Are Mensa's Libertarians Really As Dumb As They Write?

Even wifey was appalled to read one of the letters published in the latest Mensa Bulletin,  (January, 'Brainwaves' p. 10) written by a Mensan named Dennis Ward. It read thus:

"Taxes! Taxes! Taxes! People are always complaining about taxes, so the  'smart' members of Mensa have the right solution: It is neither ethical nor moral to force anyone to do anything against their will unless in self-defense. Many people will ask: 'How will we run the government without taxes?'  My answer is that it is neither ethical nor moral to force anyone to do anything against their will unless in self-defense."

Wow! This character repeats a mantra and he makes it appear as if he's delivering some unique wisdom from atop Mt. Olympus,  channeling a Mensan version of Zeus. Give me a break! At best this is regurgitated  from Libby idol Ayn Rand, who blabbered in her book, The Virtue of Selfishness (p. 116):

"Since the imposition of taxes does represent an initiation of force...in a fully free society, taxation, or payment for government services, would be voluntary. Since the proper services of government - the police, the army, the law courts - are demonstrably needed by individual citizens, and affect the individual's interests directly, they should be willing to pay for such services as they pay for insurance.....Men would voluntarily pay for insurance protecting their contracts."

One method of such voluntary government financing would be a government lottery"

and (ibid.)

"A fully free society is one that has been constitutionally reduced to only its most proper, basic functions"


This is also undoubtedly where the pet libertarian canard that “taxes = theft’ comes from. But let's look at it objectively:  the reductio ad absurdum conclusion is that every human resides in a kind of bubble or vacuum wherein he or she presumably controls all.  Face invasion by a foreign army? Develop your own counterforce, or....round up enough soldiers to try to protect you.  Your town flattened by an F5 tornado and all electric power and water gone? Well, try to get neighbors together and dig your own wells for H2O while you cut lumber to put up new telephone poles and look around for electric power lines.  H3N2 flu killing one person after another in your town, and there's no flu vaccine - or Tamiflu - because, well you didn't want to pay  taxes to support the CDC or government health services? Hey, no problemo! Go mix up some camphor balls and listerine and see if that works!

 This elicits two questions, not entirely unrelated: 1) Is it practical to expect an individual in any society to shoulder all responsibility for all possible adverse events - that may not only affect him, but also others in his proximity or region?, and 2) Is it possible to have a "fully free society"?

Let's take the last first and note the libertarian creed has a primary fetish for "full freedom" especially on the individual level.   But this arises from fantasies that bear no relation to the real world we inhabit. This includes such natural threats and affronts to individual freedom as: floods, fire storms, mudslides - such as recently swallowed dozens of California homes, monster hurricanes, tornadoes,
and disease pandemics - say from Influenza,  Zika or dengue fever.

I believe we can agree that each of these, if occurring in a populated place, impinges adversely on the inhabitants' freedom, say to live or even prosper. In nearly every case resources are suddenly limited, including electric power, water and even food. The frequency of these natural enemies of total freedom also appears to be increasing as climate change goes on.

The conclusion then is that a fully free, autonomous and independent society is an impossible concept. This is because no one living on this planet - in any society, country or continent- - can be free of the vicissitudes and vagaries of the multiple possible natural disasters, events that can afflict any given community. Once your domain  is devastated by any natural disaster of any form your "freedom" becomes circumscribed.  Ask the Puerto Ricans still without electric power after Hurricane Maria.  These hapless folk cannot cook their rice, access potable water, refrigerate their medications or watch television news. Or even have lights by which their offspring can do homework - hence why many thousands have abandoned the island to live in the U.S.

By extension then, we can generalize and assert once your domain is subject to any kind of natural disaster (including a pandemic flu) your basic freedom to live and prosper is limited.  This axiom applies to all humans across the planet, no exceptions.

As a corollary let me add that ALL individuals exist as part of communities, they do not exist unto themselves as one hundred percent self sufficient entities. Even if  an individual might conduct his  own home school to teach his own offspring, he'd be hard pressed to  build his own roads, bridges, sewer and water lines, hospitals, airports etc.  So it is daft to believe any individual can live on his own detached from the resources of a greater collective, unless he is maybe another Ted Kaczynski. So seriously, are Ward, Ayn Rand and fellow Libbies asking us to generate 300 million Ted Kaczynskis?  Give me a break!

So moving on to inquiry (1), what then is the Libby solution for a community or even a state, if it is suddenly struck by monster storms, floods or wildfires? Well,  if I am a Puerto Rican and my power and water was knocked out after Hurricane Maria,  I suppose Ward's "solution" is that I retrieve my own telephone poles, power lines, and also machinery to excavate my own water wells.  I suppose also he expects all other Puerto Ricans  to do the same. No dependence on outside (tax-funded) government agencies like FEMA or the U.S. Army to help or lift a mitt.

What a freaking system- of idiocy!

If an H5 N1 Avian flu pandemic arrives, as many (e.g. Dr. Sanjay Gupta)  predict sometime in the future, would Mr. Ward also demand cutting all tax-support for the CDC - which tracks pandemics? Would he prefer we all just fend for ourselves, without even a flu vaccine to help?  I mean, in his deformed stunted world it would be "force" to have any upstanding citizen pay taxes to support the preparation of vaccines or the CDC in its keeping Americans apprised.

But again, this is the problem when one relies on mantras instead of reason and critical thinking, even if a "smart" Mensan.

This bids us also look again at Ayn Rand's solutions to our dilemma of what to do in case we  need police, army, fire fighters, health care or any other ostensible service of government that ordinarily woould be provided via tax dollars. But since taxation is "theft" to her and Ward, then we are to EACH purchase our own services "like insurance"".  Must I really spell out how stupid this is, and that if one is really going to individualize costs - as opposed to share them via a tax commons-  they are going to be astronomical.

Must I also spell out to the libbies that taxation is totally justified by social contract theory. On this basis we in the public sphere democratically allow people (like Warren Buffet and George Soros)  to accumulate wealth only with the understanding that a portion of that wealth would be allocated for public use.  Go ahead and establish whatever business empire you wish, but be aware that your use of our railroads, state highways, airports, etc. makes it incumbent on you to pay into the collective, the  tax commons. And no, this is assuredly not a "voluntary" matter as Rand suggests.

This brings us to one of the most apt criticisms of libertarianism:

"I don't need force to commit theft or fraud. This is a bit of rhetorical sleight of hand that libbies like to play so that they can pretend they are different from government”.

To fix ideas, Bernard Madhoff put a gun to no one's head to part with their money. He merely plied clients with fantastic visions of unearned extra wealth via his investment offerings. They weren't forced to purchase these instruments. This in itself shows the libbie's version of force as theft is poppycock.. Conversely,  taxation is not force if person X opts to live in a state or city whereby that habitation gives tacit agreement to be subject to the state's tax.  If I dislike the terms of that agreement I am at liberty to do what  one hedge fund billionaire once did and live on my own ship outside international waters.

Enter now  Prof. Ernest Partridge take on libertarianism in his 2012 article, ‘Liberals and Libertarians’:

“Now consider the implications of this denial of the "independent existence" of "the public" and "society." If there is no "public," then there are no "public goods" and there is no "public interest." If there is no "society," then there is no "social harm," or "social injustice" or "social (and public) responsibility." It then follows that government has no role in mitigating "social injustice" or promoting "the public interest," since these terms are fundamentally meaningless. Poverty and racial discrimination, for example, are individual problems requiring individual solutions”.


The same critic cited earlier puts thus:

“Libertarians make exceptions for defense of property and prosecution of fraud, and call them ‘retaliatory force’ But retaliation can be the initiation of force."

Libertarianism clearly posits initiation of force for what it identifies as its cosseted minions' interests and calls it righteous retaliation, then uses the big lie technique to define everything else as “evil initiation of force". They support the initial force that has already taken place in the formation of the system of property (e.g. the seizure of Native American lands and violation of umpteen treaties), and wish to continue to use force to perpetuate it and make it more rigid. It is this inchoate ethics that translates into the system’s weakness and exposes libertarians as true hypocrites.

Thankfully, it appears fewer in the higher Q societies have been buying into this codswallop over the last few years. Maybe it's because Ayn Rand's rubbish of "objectiviem" - disguised as philosophy - has also been exposed on a number of fronts.

See also:

http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/richard-eskow/53353/what-america-would-look-like-if-libertarians-got-their-way

We Shouldn't Dismiss People Who Deny Facts? Why The Hell NOT?

                                                         "I duz  not like facks! DOH!"

A recent irritating, short essay in TIME (Sept. 12-19, p. 26) insisted rational and fact-based people need to give all the zombies,  knuckle draggers, and ignorant buffoons among us a 'break' and not dismiss them.  So, for example, we must give a pass to those who "believe things that are factually incorrect". Say like those who believe that vaccines cause autism, or to one innominate,  self-proclaimed genius of Intertel who is 100 percent convinced that "scientific conspirators falsified their data on which they based their alarming findings."  Or -from the same genius: "these scientists manipulated the peer review process to keep valid research against global warming from being published."

But anyone who's  been involved in serious climate science research would know the latter two beliefs are pure balderdash and definitely merit no respect. Especially if they issue from people who are members of a high IQ group.  They ought to have known or found out that denier papers are rejected because they don't meet minimum publication standards, including: use of proper mathematical or statistical techniques to assess data, use of coherent and testable physical models and/or simulations and assessment of errors in each of the preceding. But it's easier for deniers simply to believe denier research papers are left out because the review process is "manipulated."

While ordinary people may be partly excused for their beliefs, a high IQ person cannot be similarly excused, and he or she merits the full hammer of criticism and opprobrium. He has effectively misused his high intelligence to 'go off the rails'  and not conducted sufficient self-checks on his claims. Nor used his intelligence - with sufficient energy - to do his own research to first seek to disprove his many superficially -based beliefs.

Why? Because by virtue of their very intelligence they ought to fucking know better!  They actually possess the necessary intellect to ferret out the truth and DO the research but are too god damned lazy to do it. They don't want to read 15 or 20 papers that thoroughly debunk their idiotic beliefs, they'd rather just go to climate denier websites, imbibe the misinformation and repeat it. Especially with the conspiracy aspect.

The authors of the TIME essay ('We Shouldn't Dismiss People Who Deny Facts') claim:

"If we really want to change how they think, we need to take an honest look at what's driving those beliefs. Because it's not ignorance, it's psychology."

Actually, in the case of the genius climate deniers (or their  soft soaping allies who aren't as denial -based but still think "the jury is out")  it's politics that's to blame. Specifically Libertarianism,  which most of them espouse, whether in Mensa or Intertel.  This leads them to collect — even invent — bad information to flesh out what they already believe to justify their economics theories.  Their aim isn't scientific pursuit but rather defending an economic system they believe will unravel if practical solutions to global warming became law.

My point? Their  interjection and invocation of politics means they can no longer be afforded special consideration, and this distinguishes them from say, the vaccine skeptics. The TIME authors, Sara and Jack Gorman, claim we are all subject to the same principles that "cause scientific denial".  They add:

"Research has shown that humans are distinctly uncomfortable with events or phenomena without clear causes - and when we don't  know something we tend to fill in the gaps ourselves. Take autism. Since we don't know why it occurs it becomes easy to misplace blame."

Fair enough, but autism is not global warming, for which we KNOW the cause is ever increasing CO2 concentrations that cause the atmosphere to retain more moisture and heat creating a thermal blanket that heats the Earth like a mammoth greenhouse. Indeed, the source of the greenhouse effect has been known for nearly 120 years, from the time of chemist Svante Arrhenius, e.g.

http://warming.sdsu.edu/

This issue also transpired in the debate Monday night when Trump tried to deny he had earlier called global warming a "hoax".  This, despite the fact an old tweet of his was dug up where in he babbled:
"the concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese."

Why recite such crap? Because it served a political advantage. But sorry, you don't get any breaks nor are you spared criticism when you go that route. The same applies to Libertarians in Mensa and Intertel who have banged the denier drum until they're blue in the face. They do it precisely because they don't wish to acknowledge that - if true (which it is) - economic sacrifices will have to be made in the short and long term interest of future generations.  The upshot of their unquestioning belief in market economics leads them to craft a pseudo-scientific narrative ( in the guise of real science) to attack genuine climate science. To accomplish this trick they make use of  the data, papers of proven scientific whores and hacks, willing to sell their dubious skills for a few shekels to the highest capitalist bidders or think tanks e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/02/another-climate-scientist-fake-exposed.html

One of the best exposes of their methods and dynamics has come from Yale Law school prof and science communication researcher Dan Kahan.  He has concluded that their information processing is almost entirely determined by their deep-seated political values and cultural identities. Thus, a white libertarian member of  Intertel, for example, will see global warming science as just one more vehicle of  subversive force backed  by the "untermenschen"  to be used against his precious economic values and Eurocentric ideals. All of this is then attributed to "global warming alarmism", as an expeditious cover for his own abysmal laziness, ignorance and cynicism. At this point, his thinking is already so corrupted and contaminated it's almost impossible to break through on any rational or critical thinking level.

From Kahan's theory, these pseudo skeptics don't really have the time to evaluate every piece of evidence that comes before them (say ice cores containing CO2) so basically punt. Instead of rationally and objectively evaluating the evidence they side with the top bananas in their political group  - in this case folks like Charles Murray- and use their generic  economic arguments (i.e. against taxes as "theft" and "force")  to attack climate science or more precisely the climate science consensus that human induced warming is real, e.g.

http://sciencepolicy.agu.org/files/2013/07/AGU-Climate-Change-Position-Statement_August-2013.pdf

One of their most used shticks is to clump all federal science agencies (like NOAA, NASA, EPA  etc.) together and "in on the scam". This makes it easy so they don't have to use their brains or  time plowing through separate specialist climate papers. Why do that when you can kill five birds with one stone?

Driven by this short cut mental modality, they then seek out those oddball contrarians (like Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas, Richard Lindzen) who do sound off against the climate consensus, even though they are dead wrong and have been proven so.  The stage then emerges for the next phase: cherry picking only the data which conforms to their economic or political values. By now we have  a self-reinforcing mechanism: the more the Libbie genius gets exposed to the faux science that  supports his economic and political stance the more he continues to adopt that position and related ones further out. These include such far out, paranoid ideations that one's opponents "demand that Western Industrial Civilization commit cultural suicide by adopting the crippling constraints sought by the global warming conspirators."  in the words of Kort Patterson.

Meanwhile, by extension, misinformation in public life isn’t the exception, it’s the rule, according to a study published in Social Science Quarterly  which employed a “knowledge distortion index” and looked at two competing explanations for why this is so — one top-down, the other bottom-up.  The researchers used three Washington state initiatives from the 2006 general election cycle to examine the dynamics of what is going on in this particular sort of political environment.  The study, “How Voters Become Misinformed: An Investigation of the Emergence and Consequences of False Factual Beliefs,” found that “voters’ values and partisanship had the strongest associations with distorted beliefs, which then influenced voting choices. Self-reported levels of exposure to media and campaign messages "played a surprisingly limited role,” despite the presence of significantly mistaken “facts,” which were used to help construct the knowledge distortion index.
 

Lead author, Justin Reedy in one interview stated “Both of these theories recognize that citizens can develop distorted factual beliefs because of their political views, but they disagree about how those distortions might happen. Heuristics researchers generally think that citizens have limited attention for politics and try to process information quickly and efficiently.”

Again, this reverts to Kahan's theory of why intelligent climate deniers give short shrift to deep research that might change their minds - if they only got off their butts and put their high IQs to use for an activity other than denial. But because simple denial consumes less time (one can get denier "misinformation" quickly and efficiently from numerous websites) then their denier behavior is more likely to be reinforced. That means they will be less likely to expend time or effort on difficult independent  research that might change their mind.
 
The Gormans assert Iibid.):

"Rather than chastising people for focusing so heavily on stories, we should figure out why we are all so drawn to stories in the first place. Changing minds requires compassion and understanding, not disdain."

A sentiment with which I wholeheartedly concur. And that's why I often make allowances for those like the anti-vaxxers because they aren't privy to detailed biological science nor are they likely to understand autism if they did access research. So they must confabulate "stories" and these often support their false beliefs. However, I am not about to extend the same generosity to a Mensan or Ilian - especially one who cynically uses his intelligence to spread misinformation and misbegotten conspiracy theories about "global warming alarmists".

Gary Johnson Passes The Moronic Wannabe Leader Test

It was startling to see a major third party candidate on live television instantly converted into a clueless  moron. In this case, Gary Johnson - the Libertarian candidate- yesterday  on MSNBC's 'Morning Joe', got this question from Mike Barnacle: "What would you do, if elected President, about Aleppo?"

Johnson suddenly appeared pop-eyed and asked: "What's Aleppo?"

To which Barnacle replied:  "Are you serious?"

Because every sentient being with a consciousness somewhat higher than a kindergartner's knows Aleppo is a besieged city in Syria  and the epicenter of a humanitarian crisis. Indeed, tens of thousands have been killed there after five years of the Syrian Civil War.  Yet Johnson, former Governor of New Mexico, and the Libertarians' presidential hopeful - didn't know that.

On the dooofus scale for presidential disqualification, Johnson's answer puts him on a par with Ben Carson, who in one forum (in 2015) suggested the Baltic states (Croatia, Slovenia etc.) were not part of NATO.  His faux pas also rivals that of Rick Perry who - in a 2012 debate, failed to recall the DOE (Dept. of Energy)  as one  of the main federal agencies.

Let us agree then, that for any given forum - whether formal presidential debate, or even informal appearance on cable TV, there are certain "deal breakers" in terms of  candidate's fitness for office. One of these is failing to exhibit knowledge of basic current events especially in relation to existing world problems, crises or global policies. On this score, Johnson failed the leadership test just as Carson and Perry did earlier.

Johnson attempted to explain his reaction by later saying he "understood the significance of Aleppo but blanked out".  Now, let's process this, please. He is claiming that in an informal setting, on an early morning cable TV  show - usually watched by fewer than 1 million - he lost command of his brain for the duration and reverted to a default zombie condition..

One is then led to ask, assuming Johnson were to actually become President, what we might expect if he had a face off with Vladimir Putin at a high powered meeting on one crisis or other. And let's say Putin asked him point blank what he and his administration intended to do about the Chechen terrorists? Would Johnson "blank out" just then and ask "What's a Chechen?"  Subsequently correcting himself and saying "I know the significance of Chechnya but I blanked out?"  What do you suppose Mr. Putin would think? (Apart from wondering how Americans could be so stupid as to elect this guy to be President.)

Or, suddenly the nation is under nuclear threat from China and the Joint Chiefs advise going to Defcon 2. Will Johnson then blank out and ask: "What's Defcon 2?"  Then, after it's too late blurt out "I REALLY did understand the significance of defcon 2  but blanked out!"

You see where I am going with this? The excuse of blanking out is no excuse at all, period, because anyone in the position of commander -in -chief simply can't afford to do that. You are no longer an average Joe Citizen allowed the luxury of blanking out, forgetting key information, or falling asleep on the job.  You are now responsible directly for the nation's security as that commander -in -chief so can no longer have the luxury of lapses that might be afforded anyone else.

Johnson's spin is not satisfactory, therefore, and that means while he passes the "moron wannabe leader test' he fails the real leader test.  This comes at a time when Johnson has been trying to raise his profile and meet the 15 percent poll threshold (based on 5 national polls) to secure a spot with Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in the debates. Currently, he is hovering at nine percent. One certainly is left to argue  that Johnson's blanking out was perhaps a "mercy killing" for his debate chances. This is given how he'd look blanking out in front of tens of millions if asked, say by Martha Raddatz: "Mr. Johnson, how would you propose to resolve the Spratly Islands dispute with China?"

Even Johnson has acknowledged how he brought himself to such a precarious position. In a different interview yesterday he acknowledged the consequences for a candidate seeming to lack a basic understanding of a major foreign policy issue. He actually  said:

"For those who believe this is a disqualifier, so be it."

Of course, the blatant missteps and interview blunders of one Libertarian presidential candidate will hardly dissuade the high IQ members of Mensa and Intertel from continuing to glamorize Libertarianism as the choice of the brilliant cognoscenti (i.e. that they fancy themselves to be.)  They fetishize this misbegotten ideology because they are anti-statist at the core, and use it as a convenient economic vehicle to denounce everything from taxes for support of social insurance, to climate change. (Not wanting taxes to support gov't research, or have any carbon taxes or rationing.)

But bright though they are, these same high IQ Libbies can't seem to see the paradox of their positions in terms of national governance.  To wit, their entire premise is opposed to any rational and practical governance.  Recall the Libertarian Party Principles state:

“We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.”

This has been further amplified via Charles Murray's statement in What it means to be a Libertarian (p. 6):

“It is wrong for me to use force against you, because it violates your right to control of your person....I may have the purest motive in the world. I may even have the best idea in the world. But even these give me no right to make you do something just because I think it's a good idea. This truth translates into the first libertarian principle of governance: In a free society individuals may not initiate the use of force against any other individual or group”

But if one considers the context,  such a “libertarian principle of governance" emerges as an oxymoron! Governance presumes and demands the non-passive act of governing, which means the projection of force for enforcement of laws including for national security.  Someone is invariably and actively setting standards of expected action, and also providing the means to uphold the standards. In other words, force inevitably backs up governance. Why do you think cities maintain police forces, and the nation a large volunteer standing army - along with assorted weapons to control crowds?  It is to sustain coherent and FORCE-ful governance. The libertarians, then, espouse a philosophy which cannot possibly work in the real world - because that world implicitly recognizes and declares government the primary agent of force, i.e. to enforce laws. Look around for a "force-less" government, i.e. which retains adherence and respect for its laws with no use of force.

If governments aren't enabled to enforce their laws , what’s the point? It’s all an exercise in mental masturbation. People can do whatever the hell they want!  Set up sex store emporiums or pot shops next to schools, or sell cocaine  and semi-automatic weapons in open stalls on the sidewalks of major cities!  Freedom thereby becomes perverted into a veritable "free for ALL". In other words, unless governance declares limits to actions - and someone (coercively) enforces governance, a functional society becomes  impossible.

All of this shows that the high IQ Libertarians inhabit a sheltered world of their own with no practical touch points to reality.  In this sense Johnson's blank out breakdown ought to have been a wake up call, but more than likely will just elicit more rationalizations - just as those they've used to defend Ayn Rand.

Thankfully, the chances of Gary Johnson becoming the first Libertarian president are about the same as his forlorn party ever becoming competitive in national politics.

Retiring NAS President Livid Over Climate Deniers & The Political Polarization Spawned

Retiring National Academy of Sciences President Ralph Cicerone expressed anger regarding partisanship associated with climate change.

In an interview in Eos: Earth & Space Science News (12 August, p. 5) retiring President of the National Academy of Sciences Ralph Cicerone  denounced the continued political polarization associated with climate change as "a threat to science".  Indeed it is, because if uninformed people are just allowed to pick and choose their own versions of science, totally rejecting the scientific method and current foundations, then what we get is a free for all. And in that case, the very survival of our science not to mention the human and other inhabitants of the planet,  may be at stake. Cicerone's point is that rapidly changing climatic conditions from melting glaciers to rising sea levels are nothing to be toyed with, or used for exercises in phony rhetoric.

Cicerone, in a brief published interview with Eos, asserted he was especially disappointed with the ongoing "rabid partisanship surrounding climate change". A lot of that disappointment has to single out his fellow citizens who remain proudly defiant in their scientific ignorance and repeatedly display confounding chutzpah. This is in respect to invoking a specious brand of economics (market fundamentalism)   to attempt to overturn sound climate science and replace it with pseudo science.

Cicerone's disgust extends to the recent congressional  "show trial" grilling of climate experts and officials, as well as moves to limit geoscience funding at the National Science Foundation and elsewhere.  He observed:

"The most frustrating thing has been these political developments around climate change. We are trashing our institutions.. For example, the antigovernment feelings that anything the federal government touches is somehow dirty and wasteful and somehow morally wrong. That drive me crazy."

Well, it drives me crazy too, especially when I see a lot of it emanating from putative high I.Q. societies like Mensa and Intertel wherein you'd expect the members to have more than air between the ears. A case in point has been how some of these denizens use their political ideology (Libertarianism) as a cudgel to try to undermine the value of any governmental investigations of anthropogenic climate change.

I noted one of these supposed high I.Q. characters, Kort Patterson of Intertel, who actually wrote in his  Region 7 Newsletter (Port of Call, June/July 2016, p. 6)

"Many people continue to believe the lies and demand that Western Industrial Civilization commit cultural suicide by adopting the crippling constraints sought by the global warming conspirators."

This foolish curmudgeon actually attempts to turn the tables on the real scientists, painting them as the liars when it is his politically brainwashed  (and scientifically illiterate) lot who are sowing the disinformation and  half-baked conspiracy theories about "global warming alarmism".  See e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2016/06/intertels-kort-patterson-conjures-wacko.html

With belligerent nuts like Patterson slamming the science it's no wonder many of the more uninformed and weaker -minded will tag along, believing him to be some kind of voice "crying in the wilderness". This, as opposed to seeing he's more a semi-educated poppet with too much time on his hands from his computer tech job.

The most damnable and irritating aspect of these "high I.Q." Libbie looneytunes is their penchant for misusing their own intelligence to condemn legitimate scientific research instead of making a fair effort to understand it. As I noted in a previous blog post (on the "Intelligent Irrationalists") this lot finds it more to their liking to simply avoid doing the hard research into climate change. They evidently lack the time (or inclination) to evaluate every piece of relevant evidence that comes before them (say ice cores containing CO2) so basically punt. Instead of rationally and objectively evaluating the evidence they side with the top bananas in their political group in using a dime store grasp of economics to lambaste standard science.

None of them, I warrant, could pass even a basic 1st year college test on thermal physics the foundation for understanding basic climate change and global warming, see e.g. this test:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2009/12/thermal-physics-test-for-skeptics.html

At the same time, they have outsized influence on others thinking, especially those ensconced in the high I.Q. organizations. For some reason, probably the lure of the "individualist" or "liberty" cachet, they draw many of like mind too line up behind their ignorance. 

But it's maddening to those of us who understand the actual science, and even more infuriating to be called "frauds" and "alarmists" by these semi-literate nincompoops who don't know an atmospheric forcing component from a Btu.

Cicerone himself was just as livid as he responded to one question (ibid.):

"I did not see the severity of the attacks on science coming. I'm still hoping it's going to go away quickly, but it's been hard to deal with because it has raised a whole set of questions. When do we have to stand up and say that all of science is being tarred with the same brush."

The problem, of course, is that arguing logically or rationally with climate change deniers is as fruitless and futile as arguing with evolution deniers. In each case, a firm commitment to personal beliefs trumps the science and assumes priority in the denier's mind. This is exactly what we mean by false belief syndrome: a person so threatened by the indisputable facts of the science (whether Darwinian evolution or climate science) that he feels compelled to erect an elaborate psychological defense for security. Within this defensive psychological perimeter he will use fake science (and assorted contrarian clowns)  to defend his beliefs to the bitter end. Given this, no amount of factual appeal will change his mind.

"You'll have to pry these beliefs from my cold, dead brain!"

If this is the case, and I believe that it is,  then the political polarization and antagonism to science will not end quickly.  We can stand up to the nonsense and ignorance, of course, and even try to be patient with the more rational  elements of  the denier contingent. But ultimately it boils down to a choice:  the preservation of science or elevating the ignorance inherent in denialism to an art form. In that case, I stand with the preservation of science and take out my verbal sword to use on the deniers every chance I get.

The Intelligent Irrationalists: Why So Many High IQ Folks Deny Sound Science

A recurring problem for discussion in many professional scientific organizations is how to get out ahead of pseudo-science and in particular denial science: the denial of scientific legitimacy (or mocking it with facetious putdowns). The classic example is for human-induced global warming and what most concerns many climate scientists is a specific subset of intellectual critic referred to as "intelligent irrationalists".

These people, often in high IQ societies like Mensa and Intertel,,  fancy themselves "debunkers" but fail to perceive they are, in fact, sophisticated "bunkers" : the disseminators of bunkum and rubbish thanks to their own intellectual blind spots (especially in the critical thinking capacity) and also their irrationality.

What has often irritated and puzzled me - not necessarily in that order- is how so many of these denizens feel so confident to spout off at length about topics like global warming - despite the fact they've likely had the most passing acquaintance with thermal physics. The thread I have seen through all their assorted critiques - say like Intertel's Kort Patterson - is they lean almost entirely to Libertarianism or some entrenched and unquestioning belief in market economics. The upshot is that their adulation of the latter leads them to craft a counter narrative in the guise of real science (but more analogous to creationist "science") to attack genuine climate science.

There may be some psychological and sociological ballast to this. We've already seen, for example, the thesis of Stanford historian of science Robert Proctor who correctly ties global warming denial to the trend of pseudo-skepticism sown deliberately and for political or economic ends . In other words, the agents of agnotology - whoever they may be- are all committed to one end: extolling economic profit over human habitability of planet Earth.  Some disgusted climate scientists have even referred to this breed of economically dominated denizens as "Homo Economicus" to distinguish it from Homo Sapiens.

But a another side to this has been articulated by Yale Law school prof and science communication researcher Dan Kahan.  He has concluded that most information processing - especially by the intelligent irrationalists -is determined by their own deep-seated political values and cultural identities. Thus, a white libertarian member of  Intertel, for example, will see global warming science as just one more vehicle of  subversive force backed  by the "untermenschen"  to be used against his precious economic values and Eurocentric ideals. All of this then attributed to "global warming alarmism". At this point, his thinking is already so corrupted and contaminated it's almost impossible to break through on any rational or critical thinking level.

In general, according to Kahan's theory, these high IQ skeptics - or who fancy themselves such, don't really have the time to evaluate every piece of evidence that comes before them (say ice cores containing CO2) so basically punt. Instead of rationally and objectively evaluating the evidence they side with the top bananas in their political group  - in this case folks like Charles Murray- and use their generic  economic arguments (i.e. against taxes as "theft" and "force")  to attack climate science or more precisely the climate science consensus that human induced warming is real, e.g.

http://sciencepolicy.agu.org/files/2013/07/AGU-Climate-Change-Position-Statement_August-2013.pdf

Driven by this short cut mental modality, they then seek out those oddball contrarians (like Willie Soon) who do sound off against the climate consensus, even though they are dead wrong, see e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/02/another-climate-scientist-fake-exposed.html

Thus, the stage emerges for the next phase: cherry picking only the data which conforms to the economic or political values of one's identity group, in this case, libertarianism. It is also by now become a self-reinforcing mechanism: the more one gets exposed to the faux science that  supports one's economic and political stance the more one continues to adopt that position and related ones further out. These include far out, paranoid ideations that one's opponents "demand that Western Industrial Civilization commit cultural suicide by adopting the crippling constraints sought by the global warming conspirators."  in the words of Kort Patterson.

In other words it's not that much of a jump from the irrational rationalizations underpinning one's position based on a group identity, to conjuring conspiracy theories targeting the out groups (real scientists and citizens - government officials who support them)

Related to the cherry picking of data, there is also the noisome tactic of mischaracterizing research methods and results, for example mocking the 'hockey stick" ansatz of Michael Mann.  In the words of one Intertel AGW denier Carol Dane:

"One hundred and twenty eminent scientists here, some Nobel laureates with impressive credentials, denounce Michael Mann and his hockey stick chart on which so much fraudulent global warming argument is based."

No mention that the bulk of those "eminent scientists" were economists, former NASA engineers, chemists, geologists, biologists and psychologists. Also that a number of climatologists  subsequently published their own reconstructions of global temperatures from independent lines of research that vindicated Mann's research by showing similar if not identical trends in temperature..

But again, this is the nature of the criticism from the intelligent irrationalists, who also comfort themselves (as members of Intertel, say) that few mortals will be able to take them on and dismantle their nonsense.

Another key attribute of their irrationality which especially stands out in Kort Patterson's tirades against AGW is focusing on perceived implications rather than examining the evidence itself. Thus Patterson leaps to the hysterical implication that climate scientists who've published in support of anthropogenic warming "demand that Western Industrial Civilization commit cultural suicide ".

In its irrational extremism it is really not much different from an anti-evolutionist who might assert: "well, if evolution is true and we all descended from a common primate ancestor we could as well kill ourselves because we don't have souls and life has no purpose".

Again, an unhinged,  hysterical implication. (Though I am sure Kort would disagree with the comparison)

Another  recurring irrational tactic of the economic obsessives in the high IQ societies is to make personal attacks on the scientists themselves, or their methods - say like Michael Mann and his hockey stick.  Thus, instead of focusing on the science (which admittedly most of these people are weak in) they claim the scientists have "rigged'" or "fudged" their research or data to support a scientific consensus. All it takes by this time is the slightest news or hint of subterfuge (say like the overblown climate gate brouhaha) to establish a specious confirmation bias and make them believe it's true and there really is a global conspiracy.

The most depressing aspect, as Kahan observes, is there may be little that can be done by the genuine rationalist or scientist to convince these intelligent irrationalists of their folly. That may have to await the extreme unfolding of multifold climatic disasters in real time, in whatever form - e.g.

http://video.pbs.org/video/1108763899


to finally turn this lot into believers or at least accepting the plausibility of the premise.. Even then they are just as likely to write off the effects, i.e. "That  51-day  heat wave leading to monster fires was just a meteorological disturbance".

As Kahan and others observe, all this discloses humans are hard-wired for irrational thinking. Science in its legitimate practice can certainly help to abate such tendencies but if the afflicted persons distrust even science (as "rigged") , there is little that can be done. That critique also applies to the superficial, frivolous lot of 'so what?' skeptics such as Intertel's Steve Mason - unprepared to invest mental capital in anything.. Hence, willing to believe anything even codswallop from the likes of Kort Patterson.

In the end the lack of any discrimination in the latter may pave the way for even more expressions of irrationality, based on "why accept anything when science is always changing" or to use Mason's words: "How can I believe anything when what I believe changes?"  

Those like Mason  are probably convinced they are the ultimate "rational"  AGW critics  using a meta-template to ascribe any risks of  climate change  as "inflated". But in the end they are just as irrational as the outright irrationalists - only adopting a less discernible cover to the superficial observer. But for those of us who've been fighting this lot for over 40 years in different forums, they aren't fooling anyone - at least not us!

Astrophysicist Intends Trilogy To Combat Global Warming Deniers - Can It Work?

Wonder why no sensible person can get through to climate change deniers?

Astrophysicist Philip Judge is a Briton living in Longmont, Colorado who - according to a Denver Post bio spot from two months ago ('Scientist Pens Trilogy To Combat Doubters', May 16, p. 8A)-  is "incensed about climate change doubters in recent years". Well, I mean just about every sensible person is so incensed, because trying to get through to these batshit crazy fools is like trying to make a hole in solid concrete with a pen. You will break the pen before you succeed.

In the meantime, these uninformed, semi-educated twits - ranging in IQ from room temperature level to members of Intertel (like Kort Patterson) keep generating nonstop codswallop such as global warming is one huge "swindle" or "alarmist conspiracy". And pray tell who is behind this conspiracy? Well, all federal scientific agencies including NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) and NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) which are supposedly all part of one grand government-sponsored "alarmist" network to hood wink citizens. If only! If that were the only fact we'd truly have nothing to fret over.

But as recent published data from NOAA and NASA have shown June global temperatures have now set a new global record "joining every other month so far this year".  Both federal agencies, indeed, have shown the temperature increments to have resulted in the highest departures since global temperatures began in 1880 (according to NOAA).

To be specific, NOAA revealed that globally -averaged temperatures in June were 1.62 F higher than the average across the 20th century. Meanwhile, NASA data showed globally averaged temperatures were 1.42 F above the average applicable to the years 1951 through 1980.  But still there are numb nuts who truly believe there is a "global warming pause'.

Of course, even before the string of new records Thomas Karl, Director of the National Centers for Environmental Information of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (NOAA),  had dispatched the warming pause nonsense. See e.g.

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2015/noaa-analysis-journal-science-no-slowdown-in-global-warming-in-recent-years.html

Judge is a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder where's he's been for 25 years. He plans to change the climate doubters' brains by publishing a trilogy entitled "Ergo Sum". Already two works have been published, the 2nd 'Credo, Ergo Sum" (transl. "I believe, therefore I am") in April. The third and final volume will be out later in the year.

In the Post bio piece, Judge expresses deep concern about climate science doubters and their political motives. As well he should, given most have been caught in the maw of the ExxonMobil brain fuck machine so are no longer capable of thinking for themselves unless it's to conjure up some conspiracy theory about scientists colluding to get money for grants. Which is the biggest howler of all as I exposed earlier. In fact, bozos who latch onto this BS aren't even clear that scientists compete for grant money so it would not be in their interest to vindicate or reinforce the research of others - far less engage in a massive, networked conspiracy to snatch more money from taxpayers to attain one single goal.

According to the write up Judge felt compelled to write a story about the ethics of what's going on. He posed the central question that runs like a thread through all the books:

"What kind of person is willing to gamble the future of their grandchildren at the expense of today?"

Well, evidently, a hell of a lot of haughty, arrogant "economy first" deniers who - despite never even having taken a 1st year college thermal physics course  such that they can pass a basic test, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2009/12/thermal-physics-test-for-skeptics.html

Believe they have all the answers and that global warming is an "alarmist conspiracy". The core question, of course, is whether a trilogy can change the minds of such people. I doubt it. First, if they refuse to even read a relatively objective journal like 'Nature' or a web site like www.realclimate.org
 what makes anyone think they'd wade through a trilogy concerning the ethics of rejecting climate science? All the odds point to the books being ignored.

Second, this gets us to the primary impediment for these denier pseudo skeptics to even consider genuine science: they suffer from false knowledge syndrome.  This leads them to collect — even invent — bad information to flesh out what they already believe.  The classic case is the semi-educated dupe who by virtue of bad life decisions or experiences comes to believe "all liberals are liars". He then somehow finds Larry Schweikart's fishwrap book on '48 Liberal Lies About American History' and finds specious support for his false knowledge and bad insights. Classic confirmation bias.

In the case of a climate denier, say as one finds in the high IQ societies, you are typically looking at a libertarian or anti-government kook who distrusts everything about government, especially its scientific capabilities. Hence, he postulates wackadoodle scheit like gov't climate scientists engaged in a massive "conspiracy" to create alarm and thereby destroy the economic basis of the nation.. These turkeys never seem to process that if the runaway greenhouse emerges, our whole electric power grid-  not to mention economic system  that hinges on it - will be the first to go.

More to the point, as an example of the creation of bad information invoked for what one already believes, one need look no further than libertarian wannabe curmudgeon Kort Patterson bloviating about "celestial mechanics" being a key basis for climate change over the ages. (Based on the absurd Milankovitch hypothesis). Or his claim that "changes on the Sun" are behind it, long since torpedoed by numerous solar physics papers and studies.

Guys like this, impervious to actual insights and knowledge, will hold onto anything so that their precious economic world with its gratuitous consumption and GDP can continue indefinitely.

Basically, short of a brain transplant, you are not going to change their minds, though I do give Philip Judge props for his efforts. That's a lot of time invested in a trilogy of books aimed at climate change denier block heads for a likely tiny return on investment.

How Can One Guy Get So Worked Up Over A Measly Little Letter To The Editor?

Well, some three weeks ago a short letter of mine was published in The Denver Post Sunday Perspective section, and it was like dozens of people went ape shit - as diagnosed from their comments in the e-edition of it. I'm not going to recite all the assorted blather which typically followed the usual conservative or libertarian lines we've all come to know.

No, my attention is not to harp on any e-reply but instead to critique an actual snail mail letter received merely three days ago (clearly delayed because the mail was withheld until our return from Bim).  What kind of a person, indeed, actually takes the time to search out your address then actually write to you? ( Actually the letter itself was addressed to the Editor of the Post but clearly never published, perhaps explaining why this fervent character "Lou Schroeder"  wanted to be sure I saw it. Good bet,  because I mostly dismissed and never read the online replies.)

Anyway, the letter of interest is shown below and readers can judge for themselves if the reaction is appropriate::



Of interest here is that Schroeder not only disagrees with my letter "vehemently" and "completely" - fair enough, but also "violently".  That simply doesn't ring up in terms of full mental stability and a grasp of the issues. After all, I did not propose a takeover of all health plans by the government, or the nationalization of all health insurance companies. I simply voiced the view that health care is a right under the ninth amendment - specifically as an unenumerated right.  This POV is also strengthened when one factors in (unlike Schroeder) the general welfare clause in the Preamble to the Constitution.

To remind those who may have forgotten that clause:

"We the PEOPLE of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity….”

This passage has been a source of incessant squabbling over every issue from states’ rights, to the degree of control vis-à-vis the individual vs. the collective or common good. Much of this, I believe, is unnecessary and merely discloses an inability of current citizens to think or even conceive of the community or the commons. So brainwashed have we become by the screeds of either ‘rugged individualism’ or Social Darwinism.

Let’s begin by quickly dispatching some of the more common canards, often circulated by the Right's darlings, like the Tea Baggers. One is that the clause refers only to military defense, or that "no positive social rights inhere in the Constitution". (All rights are ipso facto, "negative",  expressing what gov't may not do).This conveniently excludes any basis for social spending, but is erroneous on inspection.

The reason is that the phrase – “provide for the common defense” is separate from that to “promote the general welfare.” Hence, the two have no commonality in terms of language, unless one supposes the writer was deliberately redundant.

Another common error is to invoke the ‘fallacy of division’ in this case, disputing that “promotion of the general welfare” refers to anything other than the United States as the entity whose ‘welfare’ is being considered. This again is falsified on inspection. Note that the Preamble begins:

“We the PEOPLE…”


Not “The United States”. In fact, the United States is itself an artifact of the people’s will and their creation, as elucidated say in 'The Federalist Papers', by James Madison, i.e. comparing the federal system to the solar system.. The Constitution, composed by the “people”, engendered the United States as a new national entity. In the context, therefore, the United States as this manufactured entity and abstraction cannot of itself possess a “general welfare”. Only PEOPLE (citizens) can possess or aspire to a general welfare. Not people as disparate individuals, but as a collective or commonality aspiring (in common cause) toward a good.

This is a point that totally escapes Mr. Schroeder, though again, this could be because he isn't as familiar with the logical basis of the Constitution as he believes.
Schroeder in his last paragraph also blathers about "a citizen's right to another citizen's property or labor" invoking the libertarian canard that taxes amount to use of force or "theft". Which is total bullshit. Much of this libbie codswallop likely got revved up with Charles Murray's tract What it means to be a Libertarian (p. 6):

“It is wrong for me to use force against you, because it violates your right to control of your person....I may have the purest motive in the world. I may even have the best idea in the world. But even these give me no right to make you do something just because I think it's a good idea. This truth translates into the first libertarian principle of governance: In a free society individuals may not initiate the use of force against any other individual or group”

This is also where the pet libertarian canard“taxes = theft’ originates. But look at it objectively, this is arrant twaddle and illogical to boot. Further, it takes no note of actual political and social reality which may make these perceptions even more egregious.

I mean “libertarian principle of governance”?  This is an oxymoron! Governance presumes and demands the non-passive act of governing, which means the projection of force for enforcement of laws.  (The opposite of which is NOT "freedom" but anarchy). Someone is invariably and actively setting standards of expected action, and also providing the means to uphold the standards. In other words, force inevitably backs up governance. Why do you think cities maintain police forces, and the nation a large volunteer standing army - along with assorted weapons to control crowds?  It is to sustain coherent and FORCE-ful governance. The libertarians, then, espouse a philosophy which cannot possibly work in the real world - because that world implicitly recognizes and declares government the primary agent of force, i.e. to enforce laws. Look around for a "force-less" government, i.e. which retains adherence and respect for its laws with no use of force. I defy you to name one!

If governments aren't enabled to enforce their laws , what’s the point? It’s all an exercise in mental masturbation. People can do whatever the hell they want!  Set up sex store emporiums or pot shops next to schools, or sell cocaine  and semi-automatic weapons in open stalls on the sidewalks of major cities!  Freedom thereby becomes perverted into a veritable "free for ALL". In other words, unless governance declares limits to actions - and someone (coercively) enforces governance, a functional society becomes  impossible. Now, maybe there IS a docile libertarian principle of “governing suggestion”- but this in no way is the same as “governance”! I also warrant such "suggestion" will always remain that and never be adopted.

If Schroeder is so "violently" opposed to my letter then truly his only response must be to refuse to pay taxes. (In the same way I would argue is justified to avoid my having to pay for wars of choice which I do not approve).  The fact he does not refuse to pay taxes (which he knows must also be going to support Medicare, Social Security) discloses he doesn't disagree with my points as violently as he proclaims.  None of which detracts or diminishes my central thesis that health care is a right, especially as the U.S. itself was a signatory to a 1994 UN Declaration that health care is a right - which it cannot be if one can be bankrupted by accessing it.

Perhaps the best takedown of Libertarian thinking and arguments was provided by Prof. Ernest Partridge  in his 2012 article, ‘Liberals and Libertarians’:

“Now consider the implications of this denial of the "independent existence" of "the public" and "society." If there is no "public," then there are no "public goods" and there is no "public interest." If there is no "society," then there is no "social harm," or "social injustice" or "social (and public) responsibility." It then follows that government has no role in mitigating "social injustice" or promoting "the public interest," since these terms are fundamentally meaningless. Poverty and racial discrimination, for example, are individual problems requiring individual solutions”.

 Schroeder (and compatriots) might wish to ponder those points before "violently" disagreeing again. They could also acknowledge they are the ones "misled, misguided, and uninformed" - mostly by rightist propaganda.

Yes! There ARE TOO Damned Many Laws And These Provoke Cop Interference!

Let us rationally try to trace to the source the actual reason for the too frequent use of excessive force by cops. At root, if we think about it, it's because of too damned many pennyante,  pissant laws that congress critters, mendacious state legislators and others have put on their books. Let's fix ideas by examining the words below of Nick Gillespie, from a piece on The Daily Beast.  This is to do with the cops coming down on Eric Garner:

"Clearly, something has gone horribly wrong when a man lies dead after being confronted for selling cigarettes to willing buyers."

Noting that it is totally irrelevant what Garner was charging for each "loosie" - whether 50 cents each or a buck. Doesn't matter! He had willing buyers, willing to pay what he was asking! And to Gillespies' further point, he didn't deserve to even have a police record for previous infractions because the law itself was an ass. The creation of dubious laws by lawmakers grafting for extra bucks (mucho extra bucks) who actually (in NY) socked on a $5.85 tax per pack of cigs was an outrage. This made them so expensive as to drive them underground which left those like Eric to take advantage of nonsense while making a few bucks on the side. But the Staten Island cops treated it like murder one coming down on him, or peddling smack to kids.

Look, I am no fan of cigs and if I had my way all would be outlawed for reasons I've given in earlier posts. They are not only a blight on the environment - when people toss butts away- but a continuing source of serious health problems.

However, if a person wants to shorten his or her life by puffing the damned things, let them - so long as it's not in my face or in my house. In this scheme of things, Garner should never had been pulled up for such a rinkydink  "crime" and absolutely shouldn't have lost his life from an over  the top cop takedown. I mean, good god, Garner wasn't selling coke or crank! It was freakin' LOOSE cigarettes - which are lawful entities, not prohibited under federal "controlled substance"  laws.

But as Stephen Carter has noted in a recent Denver Post op-ed ('Law Puts Us All In Same Danger as Eric Garner', Dec. 6):

"The problem is actually broader. It's not just cigarette tax laws that can lead to the death of those the police seek to arrest. It's every law. Libertarians argue that we have far too many laws, and the Garner case offers evidence that they're right"

Carter goes on to point out that better training "won't lead to perfection" but "fewer laws would mean fewer opportunities for official violence."

On this he is correct, and although I disagree with Libertarians on multiple issues, it is inevitable that there would be concordance on at least one or two. I mean, even a broken clock is right twice each  day! It also stands to reason: the more laws on the books, especially those enforced to the letter- no matter how idiotic or trite - the greater the potential for police entry and violence.

This can range from the facial beating of a homeless elderly woman in LA - merely for walking across an expressway ("jaywalking") to the case of a 22 yr. old kid in Louisiana being jumped by cops (and facing 20 years) for possession of 1 oz. of  marijuana - which would be legal here in Colorado. To the case of a wheel chair -bound father of two in Tampa, FL, whose home was violated by a SWAT team that dragged him out as his wife and kids became hysterical (this was featured on a 'Penn & Teller' Bullshit Episode dealing with the law). His "crime"? He had 90 days of prescription pain killer meds - prescribed by his physician for unabated pain from a previous road accident - while Florida's absurd law only allowed a 30-day supply. He was therefore convicted as a drug pusher!

Legal scholar Douglas Husak, in, 'Overcriminalization: The Limits of Criminal Law', observes that federal law alone includes more than 3,000 crimes - fewer than half of which are found in the Federal Criminal Code.  All the rest are scattered through other statutes Thus, even a citizen who wants to faithfully abide by the law  - hence be a "lawful citizen" - is up against it. The reason? Because of this legal mish mash - or 'muck', take your pick of parlance - he has no way to ascertain what the actual laws are.

As Carter emphasizes, this "is a violation of the principle that the state cannot punish without due notice."

Yet the record shows the state does do this and uses the rubric that "ignorance of the law is no excuse". But this is nutso baloney. Obviously, if one doesn't know the law he cannot be guilty of intentionally violating it.  If there is no intention, there is no crime! If I travel to Barbados, and am unaware of that nation's law that prohibits the wearing of camo pants - I cannot be held to account or brought up on charges if I show up in them. One has to be given a warning first, say upon one's arrival at Grantley Adams Airport.

This is basic common sense, but of course, as most Libertarians and anarchists will point out, in many cases the law pivots on precious little common sense - as in the case of going after those selling loosies like Garner was.

Husak also notes that in addition to the  above cited federal legal morass, an astonishing 300,000 or more federal regulations which may be enforceable through criminal punishment at the discretion of the relevant administrative agency.  Incredibly, no one knows the actual number and many citizens only learn when they come up against it - say on passing through customs - when they are caught bringing in some entity or other that is prohibited.

Husak himself estimates that more than 70 percent of American adults are guilty of committing a crime that could lead to imprisonment. On citing this, he then quotes the legal scholar William Stuntz to the effect we "are moving toward a world in which the laws on the books makes everyone a felon."

So maybe it's no surprise that cops look on the public suspiciously, as if everyone is a likely felon.

Added to this is the reckless law-making process cited by  Husak which pinpoints a growing tendency of state legislatures- including congress- to toss in a criminal sanction at the end of countless bills to do with countless issues. Quoting Stephen Carter on this phenomenon:

"It is as though making an offense criminal shows how much we care about it."

The trouble is - in the words of Carter again:

"Well, maybe so. But making an offense criminal means the police will go armed to enforce it. "

But as in the case where numerous innocent people are scooped up in police dragnets, and some even imprisoned (or executed) based on false charges or mistaken identity, Husak notes the costs of facing criminal sanction are so high - often because criminal law can't sort out the law abiding from the non-law abiding. After all, if 70 percent of Americans may not even know they are lawbreakers, then how are you going to distinguish them from real lawbreakers.

Think now of how much less money and time would be squandered in prosecutions, incarcerations etc. if half or more of existing laws were removed from the book as useless. These would include picayune fare like having an ounce of MJ on one's person, or possessing a particular type of sex toy  - which earns you slammer time in Virginia or Texas.

Think of how much less money (in lawsuits) police departments would have to shell out to widows and other family members for killing relatives viciously taken down "in the line of duty" for going after a ridiculous "crime" like selling loose cigarettes to willing buyers on street corners, or loitering. Think about that and then tell me you don't agree with Husak's take on over criminalization.

Carter himself is generous to the cops - at least the normal ones, not the hyper-aggressive macho men who subscribed to "take down" over "talk down" when confronting an unarmed civilian- when he writes:

"The criticism is of a political system that takes such bizarre delight in creating new crimes for the cops to enforce. It's unlikely the New York legislature, in creating the crime of selling untaxed cigarettes, imagined that anyone would die violating it".

Indeed, but now one has: Eric Garner. And sadly he is now being cited in some blogs as "having a criminal record" for what?  Well, violating the same stupid law several times earlier! But to me, Garner remains blameless because the law itself is absurd.

Maybe now, given the NY cops  yen to protect each other to the hilt in grand jury testimony, the state legislature will use Garner's death to act and remove that idiotic loosie law.

They might also consider altering the format of the whole grand jury system, which has been shown to be at the mercy of the DA or prosecutor in any given case - deciding which evidence to present, which witnesses to allow, and which charges to let the grand jury decide. In the Garner case, as Chris Hayes has pointed out, the most likely charge by which to nail Pantaleo - reckless endangerment - was taken off the table. Allowed only the two most extreme charges, the jury punted.

Until states and the feds change the legal landscape to make laws more rational and open, we will be seeing more "Eric Garners" in our future and much more civil unrest.  Call it the law of "inaction and reaction".

See also:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/12/04/1349342/--Comply-or-Die-policing-must-stop?detail=email#

Tea Baggers Calling Out "Collectivists"- Do They Even Know What the Word Means?

Yet another bunch of bull pockey parroted by the "constitution loving" Tea Party adherents is that those who disagree with them (they call them "anti-Constitutionalists" but are really anti-Tea Baggers) are "collectivists". Hence, again, they disclose their lack of education by confusing definitions - in this case of "collectivism" with socialism.

Collectivism, according to the definition given in the Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary, means "supporting or promoting the takeover of all means of production by the state". But no liberal I know supports any such thing, nor do the democratic socialist nations such as Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Barbados.  In fact, what these tea bagger zealots are really attacking is socialism - which means "the redistribution of resources from the well off to those who have less."  In our country this is usually done via taxation (for example, the FICA tax) which allocates money from current earners to beneficiaries in the Social Security system. While it is a form of redistribution, the most well off largely escape because the payroll tax threshold is at $118k - so the richest have to cough up only a tiny fraction of their total earnings each year. But to the hard core Randian Libertarian, or Fiscal conservative it still qualifies as "socialism", because the force of coercion (stiff prison sentence) is invoked if you fail to pay the taxes to support it.

Now, again, the tea bagger - given his lack of perception and insight - is likely to grab on to this and then carelessly declare all progressives, liberals, as "socialists".  However, if he receives ANY kind of government benefit - even VA disability - then HE is a socialist too, or at least supporter of socialism! As any true right winger, Tea Party advocate or Libertarian will attest- any unearned gov't benefit (which is to say not accrued via current paid employment) means you are reaping the rewards of others' earnings via the tax and benefits systems). Thus, all Social Security is included under this banner as well as Medicare, Tri-Care, Medicaid, Social Security disability and all VA benefits. (To the Libertarian and arch -conservative the response: "I earned those benefits serving in the Army, Air Force etc." doesn't count  - because you're still benefiting now from a gov't redistribution program based on tax coercion).

I actually winced four years ago, as I tuned into Rush Limbaugh's radio talk show just for the hell of it (I always like to keep up with the whack nut drivel from time to time).  At the time a nervous guy from Indiana had phoned in and asked El Rushbo if he could still be conservative if he took his Social Security disability as he "needed it". Rush lit into him like a Komodo dragon after a wayward rat,

"If you accept any government benefit" Rush blustered, "then NO, you are not a real conservative nor do you respect the Constitution. That applies to Social Security, Social Security disability and even VA benefits. Anything received which others have to currently pay for with current wages is SOCIALISM!"

Ouch! But it brings home the point.  That was also reinforced in a recent scurrilous attack (latest issue of Intertel INTEGRA) by Thomas Nelson on all forms of altruism (including "political"), where he actually invoked the ultra-Libertarian Ayn Rand. Recall Rand once compared receiving Medicare to bank robbing. Rand's actual words were (from her 'Virtue of Selfishness', pp. 82-83):

'Isn't it desirable the aged should have medical care in times of illness?' "Considered out of context, the answer would be 'yes' it is desirable. Who would have reason to say no? But the fog hides such facts as the enslavement and therefore the destruction of medical science, the regimentation and disintegration of all medical practice and the sacrifice of professional integrity...

"There would be no controversy about some young hoodlum who declared: 'Isn't it desirable to have a yacht, a penthouse, and to drink champagne?' And stubbornly refused to consider that he robbed a bank and killed two guards to achieve that desirable goal."

"There is no moral difference between these two examples: the number of the beneficiaries does not change the nature of the action, it merely increases the number of victims. In fact, the private hoodlum has a slight edge of moral superiority: he has no power to devastate an entire nation and his victims are not legally disarmed."

Rand isn't any easier on the military! On page 116 she asserts:

"Since the imposition of taxes does represent an initiation of force...in a fully free society, taxation, or payment for government services, would be voluntary. Since the proper services of government - the police, the army, the law courts - are demonstrably needed by individual citizens, and affect the individual's interests directly, they should be willing to pay for such services as they pay for insurance."


Thus, she dismissed the importance of the military as being either worthy of citizen taxation or support, but instead ought to be "done by insurance contract' (ibid.) That is, the government negotiates a private insurance contract to support its forces - which can then obviously be only limited. We would never get to the stage of 4,400 bases around the world.  Or nearly $4 trillion blown on useless, wasteful excursions. Rand's take on military benefits is the same and follows logically from her take on military insurance contracts. In other words, if military benefits or disability payments are advocated they also need to be done via insurance contract. You pay for the insurance at the outset, and if you suffer X, or Y injuries - say from Agent Orange or PTSD - you are compensated according to the payment provisions in the contract and no more. In effect, a private business or company is taking care of your needs, which you originally committed to via contract.

You aren't depending on the government's taxation of others to provide the benefits, never mind all the flag waving about "giving back for their service".  To Rand, that's basically a non sequitur. If a nation or a citizen is insecure (about mishaps or external threats) then it is obvious that insurance is the answer,  not government use of force by taxes to amass its armies or benefits.

Again, Rand is a self-proclaimed Über-defender of the "Constitution and Freedom" just like many self-proclaimed "constitutionalists".

This take is supported by Nelson in his Intertel Integra (July, p. 18) piece, wherein he states:

"Tax money is used for whatever the politicians decide to label as altruistic at the moment, This will be perverted into schemes to make an ever-increasing stratum dependent on government benefits for their daily needs."

Again, by Nelson's and Rand's take the stalwart defender of liberty and the Constitution takes no largesse from any government source, for ANY reason. If you do, then you are actively benefiting from redistribution of income and to all technical intents are a "socialist" or at least support socialism as defined earlier.

It would seem, again, the "constitutionalists" (aka Tea Baggers) are hoist on their own petards - in this case not being able to see that if they receive any benefits they are no different from progressives or liberals- at least from the POV of the most rigorous "freedom and constitution" lovers!

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/dean-baker/57577/the-entitlement-of-the-very-rich