Every summer, I like to do one or more contests to help readers pass the time. This month's offering was inspired by a conversation with colleague Ross about people who randomly string together the names of completely unrelated left- or right-wing authors who do not collectively agree with one another on anything, and then claim to have divined support for some position. So: write a coherent and unironic blog post using one of the following opening phrases:
1) As Hegel and Dorothy Day both tell us . . .
2) There are four primary reasons that America should consider nationalizing the farms . . .
3) There are many important insights to be found in the work of Dale Carnegie, but the most important is this . . .
4) It is impossible to understand the music of Barry Manilow without first developing a working knowledge of Richard Wagner's major works . . .
5) I know it is unfashionable to say this, but the whipping post could be a humane alternative to prison . . .
6) Few financiers appreciate the fantastic investment opportunities in today's Zimbabwe . . .
7) Joseph Stalin was right about many things . . .
8) Lately, I've been thinking that what America really needs is another Great Depression . . .
9) Velveeta is the unsung hero of American cooking . . . .
10) It seems completely obvious to me that the logical second-best choice for Hillary's supporters in the general election is Bob Barr . . .
11) I have recently decided that there is only one way for America to really fight terrorism: force everyone to fly naked and without baggage . . .
12) Forget hybrids; let's bring back the horse as the primary means of urban transportation . . .
13) We had over 100 years as a nation without female suffrage. Turnabout is fair play; it is time to try female-only suffrage . . .
Awesome prize, to be named at a later date, to the author of the best blog post on this topic. You must, however, actually argue in favor of the proposition; you cannot pose the first sentence as a foil for some other agenda.
7) Joseph Stalin was right about many things...which is why he was unbeaten in Trivial Pursuit. Of course, that and the gulag for anybody who got his sixth pie wedge.
Coherent and unironic blog? Why bother?
I don't get it? 11,12,and 13 are the only lines you have that might require irony.
Given that the prize is to be named at a later date, I think this is some sociological experiment that relates to some game between you and Ross. I don't read Ross so I can't be sure.
This would be much funnier in reverse.
I had some good ideas until I figured out that "unironic" wasn't pronounced YOO-nih-ron-ic.
I guess I will never fit in to the East Coast intelligentsia, because in my opinion there indeed *are* many important insights to be found in the work of Dale Carnegie. Simple != Stupid.
Velveeta is the unsung hero of American cooking . . . .
...because I proposed to my wife on the shore of Lake Superior over a lunch of Velveeta sandwiches.
True story. Haven't eaten one since, at least not knowingly.
4) It is impossible to understand the music of Barry Manilow without first developing a working knowledge of Richard Wagner's major works . . . such as "Der Ring des Copacabana," "The Ride of Mandy," and "Can't Smile Without You, Unless You're a Jew."
12) Forget hybrids; let's bring back the horse as the primary means of urban transportation . . . food, sexual partner, elected official, movie critic, and owner of those cute little bistros on the corner. Horses rule.
This is more fun than whining about it.
Few financiers appreciate the fantastic investment opportunities in today's Zimbabwe. The time to invest is when everyone is fearful. Inflation is running in the 6 figures. A dictator is suppressing free and fair elections. How much worse can it get? If MDC wins, and investment in the Zimbabwean currency could be one of the best opportunities around. And skew in the trade, that is the downside/upside potential, is hugely positive. If Mugabe wins, it's more of the same and you quickly exit the trade, with a small loss. If Mugabe loses though, the currency is going to soar.
I've actually considered #12, as an alternative to the Dulles Greenway. They already have built-in infrastructure for it - that green divide between the lanes. The Greenway starts from around horse country, and goes all the way to 66, only about 37 miles. Now I have no idea about endurance, but Google is telling me that horses average 30 miles an hour. If they can run that fast at a sustained rate, I could get to work in just a little over an hour.
There's a plentiful supply of horses just a little bit north of the Greenway. Obviously not everybody who wants one can afford to own a horse, but that's where private enterprise comes in. We already have ZipCars, why not ZipHorses? Rent a horse for the ride in, and again for the ride out. It's environmentally friendly. The horses are 100% made in America. We'd be reducing carbon emissions and dependence on foreign fuel.
For anyone concerned about horses being injured, there's already an Equine Medical facility near the end of the Greenway.
I don't see how this idea could lose.
I have recently decided that there is only one way for America to really fight terrorism: force everyone to fly naked and without baggage . . . Also, make alcoholic drinks mandatory. This will effectively prevent most serious muslims from flying, without violating the constitution.
Also, with the cost of rising fuel, elimination of clothing and baggage makes for a lighter airplane, uses less fuel, and furthers the creation of an America which is not dependant on foreign oil.
Finally, out of work baggage handlers and security screeners could be retrained to pick crops after we hermetically seal our borders.
It is absolutely critical that screeners be moved to a different line of work, as I don't savor any attempts to preserve their institutional relevancy by performing the types of security checks one might perform on naked people.
Alternately, maybe we can train them to interview people who want to adopt animals. Airport security might even be an improvement in efficiency here.
Actually, Heinlein advocated (13) in Expanded Universe.
And my parents and grandparents have always insisted on (8)
and furthers the creation of an America which is not dependant on foreign oil.
Should read "is not dependent on foreign sponsors of terrorism for its oil supply."
I don't have time for a blog post, but w.r.t. #5, note that prisons on a mass scale are really a 19th century invention. As I understand it, prior to that, the penal code was pretty much fines and/or corporal punishment for misdemeanors, and execution for felonies.
Also note that modern prisons ('Penitenturies') were initially intended for rehabilitation by removing criminals from their sinful associates. Of course, it has the exact opposite effect...
Didn't Scott Adams already argue in favor of #11?
I nominate Bob Hayes, who makes a good case for #5 here.
I know it is unfashionable to say this, but the whipping post could be a humane alternative to prison.
For many crimes and many criminals, a few minutes of public humiliation and some immediate pain (followed by a period of lesser pain; we'll assume arguendo that the system of whipping involved won't lead to any significant permanent harm), might well be as effective a deterrent and more humane than prison, especially given the current state of the prison system.
Add in a prison-for-repeat-offenders rule to prevent the physically-very-tough from getting off too lightly, and it seems quite workable.
(I'm not even sure this needs more argument; the plausibility of the statement [which is all that's required for a "could be"] seems obvious.
Whether it's a Really Good Idea is another matter, but it's not Obviously A Bad Idea either.)
I know it is unfashionable to say this, but the whipping post could be a humane alternative to prison.
I think that a more humane approach to the problem would perhaps be sentenced to probation with intermittent whippings. Studies have shown that anticipation of pain is just as powerful an incentive to avoid a behavior as the actual pain itself. I think that being sentenced to an immediate whipping, followed by a weekly whipping for a duration of time, would allow for concurrent punishment without halting life progress, such as careers or causing children to grow up without fathers.
Drug tests would have to be administered prior to the whippings to make sure the convicted had not ingested pain medication.
It seems completely obvious to me that the logical second-best choice for Hillary's supporters in the general election is Bob Barr, since he will restore the rights taken from us by the Bush administration, keep government's hands off of the internet and respect state's rights to legalize marijuana.
Joseph Stalin was the only person in the world who every truly managed to get massive bureaucracies to fuction as their supported always claim they will fuction. The Stalinist USSR was, of course, not without bureaurocratic infighting but it was not allowed to get in the way of success, unlike every other bureaucracy that has ever existed.
That this remarkable achievement was only possible through a policy of instant death for failure or disloyalty (and how quickly the bureaucracies reverted to normal form once this policy was ended) should stand as eternal warning to those who think a new giant bureaucracy is just the thing we need to solve X.
http://achillesshrugged.blogspot.com/2008/06/only-timely-truths-are-true.html
8) Lately, I've been thinking that what America really needs is another Great Depression. You see, so much in life tends toward oscillation between two polar opposites. This is true in the natural sciences (day-then-night, spring tide-then-neap tide, overgrown forest-then-fire-then-new forest, etc.) It also happens in the social sciences (business booming-then-business busting, organization by function-then-organization by project, etc.)
Well, one of the biggest oscillations that occurs, at least throughout American history, is that between libertarianism and authoritarianism. America's natural state, as evidenced in our founding documents, is libertarianism, but people eventually get fed up with a collection of inconveniences that "someone" ought to "do something" about, and it produces authoritarianism. After this paradigm presides for a while, people (often a generation or two after the first people) get fed up with all of the intrusions of government into their lives and they try to strip it away.
These transition periods do not always happen easily. Much like a fire can clear away the overgrown forest to make way for a new forest, some dramatic event can act as the catalyst to initiate one of these oscillations.
The last time America went through a Great Depression, America transitioned from libertarianism to authoritarianism. Citizens felt (mistakenly) that capitalism had failed and that government sponsorship, stewardship, and regulation of the economy was the only way past the rough patch. It ushered in a time of sweeping regulation embodied in the alphabet soup of agencies created then, and inspired by them since.
While the Friedmans, Rands, Hayeks, and Reagans of the world, (and to a lesser extent the Pauls, Baileys, and Welches of the world), have gradually chipped away at this edifice of regulation, the force of American capitalism for wealth-creation, innovation, and overall quality of life is still shackled by this legacy.
To break from this, another Great Depression is needed. Modern America is much more savvy about the power of free markets, free trade and capitalism. As a general malaise worsens into a recession, and further into a Second Great Depression, Americans will realize that the "saviors" in government are really the ones prolonging this Depression (as Roosevelt's well-meaning machine did), and throw off the oppressors. Only the full-throttled engine of capitalism would save the country. Or, to think of it another way, if the citizenry had our modern sophistication instead of what it had back when Atlas Shrugged was written, John Galt would have won over the people and the government before it got too strong to destroy the country.
Though it sounds more glib than I genuinely feel about it, sure, this scenario would be painful. Many would die, many more would suffer terribly. But, I feel that this Second Great Depression would not last as long as the first one considering the direction of the oscillation that it would be spurring.
This my friends is how you destroy capitalism in order to save it!
“People say, “What is the sense of our small effort?” They cannot see that we must lay one brick at a time, take one step at a time.” - Dorothy Day
“What experience and history teach is this - that nations and governments have never learned anything from history, or acted upon any lessons they might have drawn from it.” - G.W.F. Hegel
As Hegel and Dorothy Day both tell us, the environment to which we have access is the environment of the present, a finite moment within history. Knowledge of the past is not readily convertible into present know-how, in those fields -- especially politics, economics, and technology -- where the fundamentals change.
The difference between the practical conditions of the past and the present may be sufficient to prevent a single social science from encompassing both. Machiavelli was wrong to advocate the reintroduction of the footsoldier in Discourses on Livy, not because he was wrong about their relation to classical virtue -- he was right about that. What he was wrong about was the possibility or desirability of returning to that earlier system. The needs of a newly mercantile and diversely pious age called for new virtues, in many respects unlike the old civic virtu. The opportunity cost of manly bravery is higher in an age which calls for the virtues of thrift, punctuality, and honesty. Similarly, common property was an old form of mutual insurance and community, but incompatible with the wealth-generating practices of modernity. Consequently if we wish to retain the benefits of the virtue of the Jeffersonian farmer, we must consider the economic conditions that render the small farm a less and less viable form of enterprise: capitalism's tendency to concentrate resources where they are used most efficiently. The "lessons" of economic history cannot be expected to hold true in new circumstances, even while the underlying nature of mankind remains the same.
There are two primary reasons that America should consider nationalizing the farms.
1) Force is the only method left for restoring a class of independent land-cultivators. These small farmers are the only class with sufficient attachment to locality, pride of ownership, and live-and-let-live instincts sufficient to keep our liberal political system functioning. (Cf. Tocqueville's Democracy in America) The process of subsidization has been effectively dominated by large agribusinesses. Joseph Stalin was right about many things, and he was especially clear-eyed about what was necessary to reinstitute collective farming: massive coercion, and the liquidation of the kulaks. The preservation of liberal civic virtue -- which is, unlike collective farming, an urgent social need -- likewise requires retrograde motion, hopefully less forcible. Communization on a broad scale can no longer be a voluntary enterprise, and neither can the de-concentration of any class of economic resources. We have three options moving forward. We can abandon the civic virtue of small farmers, for the sake of economic growth. But this would jeopardize the very political liberty that enables that growth. Second, we could try to eliminate the incentives driving the concentration of farmable land. But this would essentially destroy capitalism, sending us backwards just as surely as the first option. Lastly, we can make farming a special vocation, protected from the rest of the economic system, by means of government-owned and administered single-family homesteads.
2) Government is already involved with the administration of farms, by means of a massive system of subsidies. The federal government has its finger in the pie, but doesn't accept any responsibility for the consequences. Complete privatization might have been the best option twenty years ago, but we now have the information technology to govern using Hayekian decentralized information without decentralizing ownership. We just need a few good agriculture blogs, and a department of agriculture that reads them. "Voice" is gaining relative to "exit" as a force for positive change. It's about time we forgot the tired old lessons from history, and let the State -- the march of God through history -- assume its rightful place among the yeoman farmers.
“People say, “What is the sense of our small effort?” They cannot see that we must lay one brick at a time, take one step at a time.” - Dorothy Day
“What experience and history teach is this - that nations and governments have never learned anything from history, or acted upon any lessons they might have drawn from it.” - G.W.F. Hegel
As Hegel and Dorothy Day both tell us, the environment to which we have access is the environment of the present, a finite moment within history. Knowledge of the past is not readily convertible into present know-how, in those fields -- especially politics, economics, and technology -- where the fundamentals change.
The difference between the practical conditions of the past and the present may be sufficient to prevent a single social science from encompassing both. Machiavelli was wrong to advocate the reintroduction of the footsoldier in Discourses on Livy, not because he was wrong about their relation to classical virtue -- he was right about that. What he was wrong about was the possibility or desirability of returning to that earlier system. The needs of a newly mercantile and diversely pious age called for new virtues, in many respects unlike the old civic virtu. The opportunity cost of manly bravery is higher in an age which calls for the virtues of thrift, punctuality, and honesty. Similarly, common property was an old form of mutual insurance and community, but incompatible with the wealth-generating practices of modernity. Consequently if we wish to retain the benefits of the virtue of the Jeffersonian farmer, we must consider the economic conditions that render the small farm a less and less viable form of enterprise: capitalism's tendency to concentrate resources where they are used most efficiently. The "lessons" of economic history cannot be expected to hold true in new circumstances, even while the underlying nature of mankind remains the same.
There are two primary reasons that America should consider nationalizing the farms.
1) Force is the only method left for restoring a class of independent land-cultivators. These small farmers are the only class with sufficient attachment to locality, pride of ownership, and live-and-let-live instincts sufficient to keep our liberal political system functioning. (Cf. Tocqueville's Democracy in America) The process of subsidization has been effectively dominated by large agribusinesses. Joseph Stalin was right about many things, and he was especially clear-eyed about what was necessary to reinstitute collective farming: massive coercion, and the liquidation of the kulaks. The preservation of liberal civic virtue -- which is, unlike collective farming, an urgent social need -- likewise requires retrograde motion, hopefully less forcible. Communization on a broad scale can no longer be a voluntary enterprise, and neither can the de-concentration of any class of economic resources. We have three options moving forward. We can abandon the civic virtue of small farmers, for the sake of economic growth. But this would jeopardize the very political liberty that enables that growth. Second, we could try to eliminate the incentives driving the concentration of farmable land. But this would essentially destroy capitalism, sending us backwards just as surely as the first option. Lastly, we can make farming a special vocation, protected from the rest of the economic system, by means of government-owned and administered single-family homesteads.
2) Government is already involved with the administration of farms, by means of a massive system of subsidies. The federal government has its finger in the pie, but doesn't accept any responsibility for the consequences. Complete privatization might have been the best option twenty years ago, but we now have the information technology to govern using Hayekian decentralized information without decentralizing ownership. We just need a few good agriculture blogs, and a department of agriculture that reads them. "Voice" is gaining relative to "exit" as a force for positive change. It's about time we forgot the tired old lessons from history, and let the State -- the march of God through history -- assume its rightful place among the yeoman farmers.
oops -- and I went to lengths to prevent double-posting too... reloading the site a couple times to make sure my post hadn't gotten through before trying to post again...
Sorry.
entry
Can we submit others' work as an entry?
For #8:
http://www.economist.com/finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9687245