Category Archives: Philosophy

FOXNEWS: West Point report describes Islamic State threat as crisis 4 years in the making

A new report from the West Point counterterrorism center challenges the notion that the Islamic State only recently became a major terror threat, describing the network’s gains in Iraq as a crisis four years in the making.

Meanwhile, Fox News has learned that top aides to President Obama expect the threat from the organization, also known as ISIS or ISIL, to outlast Obama’s time in office.

The details underscore the challenge facing the U.S. government and its allies as the president and military advisers weigh how — and where — to confront the Islamist militant forces.

“ISIL did not suddenly become effective in early June 2014: it had been steadily strengthening and actively shaping the future operating environment for four years,” the report from the West Point center said.

Capture
Sure, 4 years in the making, but the choice, if anyone was thinking about it to make a choice, I think was just which four years.

I’m not sure it wasn’t inevitable, no matter who was President; just a matter of sooner or later. The only solution is to raise our game to a level of ruthlessness that our modern sensibilities will not countenance. We don’t have to go full Mongol and kill them all. We don’t even have to go biblical and kill all the men and take the women and children as our own. But we do have to decide that Total War can be an imperative, that we must engage in it.

As for our sensibilities, the—well “reasons” gives too much credit for thinking it through, but I don’t know a better word—the reasons that we lack the mettle to be ruthless is our cultural sensitivity.  If there is a population out there that is so near the edge, that they can be radicalized by how we fight the war, then by all means, push them past that edge and let them die on our pikes as they charge. Let them become enraged by our actions. Enraged opponents may be fierce, but emotional people make mistakes that we should be happy to seek out and exploit.

And we have to remain unemotional doing it.  We can neither afford to love it or hate it and warriors that find themselves doing either must be sidelined.  We have to be cold and dispassionate about the business even while being energetic and passionate in executing it.

We have to shake off the traditional American lack of fervor in the fourth phase of warfare, which is pursuit.  We must pursue—hunt them down and kill them where we find them with whatever means we have available for doing it.

Advertisements

“Economic Patriotism” — oxymoron.

http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2014/07/25/mark-cuban-on-tax-inversions-if-you-move-overseas-im-selling-your-stock/

So the President has been making noises about a few businesses that have decided not to be “American” for tax purposes. Then Mark Cuban steps in and says he won’t do business with those that do that.

And all that’s fine. But both are suffering from a fundamental misunderstanding of how all this rally works and their resulting misplaced expectations.

The correct expectation would be that people act in their best interests. For example, if it costs more in taxes to do business here than anywhere else, then yes, we should expect some number to go elsewhere. Patriotism doesn’t enter into the equation.

That said, if enough people, like Cuban, were to decide that they won’t do business with them because of such a decision, that also has to factor into best interest–its unlikely to ever generate enough participation–boycotts are historically ineffective. But if it were, it still has nothing to do with patriotism.

So the only effective coercive measure is law, which is what the President is talking about. Usually only totalitarian governments have to use force to keep their population from leaving the borders. Taking such action would seem to me to reduce patriotic feeling generally. And if force must be employed, then the subjects of that force are still not behaving patriotically.

The entire concept of “economic patriotism,” then, is only a pleasant sounding oxymoron not unlike trying to equate social programs with charity.

Some say that none of this “self interest” should matter. Businesses should be about giving back through paying taxes… Taxes are not “giving back.” Giving back is public service and community involvement–things that most businesses already engage in. Those activities also have the virtue of being voluntary–voluntary being the defining element of “giving back.”

Taxes are not voluntary. They are taken by threat of violence. Some level of taxation is appropriate but every individual decides what that level is for themselves. When it gets higher than they like, they take some action, from ramping up charitable giving, seeking out missed deductions, to refusing promotions or raises, to cheating on their filing or not filing at all. Or even moving somewhere else with a lower tax rate.

Personally, moving to Texas was a great move for me on taxes. Having done so doesn’t make me less Oklahoman. Oklahoma remains the community to whom I “give back” the most by time and talent in the National Guard.

The thing is, legislation has one constant effect–it changes the locus of decision making from the person to the legislature. It is a substitution of judgement–lawmakers know better how things should be then, well, everybody else. Every one of these laws, collectively, reduces the liberty–the ability to make one’s own choices– of the population. In a country like our, predicated on maximum liberty–when that is the foundation of patriotic feeling–how can an abundance of coercive legislation fail to erode patriotic feeling?

The difference between the voluntary “giving back’ and the coerced taking by taxation. If I give $1000 to a guy on a street corner–that’s me being charitable and the act is attributable to me–he had nothing to do with it. If the guy on the street corner takes $1000 from me, that’s theft and the act is attributable to him–I had nothing to do with it. Even if he provides me something in return, say an assurance that no one else will steal from me, its still theft.

Truth, Justice, and …

The relationship between science and Truth is, or should be roughly analogous to the relationship between law and Justice.  Truth and justice are, in human terms, imperfectly attainable goals.  As a result humans have developed processes, science and law, the adherence to which results in, we hope, as near an approximation of the desired goal as possible. Trouble ensues when the process is given equal standing with the desired product.  Science IS Truth.  Law IS Justice.  This leads us down all manner of dangerous roads.

Neil Degrasse Tyson has said, “That’s the good thing about science: It’s true whether or not you believe in it. That’s why it works.”  This is a fundamentally backward statement. Law and science are only useful to the extent that they continue to work.  When they cease to work, we can look at the result in either of two ways; what it True or Just has changed, or that science or law must change to accommodate what we now know to be True or Just.

Here’s an example.  We all know that the Earth revolves around the Sun.  But how would an unaided, earthbound observer know that?  If the Sun really did revolve around the Earth, in what way would it look different?  The answer is that it is not observably different. The Heliocentric model devised by Copernicus was actually more complex than the old Copernican model.  It was superior in only one aspect; that it more accurately described the length of a solar year.  It would take better measurements, more discoveries, and other perspectives to fully explain, for example, retrograde movement of the planets. And that’s the key.  The Truth appears to have changed.  In reality, it was science that changed, bowing to a new theory that simply worked better than the old one. There’s nothing wrong with believing that the Earth is flat.  But when you approach the edge of it, you might come up against the need to devise a new theory when your prediction fails.  But that’s an issue for that individual.

There IS a problem when you are so convicted of your version of a Scientific Truth that you seek to halt debate, crush dissent, mock “deniers,” and persecute sceptics.  Those should be greater impetus to further testing, better experiments, more detailed or precise measurements, more inclusive hypotheses; that is, an escalation of science.  But when Science IS Truth, we no longer have a need for science, for we have already arrived at an unalterable, unquestionable result.  Science is no longer science, but that other great human search for Truth: Religion.  It’s results are Dogma and not to be questioned.

And most often, these ideological strongpoints exist today in those scientific propositions that are least testable.  Neither Evolution nor Anthropogenic Climate Change can be tested by experiment.  They cannot be viewed in a lab.  I am not arguing for or against either proposition.  I am arguing that the argument on neither can be considered closed. Contrary to Dr. Tyson, truth, in human terms, is what works and science is only that process to find what works, or to eliminate what does not.  Believing only enters into the proposition that far, and the results of that process are only as good as the last theory and may change with the next one.

Related and Funny:  There are No Such Things as Scientists, by Frank J.

Inequality is good.

Natural inequality, the differences between people in all manner of personal attributes and their individuality, is as much a function of freedom as equality before the law.

Were it not for inequality, there would be either no survival or no society.  Assuming that all were universally competent in all things, people would have no need of each other, and with out that competence, some external force would arise to exploit those areas lacking.

Instead, all people are endowed from birth with different potentials and talents.  In this way there are needs that some people have that can only be fulfilled by interaction with others.  And that doesn’t account for material differences which may limit or enhance the activities of humans, but they are no different.

Dealing with inequality, that is attempting to have needs fulfilled which any given individual is unable to do on his or her own, is the basis of society.  It is the motive that brings us together.  There are two basic ways that people can use, and have used, to achieve this, by the institution of either slavery or trade.  Only one of these is capable of producing, preserving, and perpetuating freedom.