The director of the first Human Centipede film – the one about a psychopathic doctor who sews three unwilling and unwitting captives together mouth-to-anus to make a sort of “centipede” — proudly declared that his film was “100% medically accurate.” That is, he found a doctor who was willing to say that if one were indeed to create such a centipede, the second and third segments (i.e., people) would be able to survive, provided that you supplemented their rather dismal diet with IV drips to give them the nutrition they were lacking.
This dubious claim to 100% accuracy came to mind today as I perused a post by the blogger who calls himself Dalrock, a manospherian nitwit with a penchant for pseudoscientific defenses of old-fashioned misogyny. In a post with the whimsical title “We are trapped on Slut Island and Traditional Conservatives are our Gilligan,” Dalrock argues that the best “solution” to out-of-wedlock births is some good old-fashioned slut shaming.
Here’s how he breaks down the (imaginary) numbers in a post that is “100% mathematically accurate” – which is to say, not accurate at all:
Assume we are starting off with 100 sluts and 30 alphas/players. The sluts are happily riding on the alpha carousel. Now we introduce slut shaming. It isn’t fully effective of course, but it manages to convince 15 of the would be sluts not to be sluts after all. This means an additional 15 women are again potentially suitable for marriage. This directly translates into fewer fatherless children. This also makes the next round of slut shaming easier. Instead of having 99 peers eagerly cheering her on her ride, each slut now has 15 happily married women shaming her and only 84 other sluts encouraging her. After the next round this becomes 30 happily married women shaming the sluts, and only 69 other sluts cheering them on, and so on. This process continues until all but the most die hard sluts are off the carousel. You will never discourage them all, but you can do a world better than we are doing today.
Why not shame the fathers as well, while we’re at it? Dalrock explains that this just doesn’t make good mathematical sense:
Start with the same base assumption of 100 sluts and 30 players. Now apply shame to the players. Unfortunately shame is less effective on players than it is on sluts, so instead of discouraging 15% of them (4.5) in the first round, it only discourages three of them. No problem!, says the Gilligan [the social conservative], at least there are now three fewer sluts now that three of the evil alphas have been shamed away, and all without creating any unhappy sluts! But unfortunately it doesn’t work that way. The remaining 27 players are more than happy to service the extra sluts. They are quite maddeningly actually delighted with the new situation. Even worse, the next round of player shaming is even less effective than the first. This time only 2 players are discouraged, and one of the other 3 realizes that his player peers are picking up the slack anyway and reopens for business. This means in net there are still 26 players, more than enough to handle all of the sluts you can throw at them.
Well, there’s no arguing with that!
Seriously, there’s no arguing with that, because it is an imaginary construct with only the most tenuous connection with how things work in the real world. “But … MATH!” doesn’t really work as an argument here, since human beings don’t actually behave according to simplistic mathematical formulas.
Film critic note: While the first Human Centipede film offered little more than a workmanlike treatment of a fantastical idea, the recently released sequel, which details the attempts of a deranged Human Centipede superfan to take human-centipeding to the next level, is actually sort of brilliant. If you like that sort of thing.
Meller: As far as overturning the “Marshall rulings” on the Constiution, and overturning the “bedrock foundation of how our government operates”, wouldn’t that be an important priority for exactly that reason?
Except that it can’t be done without overturning the reified Constitution you claim to idealise. The Courts won’t do it, the Leglislature can’t do it (any such law would be unconstitutional).
That leaves dictatorial fiat by the executive. Please cite the Article and Paragraph which allows for that, and you intend to do this because…?
I have no idea, and neither does anyone else, if, upon doing this, the result will be a real constitution, a revival of the articles of confederation, a collection of “anarchies” around the North American continent more or less in trade and cooperation with each other, or–most likely of all– something we can’t even imagine now–replacing a discredited and bankrupt empire under a “constitutional” cover that we once knew a “the United States of America”.
Right, you intend to do it because you think Ron Paul is The Messiah. You claim no one has any idea what will come of completely overturning the republic by the dictate of one man; in the hope that he will restore the Glory That Was.
That was the argument for making Gauis Julius Caesar emperor. That worked out great for Republican Rome.
So you’re just going to ignore the part about how just because you feel something that doesn’t make it universally applicable?
Keep on living in that imaginary world, sweetie.
My, that’s ominous. Yes, for now, And for a good long time to come, I would say. There will be bumps, there are dangers to our civil rights, etc, but this is not an end times scenario. Also, as I pointed out, a big, bloated, busy, possibly bankrupting goverment is quite possibly better for the anarchist and/or libertarian “opposition” than anything else. Bottom up, not top down, goes zhinxy’s particular broken libertarian record.
Meller One of the unpleasant features of electoral democrazy, is that only actual results are recorded.
Right… there’s not one newspaper account, not one single recorded debate between candidates, no record of the arguments for and against bills in the House and Senate.
What…? There are? Really? You say the Congressional Record covers that, and things like the Federalist Papers, and the Lincoln/Douglas debates were preserved?
Never mind.
Meller: No I didn’t! I simply was offering (one more) hypothetical scenario when civil government breaks down–as an inevitable outcome of Federal overrerach, “emergency powers, bureaucratic incompetence, currency collapse, and ordinary incompetence–how the military might respond, with or without Ron Paul.
No, you didn’t. You said the question was if the Military would be smart, and wise, enough to realise that Ron Paul was our only hope.
Your clarification makes it more clear that a coup is just fine with you, “with or without Ron Paul” is a follow up to ? If there is a split, how many will be wise enough, and patriotic enough to see Ron Paul as our only hope?
Put those two things together, and you are saying you are in favor of a coup d’etat putting Ron Paul in charge. That is so in keeping with the Intent of the Framers, you betcha.
Sharculese: cato (probably the pseudonym of influential new york governor george clinton) was a staunch anti-federalist who opposed the ratification of the constitution because he though it would effectively obliterate the states through the creation of an all powerful federal government. if you told him that 250 years later people would use his name to argue that the constitution established a minarchist paradise you would have been laughed out of the room.
I think they are referring to Cato the Younger, and this seems to confirm it
You’re both wrong! It was the British Cato! John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon, in real life, I believe?
“Founded in 1977, Cato owes its name to Cato’s Letters, a series of essays published in 18th- century England that presented a vision of society free from excessive government power.”
Though, nobody really wins, cause there’s still a Cato Institute.
huh. interesting. still, considering their actual stance on the constitution, and the claims of reverence for the founding generation they have, you think they would have thought that name choice through a little farther. i’m sure i’m not the only person who’s made that mistake.
i can keep on viewing them as silly and irrelevant, right?
Oh yeah. Also make fun of their pants.
i actually outsource all my cato mockery to mark ames because hes oh so good at it, but i dont think i know about the pants thing?
When civil government disappears, especially at the National level, the most frequent outcome is a military takeover, or a civil war (where one side or another of civilians, takes over with the backing of the most powerful faction(s) of the military. You could, of course, have the total dissolution of the American polity, which is a possibility, but an altogether different one than what we are discussing.
The heir to the Framers, have very little case against it, considering how their “Constitutional Republic” was itself very much a centralizing coup d’etat against the considerably more libertarian arrangement that occured after the successful secession from the British Crown. Upon ratification, the first thing the centralizers did was put their former military Commander-in-Chief in the Presidency as a “civilian”, and he proceeded to crush local dissent such as. Shay’s “rebellion”, and to set up a “Bank of the United States”, with the help of a certain Hamilton in defiance of the very constitution that was just ratified!
At least this time, a military backing of Ron Paul–if he is supported, which is rather iffy-would be moving the USA “freedomward” in certain limited ways. There ARE precedents, although for obvious reasons, they have not been well explored. The most likely analog, if one applies, would be the takeover of Deng Xiaoping–with the army’s help–after Mao Zedong’s death in 1976. Deng then dismantled the communes, allowed the peasants to grow their own food on their own land, established more-or-less private handicraft and textile factories in the cities, freed up the population, where they were allowed to seek gainful employment without the permission of local party and police satraps, welcomed foreign investment, even news and communications investment into the country, first along the coast, and then in the interior, expanded travel opportunities for Chinese working or studying abroad, professionallized the bureaucracy–especially on local and provincial levels, along with getting rid of political commisars, reining in and punsihing corruption among police and party officials and setting up Party recognition of legal ownership of private property and exchange economy–Something that the USSR was never able to do, even under Gorbachev’s perestroika!
What about civil liberties? They have a way to go with that (as if we haven’t, especially after 9/11) and there are still far too many Chinese who are held behind bars, often in horrible conditions, for doing little more than speaking their minds in public. Chinese colonial treatment of Tibet, Chinese Turkestan, Inner Mongolia, and their non-Chinese people still rivals the worst in the Colonial heritage of the West, which had victimized Chinese for two centuries! But there is no longer the horrifying mass famines, the deliberately engineered mass exiles into uninhabitable regions, and mass lynchings of hundreds, even thousands of people suspected of dissent,or even insufficient loyalty–so-called self-criticism sessions–characteristic of Mao’s loathsome misrule! Even after the Tienanmen tragedy, Chinese civil liberties are immeasurably better than they were under Mao, and if you doubt that, try to imagine what would have happened within 24 hours of displaying a replica of the USA Statue of Liberty in 1969 in Beijing rather than 1989?
This isn’t to say that a Ron Paul revolution–with or without military support–would follow a Chinese “Deng Xiaoping model”, (although both in 2008 and today, his Presidential efforts have more support both from active duty personnel and from veterans, and both from enlistees and Officers, than ALL OTHER CANDIDATES COMBINED! See his campaign for details, or websites that keep track of contributions to different candidates for more information. It certainly COULD, and if so, the American prospect in the XXI century may still surprise pessimists among us!
On the whole, I would rather hope that civil government rather than a military takeover would be sufficient for a peacerful, more-or-less legal and even ‘democratic” transition. But your crystal balls Pecunium and Zhinxi, are just as cracked and opaque as mine, and you have no more of a reliable map for guidance in this altogether uncharted political and economic territory than I have. Or even that Ron Paul himself has!
Don’t worry, the pants thing isn’t “a thing,” I just threw it in there. 😉
they probably do wear dorky pants, though.
Ron Paul is not literally trying to lead a revolution. It’s just a campaign slogan. You know that, right?
is it just a revolution now or is it still a rloveution?
I think it’s still a rloveution. I try to avoid it as much as I can.
Oh, I was meaning to ask, Sharculese, since you are so very full of knowledge in this area – “If libertarians want to advance a view of the constitution that restricts federal power, i think there are frameworks that support that and i’m all for novel constitutional arguments.” – Is there any way that you can you point me in the direction of what you think are the best frameworks/arguments for such? I’d like somewhere to point saner/nicer constitution types, even if it’s not my bag. 🙂
P.S. Meller, if you’re now sort of… err… kinda with me, (?) I guess(???)… on the “Constitution was a federalist mess” thing, why have you claimed that Ron Paul is getting us back to it, and that that is a good thing?
But your crystal balls Pecunium and Zhinxi, are just as cracked and opaque as mine, and you have no more of a reliable map for guidance in this altogether uncharted political and economic territory than I have. Or even that Ron Paul himself has!
Not being psychic doesn’t make every single analysis of the world, and likely events equal Mellertron xD
FOR EXAMPLE
I’m going out to get a coffee. Me getting a coffee is quite likely, me running into traffic at this time is less likely, but possible. Me going through a wormhole and running you over as you leave your house for more tinfoil because the old roll was getting dandruffy, is pretty unlikely. xD
Do you know what that phrase means? The second Constitutional Convention was a Constitutional Convention, with representatives from every state and every single state voted to ratify it. It wasn’t like Washington just showed up in Philly with it and declared himself President.
I don’t like this false dicotomy that supporters of the two big parties set up. Supporting a candidate is not the equivalent of opposing their opponent, it is an active thing. It means giving your approval to them and their platform. If you vote for a horrible candidate, don’t pretend you are doing something praiseworthy because their opponent was more horrible, you are still supporting and giving consent to the former’s badness. What you are doing when you advocate supporting terrible candidates because you feel like you have no choice and voting is passive, what you are doing is feeding voter’s feelings that their vote doesn’t matter and that voting and political advocacy is useless.
was itself very much a centralizing coup d’etat against the considerably more libertarian arrangement
Seconding that it was not a coup d’etat I suppose I don’t believe it was “legitimate” (And of course, that is largely because I’M AN ANARCHIST,) but it was not a coup d’etat. Also, the articles were not that great either, and the libertarian-ness varied from state to state, and in all ways left a lot to be desired.
zhinxy, how much do you know about law bloggers? are you familiar with the volokh conspiracy? ilya somin in particular has written things on constitutional limits of federal power i think youd find interesting- http://volokh.com/author/ilya/
the whole crew is generally interesting and insightful, with notable exceptions *cough* randy barnett *cough* but be warned, theyre righties, so expect a decent amount of second amendment and ‘freedom to be white in public’ stuff
zhinxy, how much do you know about law bloggers? – Not too very much! I have heard of Volokh though! Thankyou.
‘freedom to be white in public’ stuff
Ah, but of course. Ty 🙂
I am mixed on the Volokhs’ philosophy, because I know them personally. Also, Eugene has said we should practice public tortures, and allow victims/families to perform it as part of public executions.
Meller: When civil government disappears
But that’s not what you were talking about.
If Civil Gov’t disappears, there is no one to give those, “orders” you were talking about in the first comment.
The heir to the Framers, have very little case against it, considering how their “Constitutional Republic” was itself very much a centralizing coup d’etat against the considerably more libertarian arrangement that occured after the successful secession from the British Crown. Upon ratification, the first thing the centralizers did was put their former military Commander-in-Chief in the Presidency as a “civilian”, and he proceeded to crush local dissent such as. Shay’s “rebellion”, and to set up a “Bank of the United States”, with the help of a certain Hamilton in defiance of the very constitution that was just ratified!
Shay’s rebellion was under the Articles of Confederation. It was that gov’t that asked Washington to take charge and put it down. Washington led no troops in the field while he was president.
And how the constitution came to be isn’t as you describe it. It came about from a convention; the states sent delegates because the Articles of Confederation weren’t working.
The “coup” you are decrying was the acceptance of the Constitution you were praising so fulsomely in those very posts. You are arguing that a coup to forcibly re-impose that constitution on people who no longer want it.
Very libertarian of you.
But your crystal balls Pecunium and Zhinxi, are just as cracked and opaque as mine, and you have no more of a reliable map for guidance in this altogether uncharted political and economic territory than I have. Or even that Ron Paul himself has!
The difference is, I’m not using a crystal ball. I’m looking at past happenings (here, and abroad), and I’m reading your words.
You are saying, “We have no idea what Ron Paul will do, but if things fall apart we need him to do it.”
That’s not reason, that’s religion: blind faith in your leader, irrespective of his ability, or your expectations. You refuse to admit you have any. Taking you at your word, you are saying you think the best thing for the nation is to elect someone whom no on has any idea of the results to come from that selection.
That’s stupid. That’s no more than wishful thinking. It’s blind faith in him, not expectation of successful policy. You are following a man, not a philosophy.
Shay’s rebellion was under the Articles of Confederation.
– AAAARRRH! HOW DID I MISS THAT! Meller is such a wall of text, you miss even the obvious howlers sometimes!~
Meller: When civil government disappears
But that’s not what you were talking about.
If Civil Gov’t disappears, there is no one to give those, “orders” you were talking about in the first comment.
The heir to the Framers, have very little case against it, considering how their “Constitutional Republic” was itself very much a centralizing coup d’etat against the considerably more libertarian arrangement that occured after the successful secession from the British Crown. Upon ratification, the first thing the centralizers did was put their former military Commander-in-Chief in the Presidency as a “civilian”, and he proceeded to crush local dissent such as. Shay’s “rebellion”, and to set up a “Bank of the United States”, with the help of a certain Hamilton in defiance of the very constitution that was just ratified!
Shay’s rebellion was under the Articles of Confederation. It was that gov’t that asked Washington to take charge and put it down. Washington led no troops in the field while he was president. It predates the constitution.
And how the constitution came to be isn’t as you describe it. It came about from a convention; the states sent delegates because the Articles of Confederation weren’t working.
The “coup” you are decrying was the acceptance of the Constitution you were praising so fulsomely in those very posts. You are arguing that a coup to forcibly re-impose that constitution on people who no longer want it.
Very libertarian of you.
But your crystal balls Pecunium and Zhinxi, are just as cracked and opaque as mine, and you have no more of a reliable map for guidance in this altogether uncharted political and economic territory than I have. Or even that Ron Paul himself has!
The difference is, I’m not using a crystal ball. I’m looking at past happenings (here, and abroad), and I’m reading your words.
You are saying, “We have no idea what Ron Paul will do, but if things fall apart we need him to do it.”
That’s not reason, that’s religion: blind faith in your leader, irrespective of his ability, or your expectations. You refuse to admit you have any. Taking you at your word, you are saying you think the best thing for the nation is to elect someone whom no on has any idea of the results to come from that selection.
That’s stupid. That’s no more than wishful thinking. It’s blind faith in him, not expectation of successful policy. You are following a man, not a philosophy.