This week Andrei, Jeremy, and I do an ad-hoc episode just for fun. We got in to Apple’s recent refusal to provide an iPhone back door to the FBI, and why that is a good thing.
Jonathan, Merrick, and Manny take on the idea that the soldiers are only fighting for our “freedoms”. We take a critical look at that claim and determine that there is more to the politics of war than meets the eye.
20th Century State sanctioned democide data: https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM
US War deaths data: http://www.militaryfactory.com/american_war_deaths.asp
The history of ISIS and their funding: http://thefreethoughtproject.com/putin-shares-intel-g20-exposing-isis-financed-40-countries/
Robert Higgs “Crisis and Leviathan”: http://store.mises.org/Crisis-and-Leviathan-P138.aspx
Murray Rothbard “Man, Economy, and State”: https://mises.org/library/man-economy-and-state-power-and-market
Military budget on advertising: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/01/war-and-peace-in-30-seconds-how-much-does-the-military-spend-on-ads/252222/
Patriot Act: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act
National Defense Authorization Act: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fiscal_Year_2012
Origination of Hamas and the PLO: http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2006/01/27/hamas-son-of-israel/
Hans Herman Hoppe “Democracy, the God that Failed”: https://mises.org/library/democracy-god-failed-1
Dustin and I discuss his recent government anti-registration-molestation for the crime of not paying his extortion fee. This went off into the history of contract and common law, the Magna Carta, setting legal precedence, as well as social contract fallacies. This one is fortified with a heavy dose of extra Latin for your pleasure!
In this episode Merrick, Jonathan, and Nick discuss methodologies of philosophy including nihilism, stoicism, and obectivism. We also cover the Trivium method, and Nick showsus how deep down the rabbit hole he can go with no notes on his personal philosophy.
You can hear it at www.theseedsofliberty.com and www.dipsydiver.com We’re also on Stitcher radio here: http://www.stitcher.com/podcast/radicalogic-podcast-2/radicalogic-podcast?refid=stpr
We talked about the School Sucks project: http://schoolsucksproject.com/ and Daryl Becker: http://voluntaryvisions.com/
- Show Notes
Three Felonies A Day: http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229
Jonathan Alexander: https://www.facebook.com/JonathanAlexanderMusic/?fref=ts
I have been observing the reactions from you all and the general populace to the recent action in France. I was stunned by the false rhetoric, propaganda, and fear mongering based upon nothing more than false pretenses. This got me thinking about some of the logical fallacies. We all know what they are, yet seem determined to ignore them as they fly by your FaceBeast feed in meme form and drive by comments. I decided to do a quick bit on a few of these as a refresher to those who may be otherwise mislead on current events. This will be part one in a series as we pick them apart. I’ll start with the appeal to antiquity.
When it comes to something like immigration (legal, illegal, refugee, or otherwise), many otherwise charitable people have transformed into sniveling, paranoid xenophobes. But has not migration has been the natural state of man since the beginning of civilization? Were it not for this movement of people we would all be piled on top of each other somewhere in Africa. Take the hot-button issue of Syrian refugees. You stood by and did nothing while your government wreaked havoc on their country and created their “refugee” condition, but you sure as shit don’t want them to come here. You’ll happily pay to bomb the fuck out of them for no good reason, but you don’t want to pay for the inevitably ensuing fallout. So why do we so easily dismiss people from other lands whose livelihoods, families, and homes we have destroyed? Because it’s the way we’ve always done it, so it must be right. Enter, stage right, the appeal to antiquity. Empires have historically pillaged and plundered weaker nations, therefore it must be OK.
In a fundamental sense, borders are really nothing more than markers of where two rival factions of land thieves ran out of energy to fight each other. Once these imaginary lines are staked, the members of one gang naturally want to protect their turf against anyone who is not a member of the tribe. Why do we think this way? Because it’s the way we’ve always done it that way, therefore it must be right. Enter, stage left, the appeal to antiquity.
The Huns, Vandals, Khans and Persians all performed migration by force. The Colonists by and large took the Americas by force against native Americans. The Mexicans once owned most of the US southwest, the Spanish much of he Gulf Coast, and the same for both the French and Dutch. Our current borders were by and large established by purchasing tracts of occupied territory from these nations, but just as often it was done through armed conflict; ergo, the oldest way in the book to take over any given piece of ground. Why do we justify these violent actions against others to further our well being? Because we’ve always done it that way, therefore it must be right. Enter, center stage, the appeal to antiquity.
The fallacy is that actions and ideas are not justified simply by the existence of precedence.
Feel free to either agree or not. These are just random ruminations in my head over a cup of coffee.
Remember kids, keep your friends close, your enemies closer, and your fallacies at arms length.
I am the antithesis of political correctness. For that matter, I abhor the very ideas of politics. What are politics if not the vacation of rationality in exchange for the popularity contest for the vox populi. That’s a fancy way of saying that politics are a way of diving people against themselves by using the very simple tactic of bread and circuses. I like to start conversations from the beginning, and politics is the art of keeping that very thing from happening.
I just dumped a 1,000+ word essay into the ether that I was writing as I was listening to a live debate between Occupy Democrats and some Libertarian media types on the subject of “gun rights”. After an hour of writing refutations I realized that these knuckleheads were dancing around the edges of the issue like prize fighters scared to take a punch. Please allow me to be the adult in the room and start the conversation from the beginning for a change. The phrase “I don’t know what to do, but we need to…” was a common theme. Then the conversation devolves into the esoterica of which “common sense” laws should be enacted on our behalf. Really? I’m waiting on the Rothbard vs. Marx debate on natural rights vs. the collective good, and instead get the Clinton vs. Bush debate on how much regulation is “enough” to keep us safe. WTF? Let me try to break this down in to small pieces for everyone. Natural rights are not subject to the whims of the State’s elected officials. The right to self defense is a non-negotiable power held by the individual in any free society. Natural rights may not be throttled by government simply because that power was never delegated to it. There is no argument as to how much regulation any government may place upon the individual regarding how much, how many, or how often he may exercise his right to his life, liberty, or property. If you still don’t understand this basic tenant, you are complicit in ignoring 1000 years of human rights in favor of going with the collective. Why are we arguing about how many allowable rounds in a firearm are acceptable to the State when we should instead be discussing upon which rail will we run the politicians out? End of sermon.