Kevin Carson has written an excellent response to Paul Marks’ muddled critique of Kevin’s earlier essay Contract Feudalism.
Also “Lysander’s Ghost” (I know who this is, but don’t know whether they want it made public) has an interesting article on debt here.
With regard to the concerns raised in this latter article, I’ve previously argued for libertarian-based restrictions on the extent of debt here.
So my former governor is out of prison, for now.
Was Don Siegelman targeted by Karl Rove? It looks like it.
But does that mean Siegelman was completely innocent? I’m inclined to doubt it. After all, this is the same guy who, when criticised for reappointing Auburn University’s most controversial trustee, replied: “But I had to reappoint him; he was my biggest donor” – a confession that doesn’t inspire much confidence in his integrity (or intelligence).
(A couple of Siegelman’s other bons mots: “If God had meant you to have pierced ears, you would have been born a girl,” and “No, I have no comment on whether the old law banning interracial marriage should be repealed; I ran on an education platform.” I admit I get a kick out of seeing all these clueless Yankee liberals rallying to the defense of their fellow Democrat.)
Still, regardless of his guilt or innocence, he certainly doesn’t belong in prison; no one should be there unless they pose a serious threat to others, and I doubt Siegelman could even successfully mug somebody.
P.S. – The headline on Dan Abrams’ show reads: “Former Governor Siegelman Freed From Prison After Dan’s Call For Justice.” C’mon, Dan, that’s getting a little O’Reillyish.
“Biological Basis For Creativity Linked To Mental Illness,” says the headline. Turns out that “the brains of creative people appear to be more open to incoming stimuli from the surrounding environment,” a trait also associated with psychosis.
So the big story here is about the possible connection between creativity and psychosis. But I’m still grumping over the phrase “biological basis for creativity.” Because it sounds to me as though they are treating the discovery that creative people’s brains are more open to stimuli as though it explained why those people are more creative. And it’s not obvious to me that it does that.
Going on the assumption that all mental states (acquired as well as innate – something that cheerleaders for neuroscience oddly seem to forget) have neurophysiological correlates, it follows that there will be some physical difference between the brains of people who believe they have a brother named Steve and the brains of people who don’t believe that. But it would be weird to call this difference in brains the explanatory basis of the difference in beliefs. Surely it’s actually having or not having a brother named Steve that accounts for the difference, and the difference in brain structures is less a cause of the difference in beliefs than it is the physical side of that difference, the form in which the different beliefs are materially realised.
Analogously, if you asked me “why are you all dressed up today?” and I answered “because I’m wearing a suit and tie,” you might justifiably feel that I’d misunderstood your question.
Listen to the recently discovered earliest known sound recording, from 1860 – nearly two decades earlier than Edison’s “Mary Had a Little Lamb.” (Conical hat tip to Tom Ford.)
I’ve created a monster!
A monster of a name, anyway: Ruwarchy! It’s inspired Less Antman to give his unofficial Ruwart site that name.
While obviously prompted by Mary Ruwart’s announcement of her presidential bid, Ruwarchy.com isn’t specifically a Ruwart campaign site; it’s more of an all-things-Ruwart site, and indeed seems deliberately designed to be welcoming to libertarians who reject electoral politics. The site proclaims itself a forum for “those who want to advance the pure libertarian ideas Dr. Ruwart champions in whatever way they choose,” and there’s even a section of the website devoted to “non-party activism.” Moreover, Antman has argued elsewhere that even anti-electoral libertarians have reason to welcome her campaign, on the grounds that “it should improve sales of her books,” and “since neither book actively promotes voting or politics, this will aid the entire movement, including those who reject political campaigning as a persuasion technique.”
But there’s plenty of stuff for partyarchs too, including a section devoted to overturning the 2006 gutting of the LP platform.
In the meantime, the official Ruwart campaign site is being run by the hardline anti-electoral Brad Spangler. Go figure.
I suspect anti-electorals will have especially mixed feelings about Ruwart’s candidacy. On the one hand, she’s promoting a much more radical form of libertarianism than Ron Paul is; on the other, for that very reason she’s more likely than Paul to lure potential anti-electorals into electoral politics.
Ruwart’s campaign will also be an interesting test of how much radicalism is left in the LP. If someone like Barr or Gravel beats Ruwart to the nomination that would probably be a sign that it’s lost its soul irretrievably.