July 30, 2018 at 8:26 am

    The whole problem with politics for you Steve, along with that of many conservatives, is that you have no scientific approach to politics. You don’t really have any alternative ideas to the left.

    That scientific approach is precisely why the left fvcks up everything it touches.
    Politics can’t be described by science, hence why a degree in ‘Political Science’ is not only useless, but dangerous.

    Human societies aren’t ant colonies. Each individual has his/her own wants and needs. This makes a human society far too chaotic to describe by an equation or a scientific theory. (in fact much more chaotic than climate)

    One area where this is demonstrated every day is the stock market. Even though we have all the accurate data points we need, no one accurately predicts the stock market because of a thing called human nature. What motivates someone to sell while another to buy cannot be accurately described in an equation.
    The same is true in politics and then some.

    Marxism fails every single time because they believe people will behave in a way that can be accurately described and predicted. They can be, but only in tiny homogeneous groups like a family where socialism is rife and succeeds.
    But in larger groups like societies, the behaviour of individuals is too chaotic. It cannot be described by equations and it cannot be accurately predicted. Therefore politics (to do with the polity or people) is not a scientific endeavour and anyone approaching it that way will always get most of it wrong.
    (Like you do Peter)

  42. Iampeter

    That scientific approach is precisely why the left fvcks up everything it touches.

    The left stuff everything up because their political ideas are anti-scientific and collectivist and so can’t work for human beings who are an individualistic species. Their approach to politics is very scientific though, which is why they win even when they’re not in office.
    Conservatives on the other hand, themselves always being collectivists, balked when confronted with a truly consistent application of their ideas in communism and fascism. Rather than seeing the errors of collectivism and embracing the alternative, conservatives abandoned ideas altogether.
    Ideology is the problem, conservatives would say, which is like an incompetent mathematician blaming the formulas.
    In reality though, just like I can consistently work out the correct circumference of all different sized circles by applying the same formula once I understand the basics, so I can consistently work out the correct position on all different political issues by applying the same formulaic approach once I understand the basics. These basics are what conservatives avoid like the plague, preferring to have no ideas as the answer to bad ideas.

    The way I see it, conservatives have three choices:
    1. Concede that they are and always have been a bunch of inconsistent leftists.
    2. Continue to avoid politics altogether in order to evade the facts of point 1
    3. Abandon collectivism and embrace individualism instead. Discover what individual rights and rights protecting government are and start advocating and actual alternative to the left in politics

    Steve and the overwhelming majority of posters here fall firmly into point 2.

  43. Tel

    PS guys,posts just attacking me are the equivalent of progressives calling everyone they disagree with racists because they can’t argue. You’re just proving my point even more.

    I apologize for calling you “Randian” should you not really be a Randian. You seem to act a bit like one, and I vaguely remember you said you were, but perhaps I got that wrong. No one should falsely be called a Randian, that’s cruel and unusual.

    I don’t apologize of pointing out your consistent disconnect between people owning property, people being able to make decisions for their own lives and people deciding that what they want to do is get together in some group (anything from a family all the way up to a nation) for mutual protection (which includes the exclusion of people outside that group, in a family husband and wife agree to exclude other potential lovers, in a club the members agree to excluded non-members from club property, and in a nation the citizens decide to build borders and non-citizens are only allowed in when invited).

    If you want to draw a distinction between a group of 2 people, a group of 1000 people or a group of 25 million people in terms of suddenly a different set of rules apply, then explain what causes this inconsistency. Exactly how many people does it require before suddenly their organization takes on the form of a “government” and what makes this number so special??

  44. P

    Just adding a few pics of FLOTUS AND POTUS. Enjoy!

  45. Iampeter

    I apologize for calling you “Randian” should you not really be a Randian.

    I am a “Randian” so that’s fine. That comment was more directed at people like mh who post how lefties have nothing but insults and then engages in nothing but insults himself.

    in a club the members agree to excluded non-members from club property, and in a nation the citizens decide to build borders and non-citizens are only allowed in when invited

    I get your argument. What you need to get is those of us who are right wing support rights protecting government. What you support is a government that reflects the position of the majority and imposes that on everyone. That’s fine, but that’s leftist.

    Exactly how many people does it require before suddenly their organization takes on the form of a “government” and what makes this number so special??

    A government is not determined by the number of people. A government is that unique organization within a society that performs the specific function of using force. This means writes and enforces the laws.

    Those of us who are right wing, support rights protecting governments which means all they do is maintain courts, police and armed forces. They use force in retaliation. Such governments don’t regulate immigration anymore than they would regulate energy producers.

    Those of you who are confused leftists of the conservative movement, haven’t even figured out what a government even is yet, but want to rush off battling leftists, with whom you actually in agree in principle.

    Do you not see the problem?

    Anyway we’ve literally being over this word for word already so there’s no point having the same argument again. What you fail to realize is even if I was to give you immigration, which is the only issue you care about, it changes nothing about the fact that you don’t even know what a government is, which is the real issue with conservatives.

    You guys spend all your time fighting battles to the death on irrelevant points like this, even taking the wrong position from the one that would make you right wing, specifically to avoid being drawn into REAL political discourse and reveal just how little about politics you actually know.

    And I don’t just direct that at you Tel, but to the actual professional writers and thinkers in the conservative movement.

  46. .

    This is better stuff peter.

    The only way Tel can argue against your position now is to declare himself an anarchist or declare that the state is society.

  47. mh

    You guys spend all your time fighting battles to the death on irrelevant points like this,

    Peter, it’s you that wants to jump onto threads here and espouse open borders, or to tell us that we don’t understand politics. We are not on this thread to “battle leftists”, either. We are commenting on Steve’s post to hopefully add something to the subject matter. That matter is how China perceives Trump and how the Western elites attempt to portray Trump.

    Your posts are just distraction squirrels.

  48. Iampeter

    Peter, it’s you that wants to jump onto threads here and espouse open borders, or to tell us that we don’t understand politics.

    No that’s what you’re doing. And some other crazies here.
    You follow me from thread to thread bringing up “open borders” for some reason and tell me that I don’t know what I’m saying and need to grow up, etc, etc.
    But turns out like the other rude posters here, you can dish it out but can’t take it.

    We are commenting on Steve’s post to hopefully add something to the subject matter. That matter is how China perceives Trump and how the Western elites attempt to portray Trump.

    Ah yes indeed, harumpf, deep political discourse is happening here. Don’t let me interrupt. China! Trump! Politics! Political sounding words! Fight them on the beaches!
    Whatever.

    I’ll let you get back to it.

  49. mh

    Peter, you are sounding paranoid.

    Do you have an opinion on the author of the above article stating that his Chinese interlocutors describe Trump as a master tactician? Don’t you think that it is a valid point for Steve to highlight when we are bombarded with ‘Trump’s a dumbo’ 24/7?

  50. mh

    Donald J. Trump
    Donald J. Trump
    @realDonaldTrump
    ·
    21h
    I would be willing to “shut down” government if the Democrats do not give us the votes for Border Security, which includes the Wall! Must get rid of Lottery, Catch & Release etc. and finally go to system of Immigration based on MERIT! We need great people coming into our Country!

  51. Gary

    But turns out like the other rude posters here, you can dish it out but can’t take it.- little Imp

    Right from the start you declared we are all dumb dumbs and should bow to your big giant head. So spare me the poor victim schtick. Its not like I haven’t noticed you’ve got most of the pieces but maybe a guide such as Dot and others who have earnt a free pass on being d$ck sometimes can help you put the together.

  52. mh

    THERAPISTS SEEING PATIENTS WITH TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME

    …LaMotte described an uptick in her patients describing what the right refers to as Trump Derangement Syndrome, CBC reported Saturday. “Is he gonna blow us all up?” one of her patients asked.

    Urban Dictionary defines Trump Derangement Syndrome as “a mental condition in which a person has been driven effectively insane due to their dislike of Donald Trump, to the point at which they will abandon all logic and reason.”…

    http://dailycaller.com/2018/07/29/trump-derangement-syndrome-therapy/

  53. Iampeter

    Don’t you think that it is a valid point for Steve to highlight when we are bombarded with ‘Trump’s a dumbo’ 24/7?

    No because Steve is as uncritical in his support of Trump as CNN is in their opposition to Trump. Maybe if he was even remotely objective this would be different.

    Right from the start you declared we are all dumb dumbs and should bow to your big giant head.

    You’re welcome to re-read the thread and get it right. Me making a valid point supported by numerous previous threads and posts from Steve is not declaring you all dumb, it’s making a point. Declaring me dumb is what started almost immediately.

    That’s the other problem aside from the thin skinned nature of rude posters here, you guys also confused someone making a point you disagree with someone making an ad hominem.

  54. Tel

    A government is not determined by the number of people. A government is that unique organization within a society that performs the specific function of using force. This means writes and enforces the laws.

    So when George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin, at that moment Zimmerman was “government” by your definition. He was exercising the use of force.

    When a club has bouncers paid to throw out undesirables, they are also exercising the use of force, and therefore must be “government” by your definition.

    A bank hires armed security to guard their gold shipment, suddenly the bank becomes “government” by your definition… and yes they will shoot if you attempt to steal that gold, and it’s perfectly legal too.

    For that matter, the Colombian cartels are also “government” by your definition, they not only use force but they do it in a well organized and structured manner, according to the rules they come up with (generally speaking, a system to keep them in power and also turn a good steady profit, which is what any government attempts to do).

    Those of us who are right wing, support rights protecting governments which means all they do is maintain courts, police and armed forces. They use force in retaliation. Such governments don’t regulate immigration anymore than they would regulate energy producers.

    Those of you who are confused leftists of the conservative movement, haven’t even figured out what a government even is yet, but want to rush off battling leftists, with whom you actually in agree in principle.

    Do you not see the problem?

    Well Zimmerman used force in retaliation when he was jumped from behind and his head was pounded into the pavement, so that fits the bill. The club uses the bouncers only when someone from outside gate crashes their party, if you stay out then the bouncers will leave you alone. The bank hires armed guards but most days they don’t need to shoot because the threat is sufficient.

    I see the problem that you talk about “rights protecting governments” without a clear idea of what rights people have to being with. The very first right would be the right to self determination and self defense, possibly the most ancient human right in existence, and the one right that has constantly gone forwards and backwards but every time people are pushed into giving up this right, they end up needing it again.

    Would Zimmerman has survived if he just lay there getting pounded calling for help until the police showed up? Probably not. Can a club maintain a quality atmosphere and comfortable environment if they don’t throw out troublemakers? Very unlikely.

    Police don’t protect individual rights, they turn up half an hour later and start drawing chalk outlines and putting brass tubes into plastic bags. That’s the problem I see with your whole idea of “rights protecting governments”. It’s not only inaccurate in describing what governments actually do, but it’s completely impractical in describing what governments should be doing. What’s more, your concept of “rights protecting government” defies everything we know about incentives. Cops have a self preservation instinct like anyone else, if they drive a little slower and get there after the action is finished then they get to go home to their families that night. If you arm the victim then the incentives align perfectly, it’s only the victim who is always there at the time, and always highly motivated to do what’s necessary to defend themselves.

    Now this question of who makes the laws. Well, many people make laws in many situations. Clubs have by-laws which apply to members, families generally have some basic ground rules. Zimmerman was part of the local Neighbourhood Watch which has it’s own internal rules (we can argue how closely Zimmerman followed those rules). Religious institutions impose laws on the faithful. Corporations have their procedural rules, we can even see cases where corporations have written their preferred laws and handed it across to the formal “government” in order to be enacted. Sometimes this might even be a good thing if the corporate employees have a better idea of how to manage things than the public legislators who are often pretty clueless.

    Again, there’s a big problem with your definition of “government” because it doesn’t even apply consistently so all you do is ignore all the other examples and pretend there’s a magic wand that bestows powers on public employees. That seems very close to the leftist presumption that a central planner suddenly becomes all seeing and all knowing and better at running an economy than the people themselves.

  55. Tel

    You’re welcome to re-read the thread and get it right. Me making a valid point supported by numerous previous threads and posts from Steve is not declaring you all dumb, it’s making a point. Declaring me dumb is what started almost immediately.

    Oh really, like this for example:

    Iampeter #2775894, posted on July 30, 2018 at 8:26 am

    The whole problem with politics for you Steve, along with that of many conservatives, is that you have no scientific approach to politics. You don’t really have any alternative ideas to the left.

    You are the guy who struggles with basic ideas like property rights, and your concept of “rights protecting government” fails both in theory and in practice. People lived in cities for thousands of years without any police, did you know that? The idea of having police to protect citizens and fight crime only started around 160 years ago. Entire empires came and went without needing such employees, and yet people still had property rights, they still had self determination.

    In the USA there now exist solid legal precedents that not only do the police have no duty to protect anyone at all, but they are not even required to know the law.

    https://thefreethoughtproject.com/court-rules-cops-laws-enforce-ignorance/

    And the reason for this is obvious, because if police were required to know the law, every single one would fail on something or other.

  56. Iampeter

    Sounds like we don’t even need a government since everyone and everything can just make up their own laws and enforce them willy nilly.
    There’s no problem with my definition of anything.
    The only problem here is your stubborn refusal to accept entry-level political concepts.
    You refuse so stridently and will engage in any mental gymnastics you have to because you want to discuss politics without having to go to the effort of having a political ideology.
    This is like trying to engage in advanced maths without first having gone to the effort of learning to add and subtract.
    Its not posssible.

  57. mh

    P
    #2776252, posted on July 30, 2018 at 3:32 pm
    Just adding a few pics of FLOTUS AND POTUS. Enjoy!

    I did enjoy. Thanks.

Comments are closed.