Do You Believe In Magic?

by Don Boudreaux on December 10, 2009

in Myths and Fallacies, Reality Is Not Optional, Technology

Norris (a self-described “regular patron of Cafe Hayek”) asked me to repost an entry that I did back in October of 2004 on magic.  Here it is:

Magic
by DON BOUDREAUX on OCTOBER 12, 2004
in MYTHS AND FALLACIES
My son, Thomas, loves Halloween so much that he launches his spooky celebrations in August. And just this past week, he and his mother and I watched a series of made-for-the-Disney-Channel-movies, all boasting the name Halloweentown. The main characters are friendly witches from magical Halloweentown living in the mortal world. These flicks are sort of a combination of Bewitched and Harry Potter. (If you’re above the age of nine, I don’t recommend watching these movies unless you have a young child; watching your child watch these movies is wonderful.)

The friendly witches perform a good deal of magic in the mortal world, such as flying and snapping fingers to summon tea kettles.

What struck me as I watched these movies was that a good deal of the Hollywood magic these Halloweentown witches perform is surprisingly part of ordinary Americans’ everyday world. Not truly magically, of course – it’s due to science and markets – but it’s nevertheless marvelous and amazing and wonderful.

We gently press a button and the sound of a Bach concerto recorded a decade or a half-century ago fills our room as if it were being performed live, then and there. We turn a knob and out comes a jet of clean water for us to shower in, at whatever temperature we choose. We crawl into giant hunks of metal and plastic, filled with highly explosive liquids, press a few pedals and we’re traveling down highways at superhuman — even super-equine — speeds. We hold tiny devices in our palms, press some more buttons, and we’re talking to other human beings who are miles, maybe thousands of miles, away from us. We flick switches and lights turn on or off at our whim. I could go on and on and on…… (For more, see my 1999 essay “Countless Wonders.”)

There’s an irony in this fact: the more deeply and widely that people believe in magic, the less magical are their lives, while the more fully people untangle themselves from belief in myths and magic, the more magical their lives become.

That is, the many marvels of our world – proximately the consequence of technology, ultimately the consequence of free markets and rational thought – are possible only insofar as we no longer really believe in magic. We don’t pray to, or dance for, rain gods; we use our minds and machines to irrigate fields. Most of us don’t depend upon unseen, other-worldly forces to maintain our health and extend our life spans; we rely upon medical science. If we want to extend our knowledge, we read books or watch educational television programs; we don’t study tea leaves or gopher entrails.

But one serious species of belief in magic continues to haunt us: politics. Many of us – indeed, most of us – believe that high priests who utter or write certain words according to treasured ceremonial prescriptions and done in certain temples (usually made of marble and topped with domes) can perform magic.

They can’t. But they try and try – and too many of us simply have faith that their rituals are effective.

Comments    Share Share    Print Print    Email Email

  • Sunil Joshi
    Your analogy is spot on!

    What I cant figure out is this: Why are most libertarian economists so ready to trust the private Federal Reserve with such total control over our money supply without any limtis on what they can do, when they rightly distrust the elected representatives to legislate efficiently even with such a great constitution binding them? To extend your analogy - most libertarian economists are atheists/agnostics when it comes to Congress, but suddenly turn into rabid believers when it comes to the Fed.
  • Barbarossa
    Wow, that's not true at all. Are these libertarians from Mars? By definition any libertarian hates the Fed. Any "libertarian" who claims he is a "rabid believer" in the Fed is not a libertarian, my friend.
  • Sunil,
    You think that is the case or they are trying to be realistic. I mean is free banking realistic?
    See Econtalk podcast from 11/17/2008
  • Sunil Joshi
    Maybe a truly free society is also not realistic. So maybe it is realistic to be a socialist/statist?

    I used to think earlier that the defence by lib economists of the Fed & the Fed/FDIC backed fractional reserve banking is based on pragmatism. But arguing for the presence of a minimalistic Fed to keep the money supply responsive to the changes in the economy is not the same as supporting a private non-accountable Fed whose decisions are secret (in the name of independence) and who has no constitutional limits placed on the range of actions that it can take in the name of price stability / full employment. The libertarian economist's support for such a Fed, or at the minimum - their silence on this issue, is what rankles me.
  • Barbarossa
    Name me one libertarian economist who supports the Fed. And don't say "Alan Greenspan." He is clearly not libertarian. He freakin' CHAIRED the Fed, OF COURSE HE'S NOT LIBERTARIAN.
  • I do not think socialism is realistic because it has failed time and time again.
    I agree on your second part, have you read Alan Greenspans book? Althought the Fed is meant to be independent and not affected by gov't his book suggests otherwise. I believe that politicians benefit from the ability of the Fed to remain "secret."
  • vidyohs
    This topic is indeed funny and the point of socialist fantasy is known by all of us that have spent even a nano-second listening to or reading the words of any socialist.

    About three or four years ago I was talking on the phone with our socialist friends and I mentioned the "fairy wand" nature of socialism. She came back at me with "I don't see any fairy wand magic in socialism". I asked her where she thought the money would come from to pay for her ideas and programs; and, that she had to accept that either there is a fairy wand that can be waved by the right socialist, or that socialism does indeed exist on the theft of wealth created by capitalists. I reminded her that she only had to examine the existence and actions of the IRS and government since 1913 to know that there simply are not enough idiots in this nation that will volunteer the money to pay for the ideas of socialism, it has to be extracted through force and the threat of force.

    She'd have to either magic money into existence or admit being a thief.

    We don't talk much politics anymore.
  • muirgeo
    Capitalist would have very little money were it not for the existence of the state. No one forces them to set up shop in our country or any given country. It is their fricking privileged to be allowed to do so and we are far to lenient on them considering how much government money THEY take.

    The biggest problem facing modern society is how to deal with multinational corporations that can play country against country to their advantage while having allegiance to none. Ultimately, we are seeing the result of ruleless capitalism allowing the rise of the Corporate dominated state. To me that's not much better then communism
  • Barbarossa
    Yeah, no one would try to make a living without the government. Pfft. And you just don't even understand what capitalism is. SAVERS are the capitalists; they can be rich, middle-class, or poor, doesn't matter, what matters is that they have saved capital, which they then lend to entrepreneurs, who then try to form businesses that serve the needs and desires of the consumers. It's WIN WIN WIN, and of course, the consumers ultimately are sovereign in this relationship. But I'm sure we are "far to lenient" in allowing poor people to save money and thereby make money or to allow such savings to provide additional jobs or income for poor people.
  • vidyohs
    Oh my little intellectual pin prick, it is so good to have a laugh.

    Capitalism was invented long before the state.

    As a matter of fact the state you live in was created by capitalists and they wrote the constitution in such a way that only an idiot could bend it to socialism, and good lord do we have a plethora of idiots in this nation now....count yourself among them, pin prick.

    The biggest problem facing society today is how disinfect the nation and get rid of the parasitical socialist that fasten onto anything productive and proceed to suck the wealth out of it.

    I guess it would be fair to say that muirduck, as an average socialist, has the intellect of a tick, and the sucking power of a sump pump.
  • muirgeo
    "The biggest problem facing society today is how disinfect the nation and get rid of the parasitical socialist..."


    Yeah I say we start by taking away parasitic government pensions from bitch-boy hypocrites who collect them... I'm sick of paying your way.
  • Barbarossa
    Who cares if he's collecting a "government pension." Might as well take advantage of the system the way it is, even if you hate it. And you never deduct anything on your taxes? Tell me you have never itemized anything in order to reduce your taxes. And, anyway, what are we supposed to do, not use anything provided by government? It's impractical and impossible. We are forced to use government services and infrastructure because they are there, because in most cases they are a monopoly, there is no other alternative, because they are forced on us. This does not mean we can't fight for privatization while doing so. And you're the hypocrite, Muirgeo, if you use anything provided by a capitalist, because you are not forced to do so, you do so of your own free will. God, you are such an idiot.
  • Randy
    "And you're the hypocrite, Muirgeo, if you use anything provided by a capitalist, because you are not forced to do so..."

    Excellent point.
  • vidyohs
    My poor little pet teacup Chihuahua, I enjoy your stupidity.

    The only place you can spout such idiot bullshit as above and not be noticed for the mental failure your are is in socialist groups, and on socialist blogs.

    Here,and in any in any gathering of intelligent and rational people, the moment you hit send on any of your posts you self identify as another useful idiot with zero intellect.

    In other words, a typical socialist.
  • brotio
    I'm sick of paying your way.

    You have no idea how happy that sentence makes me. Or how, for the first time in my life, I wish I had a government pension.
  • JohnK
    The only market that owes its existence to the government is the black market, which also happens to be the only free market.
    Oh, and it is capitalistic as well.
    Yet it exists only because the state says it is not supposed to exist.
    Kind of ironic, ya think?
  • Randy
    I am so freak'n tired of having privileged (in the true sense of the word) political class hacks calling me privileged. Screw you, Muirgeo, and the propaganda you rode in on.
  • Barbarossa
    Rock on, Randy. Hmm, I bet it wasn't Daniel Kuehn who liked this.
  • Gil
    Hence the Bible forbids practices in the occult?
  • Barbarossa
    "And when the transgressors have come to the full, a king of fierce countenance shall arise, understanding dark sentences."
  • muirgeo
    This is great,

    "There’s an irony in this fact: the more deeply and widely that people believe in magic, the less magical are their lives, while the more fully people untangle themselves from belief in myths and magic, the more magical their lives become."

    So true!!

    As an atheist the fact of our existence and nature are magical. Likewise is this computer screen and the internet. Does the average believer ever even attempt to comprehend consciousness or existence except to merely explain it away with belief? So sad. It amazes me beyond comprehension that my cat and I have a common grandmother. It amazes me the billions of computations my computer made since I started typing this and the ability of electrons to strike a screen ( I know that's not even right ) and somehow create a high definition replica of my picture of Yosemite Valley.
    But I'd argue the social evolution of the human enterprise including our advances in politics (not necessarily the politicians) and civil society are magical as well.
  • Randy
    Muirgeo,

    So you say you're an atheist. That you have no faith in a "god". So what. Voltaire et al blew the religious political class out of the water centuries ago. You are a believer in "society" and the "state", and in the "statesmen" who claim to speak for society. In short, new words, new titles, same old ideas.
  • muirgeo
    I have no qualms saying I believe in the value of society, state and statesman. I also believe in the value of the individual, liberty and freedom. Here we are... an evolved social species successful as we are because of civilized society and all that entails. Individuals (in the developed world) have it so well not from capitalism alone but also from all the other aspects that go into our civil society.

    I'm still not sure what you want or expect but it seems some unnatural order of humans that doesn't fit our species characteristics. again I'm a pragmatist... I'm a realist.

    Generally I think we are doing good but with some simple changes society could be far more equitable and efficient. We have some serious issues facing humanity over the next 100 years and simply leaving the results to chance is dreary fatalism that our species has specifically evolved a brain to deal with and no leave our fate to chance.

    Libertarians sound like they are for de-evolution.

    We are successful because we plan at higher orders then just as individuals and families.
  • Randy
    Re; Your last sentence.

    Do you have any idea how arrogant that sounds? Are you aware that the theists of the middle ages had exactly the same attitude and tone? They preached the divine right of kings, and you preach the evolutionary right of the progressive state. You're all the same to me. Patronizing elitist assholes who don't know how to mind their own damn business.
  • muirgeo
    Randy the problem for you is that the overwhelming majority of people in this country believe we should "group plan" via democracy. So it's really people like you who are trying to force your positions on how society is run against everyone else's will.

    Most here are adult enough to see democracy as the best compromise between millions of people with different views on how to run society.
    Some are so childish they think if all the rules don't conform exactly to their desire they are being persecuted and heated and stolen from. GROW UP! or move to Somalia if you don't like government. But of course you don't have the guts to put your money where your mouth is preferring to take advantage of all of societies benefits as you bitch and whine incessantly bout how unfair everything is to you. Do you even have a fricking job? Or are you another pensioner like vidyohs?
  • Barbarossa
    A constitutional republic is the best form of government because it means that the democratic majority can't arbitrarily decide to infringe on basic human rights or oppress the minority. Hell, look what "unfettered democracy" did in Germany; Hitler oppressed and then murdered minorities. But I'm sure that was their "group plan" of which you approve and that it was merely a "compromise between millions of people with different views" and that the Nazis weren't "trying to force their positions on how society is run against everyone else's will." You are such a complete and tragic moron.
  • Barbarossa
    And, by the way, our own government has become less and less constitutional or republican.
  • Randy
    "...the problem for you is that the overwhelming majority of people in this country believe we should "group plan" via democracy."

    Well, defining a problem is the first step in solving it, but you have defined my problem incorrectly. My problem is not that many people have decided to group together to solve their problems, but that the political class exploits people like me in order to solve their problems. People group together to solve problems all the time. They form business organizations to create and trade, social clubs to share ideas and companionship, religious gatherings to meet their spiritual needs, the list goes on and on. But only one group, the political class, takes anything from me. They are my problem. The nationalists and socialists who call themselves Progressives. They are the exploiters.

    "So it's really people like you who are trying to force your positions on how society is run against everyone else's will."

    The political class does not speak for society. They only claim to speak for society. They are exploiters.

    "...move to Somalia if you don't like government..."

    Not a chance. Your government has earned my disrespect, and they're going to have to live with it.
  • justwunderin
    "Some are so childish " ... usually the child is the one calling the other childish.
    Just a thought...Nice try tho to incite a flame war, troll....
  • justwunderin
    Randy:
    It's not spelled P-L-A-N "plan". It's spelled C-O-N-trol. CON-trol. You see we'd all get along if we just do as muirgeo says we should do. Simple, right?
  • muirgeo
    Well thats bullshit because I'm only one voter with one opinion and I've basically agreed to the tenants of democracy ya dill weed.
    The problem is people like you who claim that want nothing from the government but gladly partake advantage of all it offers while bitching you shouldn't have to contribute. Try going one hour with out using a government provided service ya shortsighted jackass.

    I have no interest in control.. I have lots of interest in fairness.
  • justwunderin
    How do you know what I want? Did I mention it? Your "I know you are but what am I" retort is about as "intellectual" as most of your assertions. What's a "dill-weed"? Mexican mary-wanna?
  • brotio
    I have no interest in control..

    Bullshit.

    You've already lobbied on this thread for single-payer health care. Even if you're correct that a majority want at-gunpoint health insurance, a sizable group of people want nothing to do with it - yet you intend to force us all into your little socialist utopia.
  • danielkuehn
    I'd agree particularly on that last sentence. Economists refer to forms of social organization as a type of "technology" as well, and I don't think that's an accident. Don's caution on government is always good. His commitment to the idea that we can evolve to create useful mechanical tools but not useful social tools is a little strange (dare I say Luddite?). Yes - those representatives in marble domes aren't nearly perfect. Hopefully no one is under the impression that they are "magical". But my God - are we really going to write off democracy and republicanism so easily? This was a hard-won social technology that took centuries to evolve. It's not perfect but it has served us pretty well. That's as impressive as any of our other inventions (which similarly aren't perfect but serve us decently well).
  • Daniel,
    It is always the answer that democracy is better than the alternatives, but I feel we are stopping there and saying we can't do any better. Is it still evolving? I feel it is regressing as it grows in size and sticks its hands into more parts of our lives, ie. College Football playoff bill.
    Our other inventions serve us more than "decently well" and in shorter periods of evolution, look at computers or cell phones, how much more productive we are with this technology. Is it perfect, probably not, but I see it evolving where democracy is regressing.
  • danielkuehn
    I don't see any reason to think it's not still evolving. Certainly it's been problematic (ie - playoffs), but we've also seen improvements in areas like welfare policy, where the old welfare state has actually been rolled back.

    So I'm not sure democracy is regressing per se - but it's certainly not making the advances that we're making in computing in general. Every expression of human progress is going to look a little different - I'm still optimistic.
  • Barbarossa
    How do you reconcile your atheistic beliefs with the feeling that the universe is "magical"? Mutually exclusive, contradictory ideas...You mystify that which you claim to demystify. I am neither questioning atheism nor supporting otherwise, but it doesn't make a lot of sense, at least in any rational universe (alternates to which I'm sure you subscribe).
  • muirgeo
    Strictly I guess I shouldn't consider myself an atheist. Nature simply is God to me. It seems an undeniable fact that I/we are creations of nature. I don't think that God is conscious and gives a crap about my prayers... that's why I consider myself an atheist. But no doubt my creator is nature and God is that vast part of it which I do not understand and which holds mystery and magic for me. But one thing seems sure. God is not random... She has rules and I am pretty sure she gave us free will. But even that remains a mystery.
  • Barbarossa
    To your credit, I didn't read the quote at first...To me that only implies that "magic" is an inherent property of the universe, in either respect. Take away from that what you will. Certainly, socialism is magical, since it supposedly produces desired results without any cost or logical explanation how...Socialism, being supernatural, may serve to prove the supernatural...WHOA....
  • Barbarossa
    I certainly agree that your thinking is magical.
  • sandre
    You heretic, I hit the like button - You admitted that it is social evolution, not social design of our lord and savior Al Gore.
  • Barbarossa
    You sure DanielKuehn didn't hit the like button? He's been guilty of this before (with respect to his own comments).
  • danielkuehn
    You're still on that, huh? Sounds like a guilty conscience to me - are you a regular "self-liker" or something? As I said - just ask the hosts about it.
  • Barbarossa
    "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."--Arthur C. Clarke
  • muirgeo
    That's the amazing thing of our debate. I see it ultimately as a genetic battle over how we social creatures evolve. Is the basic level of selection genes chosen for their effects at the individual level or the group level? Are traits for individual behavior favored over traits for altruism? Currently I'd say there is an equilibrium that favors some combination of both traits. For the "social planning gene" the principal target of natural selection is the "colony" and not the individual. The unit of selection still remains the gene.

    Our brains and genes have evolved for tribal life. Civilization is a new thing just occurring in a wink of an eye on evolutionary time scales. We can debate this thing but ultimately the genes will decide. The weird thing is to some degree the genes that can win the debate may have a better chance of surviving in the gene pool. Its a multi-leveled hierarchically structured process unlike anything found in other species except maybe ants and termites.

    So the big question regarding our social evolution is if genes that code for planners versus those that code for non-planners are more productive or successful.
  • Marcus
    "So the big question regarding our social evolution is if genes that code for planners versus those that code for non-planners are more productive or successful."

    We already know the answer to that question. We spent much of the 20th century answering it and the planners lost. The non-central planners were more productive by entire orders of magnitude.

    Here's an interesting idea for you to ponder. Kings of old use to reproduce far more prolifically than any other individual. What happens when most people have the genes for wanting to 'run things'?

    Well, we could have a lot of wars. Or, we could have peaceful capitalism.
  • muirgeo
    Well this is where it is hard to have a constructive argument with you guys. Most progressives don't want concentrated power. They want group decision making over authoritarian decision making. Likewise most are for competitive markets and capitalism but WITH RULES.

    I understand the concerns of my ideas leading to concentrated power but I have the same concerns of pure libertarianism.
  • sandre
    Evolution is about the survival of the fittest
  • muirgeo
    Yes and the fittest plan on ever greater levels while the non-planners run off cliffs like lemmings into the sea.
  • sandre
    Exactly. Muir, let's have the qualified people plan for all of us like giant hearted men like Warren Buffet, George Soros, Al Gore, Rupert Murdoch, Ted Turner, Steven Spielberg, Bill Gates etc. They are all our side. Libertarians have nothing, we have got all the smart people who bleed money. Let them do the planning for the lemmings, because they are not smart enough to do it for themselves - is there some sort of evolutionary contradiction somewhere in there ? I don't think so.

    mmmmmwwwwaaaahhhhh.
  • Methinks1776
    It's the changing gene frequency of a population over time. See how good my college bio professor was? I still remember that definition a million years later. All of his tests were cumulative. Now, I'm sure that kind of testing would be called racist.
  • Marcus
    Actually, the changing allele frequency...

    ;)
  • Methinks1776
    isn't an allele just a form of a gene? I don't remember exactly since it's not my field and I my college class predated the global warming, pocket cell phones, the internet and a historic black presidency. I think we still wrote with pens in notebooks even.
  • Marcus
    "Likewise most are for competitive markets and capitalism but WITH RULES."

    Government take over of the health care industry is not 'competitive markets and capitalism with rules'.

    Also, you're implying that libertarians are some how opposed to rules. That is blatantly false and you've been told so before.

    We are not arguing about whether there should be rules or not, we're arguing about who makes the rules. You want a central cabal of progressive elites to make the rules and libertarians want bottom-up rule making.
  • muirgeo
    Baloney. Democracy IS bottom up rule making. The problem is "free market" capitalism has allowed too much concentrated power and wealth among the wealthy elites who undermine democracy.

    At least 65% to 80% of Americans and Physicians are for publicly provided health insurance. The only reason they aren't getting it is because of people of extreme wealths ability to buy the government and minds of people like yourself.

    A single payor system only socializes the insurance while every other aspect of care can be via competition among providers, drug companies and hospitals.

    Most US doctors back public health option: poll
    (AFP) – Sep 14, 2009
    SAN FRANCISCO — Most US doctors approve of a "public option" to supplement private health care insurance in the United States, as proposed by President Barack Obama, a poll showed Monday.
    A total of 62.9 percent of physicians who participated in the survey by the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) said they favored a public option, or government insurance plan, against 27.3 percent backing a private system alone.
    Another 9.6 percent favored a completely government-owned health care coverage system.

    http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/AL...

    52% Support, 46% Oppose
    http://www.pollster.com/blogs/us_health_care_ab......

    Poll: 77 Percent Support "Choice" Of Public Option
    http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx......

    Majority back Obama on health care reform: poll
    http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/AL......

    Americans continue to support public option for healthcare
    69 percent of voters support a government-run health care option
    http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1344

    Poll: Overwhelming Majority Of Americans Support Public Insurance
    In Poll, Wide Support for Government-Run Health
    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/21/health/policy.......

    Poll: Most Back Public Health Care Option
    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/19/opini......

    http://www.citizenactionny.org/wp-content/uploa...
  • Barbarossa
    Most Americans and doctors may want publically provided health care, but then again, most Americans and doctors--including you know who--aren't economists, so what does that tell you.
  • muirgeo
    It tells me economist have a very narrow view of the world. Thus the quip... they know the price of everything and the value of nothing. Economist don't do anything productive for the economy making their very existence a paradox and they don't make the rules for doctors and patient and the rest of the citizenry. Well actually their ideas have infiltrated the rule making process much more then is healthy with the disastrous results and ideas still running about.
  • sandre
    Exactly muir, The point these numbskull libertarian economists are just digging their own grave. They constantly make the point that economists have no interesting role to play in the economy, because there is no way to successfully plan an economy. YOu are awesome muir. Wonderful.

    Mmmmwwwwaaaahhhhh
  • Marcus
    "A single payor system only socializes the insurance while every other aspect of care can be via competition among providers, drug companies and hospitals."

    That is a non-thought out statement.

    The one who controls the purse strings makes the rules. You're taking the purse strings away from the people and giving them to politicians and bureaucrats.


    "Most US doctors back public health option"

    I imagine most car dealers backed the cash for clunkers program too.


    "Majority back Obama on health care reform"

    I think most people agree that the current system is broken. What the Democrats have managed to do is define debate such that 'reform' means their plan.


    "Americans continue to support public option for healthcare"

    I think what most Americans want is a guarantee that the less fortunate have access to health care. That does not equate to supporting the Democrat plan except that it has been presented as what 'reform' is.
  • sandre
    Democracy IS bottom up rule making.


    Wonderful muir. Democracy is working well for Us, George Soros, Ted Turner, and Rupert Murdoch. Is that why Obama escalating the war in Afghanistan? I'm sure you have particular dislike for Rupert - but Rupert has no dislike for the progressives. He raised campaign funds for secretary of state Hillary "Former Barry Goldwater Girl" Clinton
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/30448. The choice we get in our amazing democracy is so wonderful and diverse, isn't it?

    Change you can believe in, right? Here - conservatives are cozying upto Obama.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/30448

    Democracy is working Muir. On our way to first billion. Mmmmwwwwaaahhhh
  • Methinks1776
    Marcus, the planners only lost because they were the "wrong guys". We now have the "right guy" with the Obamessiah (all praise thee, oh Lord) and his apostles, Reid and Pelosi. He knows exactly how much fascism to sprinkle here and socialism to drizzle there to create perfection on earth. All praise Him.
  • muirgeo
    That's right. We are not the ones arguing for extreme unproven positions. The modern "planner" is a moderate and is dominating the productive societies. The successful road to humanities future certainly doesn't appear to be communism although China seems to be making a run of it. And it certainly doesn't appear we are on any road to libertopia... we've seen it and it failed as much as communism. The last century of revolutions showed us that... in fact communism was an outgrowth of the failure of libertopia all over the world. The successful road seems to be some degree of social democracy with a well regulated competitive market based economy. Non-planners, like communist, have a role to play but in their extremism they some times just seem like some old useless genes that the pool could do with less of.
  • MWG
    "And it certainly doesn't appear we are on any road to libertopia... we've seen it and it failed as much as communism. The last century of revolutions showed us that... "

    I thought you said "libertopia" has never existed... Remember the other day when I talked about your twisted logic???
  • Randy
    You talk las if your regime is the perfect regime - like it is ordained to last forever. Even when a campaign of disrespect has been mounted against you you remain a true believer. You should read more history. Regimes do not last. Sooner or later, they always fall prey to their own arrogance.
  • Guest
  • Methinks1776
    Thank you once again for your usual contribution of a factually incorrect, confused, convoluted and incoherent pile of shit.
  • JohnK
    Look at history and what happens when power is concentrated.
    It always ends with a lot of dead bodies.

    We are not progressing. We are three steps out of the cave with a lot of really neat toys. Take away those toys and the recorded knowledge needed to create them, and we're back in the Stone Age.

    We are not better than the tribal animal of a few millennia ago. We just have more stuff.

    Your attitude that we are evolving into better social animals is simply an excuse to concentrate power, and it has only one guaranteed result.

    A lot of dead bodies.
  • LowcountryJoe
    The genetic planners have the upperhand. They will get together and unknowingly over-regulate, over-tax, and over-legislate those without the gene to the point where that group does not reproduce as often [I mean, it is rather difficult taking care of your own kids while also taking care of the irresponsible in society as well]. Still, in other societies, the gentic planners will band together and send you to the gulag [or worse]. It's just what you people do.

    I'd also like to suggest that maybe it's not so much your cat the you have a common ancestory with: if you have any reptilian pets, they may be the better example in your case.
  • Barbarossa
    Not that your intellect is up to the challenge, but I suggest "The Moral Animal" as some relevant reading.
  • Marcus
    This may be the best post of yours I've read.
  • vidyohs
    Don't get carried away, Marcus, ask the muirduck to explain how it is that he believes something like his infinitely complex and detailed body evolved, yet his much less complex computer and the internet were created?

    Actually it is typical muirduck idiocy and disconnected ramblings.
  • muirgeo
    Hey the computer was a product of evolution. If you read the book On the Origin of Species you will understand how all the other books came to be.

    Capitalism is a product of evolution. If evolution is selecting for planners and altruist and at hierarchical levels over individuals are you suddenly going to be anti-evolution. Will you call it into question, demean it, call it socialist and think you can settle an argument with it? I think you might just do so as you all think you can debate and smear tactic away the properties of nature and the CO2 molecule. Sorry but your ideological position is simply a product of nature and may ultimately be selected out of the gene pool as useless as an non-opposable thumb.
  • vidyohs
    You've been reinserted into the engine and have withdrawn yourself still with no oil registering on your little bottom scale.
  • Marcus
    "I think you might just do so as you all think you can debate and smear tactic away the properties of nature and the CO2 molecule."

    It is not the science that is rejected, at least by me. It is the politicization of the science which I reject.

    To continue with evolution as an example, we saw the result of the politicization of it early last century with eugenics, forced sterilization programs and so on. Opposing that sort of oppression, oppression in the name of science, is not equivalent to opposing the theory of evolution.
  • Marcus
    And, to continue with this line of thought. Who was it who co-opted science and the theory of evolution to advance their own political agenda of forced sterilization and the like? It was progressives. The fore bearers whom modern progressive thought is descended from.
  • Marcus
    I don't have to ask him. Descent with modification and natural selection.

    But, while much economics is used in the theory of evolution it really isn't a good topic for this forum, I think.
blog comments powered by Disqus

Previous post:

Next post: