[extropy-chat] Politics: worthwhile commentary

Joseph Bloch transhumanist at goldenfuture.net
Thu Dec 29 00:51:18 UTC 2005


I find any argument that begins by saying, in effect, "unless you are 
referencing my favorite thinker, your argument is not worth considering" 
to be somewhat less than consideration in and of itself. This seems like 
an attempt to require that every political argument be framed in a 
Friedmanian framework, and smacks me as being as hubristic as those who 
say that insist all problems must be examined from the standpoint of 
Bayesian analysis.

It could easily be applied to Karl Marx, Karl Haushofer, Friedrich 
Nietzsche, Leo Strauss, Ayn Rand, or anybody you care to mention, and is 
an equally worthless standard to apply.

My apologies in advance. Any posts I make on political topics are not 
likely to include cross-references to Thomas Friedman's take on any 
given subject.

Sad sad sad, I know, but alas, alas, and alac.

Joseph

Robert Bradbury wrote:

> This is the 3rd time I've tried to compose this message.  Maybe I'll 
> get it right this time.
>
> The political commentary I've seen has been totally without reference 
> to Thomas Friedman's comments in this area.  Sad Sad Sad...  He has 
> been there, he has looked at the trends quite objectively and can 
> quite clearly can make a case for going to war in Iraq in spite of the 
> mishandling by Rumsfeld and Bush.
>
> I would view any "political" commentary which does not include 
> Friedman's perspective as incompletely informed.
>
> (So, to the "political" commentators -- *shut up* until you have read 
> what Friedman has written and observed the shows on which he has 
> spoken -- he has a grasp of the "big" picture which is lacking in most 
> political discussions.)
>
> Backing it up a level -- it gets into a discussion of extropian 
> principles as to how should one deal with individuals who are 
> incapable of "rational thought".  It becomes important if one 
> considers that there are more "irrational" operators on the planet 
> than "rational" operators.
>
> So any references to the United Nations, "International Law", Kyoto 
> treaties, etc. have to be framed within the perspective of rational 
> vs. irrational operators.  It is completely acceptable (IMO) to reject 
> *any* international treaty, law, etc. if my own personal survival 
> requires it.
>
> So, the question at hand, from an extropic perspective, is *who* is 
> engaging in rational thought and should you give a f*** with regard to 
> those who are not? [1] [2]
>
> Robert
>
> 1.  I would note that the possible atomic bombing of Muslim holy sites 
> by an elected U.S. congressman (from Colorado) as a response to 
> terrorist attacks on the U.S. by "irrational" thinkers.
>
> 2. I would point out *from Friedman* that the second largest muslim 
> population within a "state" is in India.  And they generally do not 
> have a problem with constructing an environment where *all* may 
> participate.
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>extropy-chat mailing list
>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>  
>




More information about the extropy-chat mailing list