Category: ideological culture

Categories
general freedom ideological culture

Winning Through Identification

Javier Milei, Argentina, freedom, government

Argentina’s libertarian president, Javier Milei, perceives that many political battles amount to a clash between producers and thieves. Between those who work for living (using what sociologist Franz Oppenheimer called the “economic means”) and those who steal for a living (using the “political means”).

Politics can’t always be reduced to this conflict, of course. But it can pretty often — certainly in a country where socialists have been pulverizing the economy.

Now, this knowledge is not kept by Milei as a dark secret, about which he would be embarrassed to be caught mentioning to a select few supporters.

Milei is not coy! That we learned during his campaign for president; and, no matter what his ups and downs in office, he still seems to be just as candid, just as willing to blast his opponents, to their faces, for —

Well: “Listen up, you ignorant fools! ‘Social justice’ is theft. It implies unequal treatment before the law and is preceded by theft. You bunch of thieves! Criminals!”

Also: “The world has only two kinds of people: those who live off what others produce — that is, the parasites, that is, you — and those who produce everything that is possible in modern life.

“The true battle of our time is cultural, philosophical, and moral. It is about choosing the system that lifted millions out of poverty. It is about ceasing to be an immature nation that squanders the future to distribute benefits in the present. . . .”

Probably even better in the original Spanish.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Nano Banana

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
ideological culture too much government

DC Stench No Longer Metaphorical

Washington D.C. , Potomac, sewage

Matt Walsh says that “one of the worst ecological disasters in American history is currently unfolding. A river of sewage is flowing into the Potomac. When you dig into this story, and who is responsible for it, you start to see why the media doesn’t want to talk about it.”

He’s not wrong, the disaster began January 19th but we’ve heard little about it. On his podcast, No. 1736; Mr. Walsh goes all into a “Diversity, Equity and Inclusion” explanation.

According to The Daily Wire’s most socially conservative host, the responsible agencies are filled with hires based not on qualifications or competence or conscientiousness, but based on their color. 

He highlights, specifically, two individuals in the current muck: one, DC Water CEO David L. Gadis, partly responsible for the Flint, Michigan, water crisis, and the other, the current head of DC Water Board of Directors, Dr. Unique N. Morris-Hughes, a doctor in philosophy. Walsh regales us with her inanities and her over-spending on departmental entertainment junkets. 

While there may be a detectable odor to Walsh’s relentless critique of hiring blacks, specifically, under DEI, the odor from the Potomac, right now, is much less metaphorical.

In between retches, ask the question: Why would there be a general incompetence rising in public utilities now? 

Is it race as such? Of course not. 

Is it DEI putting race over competence? Maybe in part. 

But the general trend for a long time has been to put more and more domains of everyday life under direct government control. There’s a principle lost on the Mamdanis of this world: the more tasks set for government to govern, the less capable it becomes to manage even its core tasks. And, as that capacity declines, so goes even the will to bother trying.

Besides, if there is any apter metaphor for Washington, DC, than hundreds of millions of gallons of untreated sewage sloshing into the Potomac . . . I can’t think of it.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Nano Banana

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
ideological culture international affairs

Tropic of AOC

AOC, this is fine

On her European junket, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (N.Y.-D) elicited chuckles over her comments on the arrest of Nicolás Maduro by means of a military incursion, mistakenly identifying Venezuela as “below the Equator.” The country lies entirely north of the dividing line between the Tropics of Cancer and Capricorn. 

Was this her “Aleppo moment”?

Hardly. Darlings of the major parties get away with faux pas that minor party challengers cannot escape. (Remember in 2016, when Governor Gary Johnson, running as a Libertarian, spaced out on the Syrian city then in the news?) 

Besides, AOC said (or didn’t say) worse.

Asked about China, she yammered interminably, very understanding of the “ascending global power . . . acting in its own self-interest” but not once mentioning the authoritarian, anti-democratic and generally tyrannical-exploitative nature of communist rule there. 

Instead, Ocasio-Cortez castigated the United States for not “investing in science and technology” enough. A very left-Democrat thing to do, going on to characterize “privatized research” as not helping a country maintain global power status. 

China does the internal improvements thing oh-so-much-better than the U.S., she insinuates.

But “would and should the U.S. actually commit U.S. troops,” she was asked, “to defend Taiwan if China were to move?”

AOC stammered for 20 seconds. All that public investment in alternative energy is supposed to, somehow, prevent China from trying to nab Taiwan!

The U.S. should “make sure that we are moving,” she concluded, “to avoid any such confrontation and for that question to even arise.” 

Can we retreat that quickly? It has arisen.

On the world stage, our Bronx savant is in her own very special hemisphere.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with ChatGPT

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
general freedom ideological culture

Medicine Reverses Course

gender affirming care, health, fads, hysteria

Scott Jennings reports on what he calls “a political earthquake”: both the American Society of Plastic Surgeons and the American Medical Association have “gone on the record saying the same thing. There is insufficient evidence to justify ‘gender transition surgeries’ for minors, and these surgeries should generally be deferred to adulthood.”

The ASPS made its statement on February 3, which the New York Times explained was prompted by “a lack of quality research on the long-term outcomes for young people who had undergone surgical interventions like mastectomies and cited ‘emerging evidence of treatment complications and potential harms.’”

The next day, the AMA, the nation’s largest medical organization, spoke up. 

When this issue came to the fore a few years ago, the usual response was “this is only happening to a tiny group of young people, if any.” Now, according to TheTimes, a review of “hospital data from 2016 through 2020 identified about 3,600 patients aged 12 to 18 who had received gender-related surgery. The vast majority were mastectomies.” 

The Times references a York University social scientist studying “transgender medicine” who attributes the new positions, in part, to “the growing political backlash over gender-affirming care.” Just as Scott Jennings judges these two big turnarounds as huge blows to “the left,” which has supported those surgical practices in the cause of gender-fluidity and -identity along with inclusion and whatnot.

By advising against major irreversible interventions into the maturation process of young people, ASPS and the AMA have, at the very least, made a long-overdue advance for Common Sense.

I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Nano Banana

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
Accountability folly ideological culture responsibility

Everyone Dies?

AI, Artificial Intelligence, prediction, action

After Friday, when I worried about robots taking over, I was glad to read a debunking of the AI Will Destroy Us All meme, so in vogue. In “Superintelligent AI Is Not Coming To Kill You,” from the March issue of Reason, Neil Chilson argues that we shouldn’t freak out.

Not only do I not want to freak out, I don’t want to use AI very much — though I understand that, these days, sometimes it makes sense to consult the Oracles.

Chilson is reviewing a new book, If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies: Why Superhuman AI Would Kill Us All, by Eliezer Yudkowsky and Nate Soares, who argue that “artificial intelligence research will inevitably produce superintelligent machines and these machines will inevitably kill everyone.”

Just like I feared on Friday!

Where the authors go wrong, Chilson argues, is that by “defining intelligence as the ability to predict and steer the world, Yudkowsky and Soares collapse two distinct capacities — understanding and acting — into one concept. This builds their conclusion into their premise. If intelligence inherently includes steering, then any sufficiently intelligent system is, by definition, a world-shaping agent. The alignment problem becomes not a hypothesis about how certain AI architectures might behave but a tautology about how all intelligent systems must behave.”

Today’s AI’s are “fundamentally about prediction. They predict the next element in a sequence.”

They aren’t necessarily taking action.

I hope Chilson’s critique holds true.

But we’ve caught AI lying, “just making stuff up” — though considering the nature of “Large Language Models” (the method by which modern AI works), “lying” may be the wrong word. Still, it just seems to me that at some point somebody’s — everybody’s! — gonna link the predictor to some sort of truly active mechanism. 

Like street-ready robots.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Nano Banana

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
ideological culture media and media people national politics & policies partisanship

Not This King?

imperial presidency, power, executive branch, Kings

“This is why more Americans today identify as an independent than a Republican or a Democrat for the first time in American history,” argued Sarah Isgur during a panel discussion on ABC’s This Week program, the day after another fatal shooting by ICE agents in Minnesota. “Because no one actually believes that either side believes what they’re saying.”

Isgur, a writer and podcaster for The Dispatch, has worked on both Democratic (2016) and Republican (2012) presidential campaigns and even landed a job at the Department of Justice during President Trump’s first term, only later to be fired. 

“Look, honestly,” Isgur continued, “if Barack Obama’s federal officers had killed a member of the Tea Party, who had shown up, who had a concealed-carry permit, who was disarmed before he was shot, that [the protester was armed] would not be what the Right is saying.”

She went on: “And, frankly, the left was all for big executive power, as long as it was Joe Biden. They’re not ‘no kings.’ They just don’t like this king.”

Throughout President Donald Trump’s first term, I recall shouts that he had overstepped his authority under the law only to discover, oftentimes, that the power he was wielding had been bestowed upon our president by a feckless Congress. What I found even more disconcerting was that at no time did those complaining seek to limit these excessive presidential powers.

It appears, as Sarah Isgur suggested, that their concern was not with an imperial presidency, only with this current person as that imperial president.

“If you actually want to do something about the problems, both sides need to actually say, presidents shouldn’t have this power,” Isgur explained. “The federal government shouldn’t have this power.”

Wise government depends on limiting power . . . no matter who is president.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Nano Banana

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
ideological culture media and media people national politics & policies

Rebel in Eden?

environmentalism, hysteria, authoritarianism, Robert Bidinotto, individualism

The title of Robert Bidinotto’s bracing new collection, Rebel in Eden: The War Between Individualism and Environmentalism, may occasion objection to the word “environmentalism.”

Of course, if “environmentalism” pertained only to how best to reduce pollution and litter and so forth, who would have need to combat it? Freedom-minded individualists, for example, would debate means, not ends.

But that’s not the kind of thing that the environmentalists themselves — or “radical environmentalists,” to distinguish them from people who manage cleanup crews — focus on.

Radical environmentalists regard humanity as a blight on the face of the earth; they regard nature as an end itself (an “intrinsic value”) that should be left alone regardless of the cost to that mere interloper, man. In their view, plants and animals have “rights,” men and women do not; mining is “raping” the earth — all documented here. 

These are issues that Bidinotto has been reporting on and analyzing since at least the early 1980s, in places like the On Principle and Intellectual Activist newsletters and Reader’s Digest. So this collection has been in the making for some forty years.

Some of the don’t-miss essays: “Death by Environmentalism,” “The Great Pesticide Panic,” “Animal Rights: A New Species of Egalitarianism,” “Global Warming and the New Totalitarianism,” “California, Thank Environmentalism for Your Wildfires,” “Environmentalism or Individualism?” I might list the whole table of contents.

Take a look. Bidinotto, by the way, has also contributed a piece “On Courage” to our sister website, StoptheCCP.org.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Nano Banana

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
ideological culture judiciary property rights too much government U.S. Constitution

Who’ll Oppose the Quasi-Commie?

Zohran Mamdani, New York City, property rights

Should we expect a four-year pitched battle?

I see one brewing between the new communist mayor of New York City and those judges who respect law and the U.S. Constitution.*

Some say that Zohran Mamdani, though on record admitting his goal of seizing the means of production, is technically not a communist. Well, if allowed to fully impose all he wants on New Yorkers, maybe that would amount to going straight to a fascist model of totalitarian governance — bypassing the Maoist-Stalinist stage.

Giving him the benefit of the doubt.

But we do know that Mamdani was quick to hire such advisors as housing czarina Cea Weaver, who has lamented home ownership as a “weapon of white supremacy” and declared property as such to be something regrettably long treated as “an individualized good” that now must be treated as a “collective good.”

If you don’t own your house as an individual and have a spare room (or half a room), and somebody needs a place to live, could a Mamdani-and-Weaver-run Big Apple compel you to give space to a stranger that you don’t want around? If property becomes a “collective good” and all must cuddle in the warm bosom of the state-managed collective, the answer must be: yes.

But New Yorkers may not be quite doomed.

Not, anyway, if there are enough judges like David Jones, who recently interfered with an attempt by the Mamdani administration to interfere in the sale of many rental properties owned by Pinnacle Group.

Mamdani’s office says they’ll keep trying. 

Of course they will.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

* Or the New York State Constitution, for that matter: see §7 (a), which clearly states that “Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.” 

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Nano Banana

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
ideological culture judiciary litigation

Trouble with Definitions

Supreme Court, gender, sex, sports

Is it time to push for a complete wall of separation between Sports and State?

The First Amendment helped the United States — together and separately — protect religion from the ravages of regulation, taxation, suppression, and favoritism. Maybe it’s time to extend the concept. 

This came to mind as I skimmed through the transcript to a current case before the Supreme Court, Little v. Hecox (Docket No. 24-38), which involves a challenge to Idaho’s law restricting “transgender women and girls” from participating in women’s and girls’ sports.

I doubt the forthcoming ruling will get government out of sports generally, much less out of sports in public schools — which is what this is all about, Idaho’s law applying only to athletic teams sponsored by public educational institutions (or certain nonpublic ones competing against public ones), not to purely private teams. 

One lawyer for the respondents, Kathleen R. Hartnett, Esq., got stuck with the “tough” job. She was asked by Justice Alito if an understanding of what men and boys are, and what women and girls are, was relevant to the Equal Protection Clause. She said yes, but then confessed to lacking a definition of the sexes for the Court.

Then “how can a court determine that there’s discrimination on the basis of sex,” Alito inquired, “without knowing what sex means. . . . ?”

Her answer started out on a most unpromising note: “I think here we just know . . .” immediately pivoting to the statute’s applicability. Alito went on to challenge her on a key notion in trans ideology, that one becomes trans just by saying so.

I see a lot of people online chortling on the comedy of it all.

But I think here we just know it’s … seriously troublesome.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Nano Banana

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
crime and punishment ideological culture subsidy too much government

Tip of the Socialism-berg 

socialism, immigration, welfare, communism, self destruction, suicidal empathy

“In 2024 alone, state Medicaid Fraud Control Units reported more than 1,151 convictions and more than $1.4 billion in civil and criminal recoveries,” writes Veronique de Rugy at Reason. “Federal enforcement recovers a tiny share of what is stolen. Fraud that goes undetected never appears in the data.”

And then she makes a claim that increasing numbers of astute observers make: “That’s only the tip of the iceberg.” She goes on to suggest that Medicare, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and “many other welfare programs” constitute a huge hunk of fraud.

The solution? “If we want less fraud,” she argues, “we need less government.”

Fraud and big government seem to go hand in hand. At least this kind of big government, which resembles the biggest kind of government imaginable. For taking wealth from many productive American citizens and giving it to a small but growing population of refugees from distant lands, that’s not necessarily fraud, I suppose, but it is something close to socialism.

We see in Venezuela just how devastating rule by thieving socialists can be. (Hugo Chavez nationalized oil industry infrastructure and then ran it into the ground.) In Minnesota and in other states of the union, we see a similar ethic. When done on a limited basis, we could call it “helping the poor,” the folks who just cannot produce what they need. That’s how transfer socialism was sold to us.

And they could say, truthfully, that’s not full socialism.

But extending the beneficiary class from our most needy friends and neighbors to the less-and-less needy, and then to waves of refugees from other countries, that’s a recipe for disaster. Like socialism when “full.”

How far should Americans go to help “others”? To our own ruin?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Nano Banana

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts