Randoms of the day

Vladimir on dogs, sheeps and wolves:

If you wish to protect sheep from wolves, then you need some tame wolves, i.e. dogs. The sheep cannot protect themselves, and the wolves cannot resist attacking them. Something must stand in the way, something that the wolves fear.

I think the analogy can be extended to cover civilisation in general. The sheep are relatively weak. They are not fighters – they have some other role in society. The dogs are strong but civilised – the army, the police. And the wolves are both strong and uncivilised – criminals, barbarians.

I’m reminded of my own status whenever I encounter uncivilised behaviour, for I’m a sheep. I have no intrinsic defence against the wolves. I am not particularly strong, I do not own any weapons, I live in a house instead of a fortress. Someone wishing to take my possessions would only require a moderate level of force. My only defence is extrinsic – I rely on the dogs to protect me.

One of the many problems with Decent People is that they just don’t believe that dogs are necessary. They think that the wolves can be civilised – that a wolf is merely a hungry sheep, raging against the inequality and social injustice of a world that provides plenty of food for the favoured few, and nothing to the rest. The Decent People do not know many wolves.

The abolition of the dogs is a slow process throughout the West.

George Friedman on declarations of war:

I am making the argument that the suspension of Section 8 of Article I as if it is possible to amend the Constitution with a wink and nod represents a mortal threat to the republic. If this can be done, what can’t be done?

Worth a read. I only wish he would have added that Congress seems all too happy to let the President take their power. They’d rather not take responsibility – so much for checks and balances.

The Western Confucian found a great interview with Hoppe on monarchy and democracy.

Sonic Charmer has some thoughts on democratic foreign policy.

Half Sigam on Hispanics and crime. I think the bigger concern with Hispanic immigration is that they no Hispanic countries have a very good track-record when it comes to good government.


13 Responses to Randoms of the day

  1. Gian says:

    The link between IQ and crime is dubious. I live in an Indian city of 2 million people, and the average IQ probably does not exceed 90.

    The crime stories in the newspaper are mostly petty thievery and chain-snatching. There is some violent crime but that is rarely random.

    • Firepower says:

      Often, punishment in India is whipping, branding or spending time in the hellhole that are Indian prisons.

      NOT the minority coddling, air-conditioned Cable TV weight-lifting spas American prisons ARE.

      • Foseti says:

        sorry your comments are delayed. i always approve them, but if you want them to show up immediately, you’ll have to get an ID that wordpress will approve right away

  2. Fake Herzog says:

    Steve Burton and Matthew Roberts already took apart Ron Unz’s flimsy argument (and they weren’t the only ones). Here is a good round-up with all the links:


  3. Fake Herzog says:

    Oh yeah I almost forgot — for a different take on Presidential powers when it comes to waging war, here is John Yoo:


  4. Tschafer says:

    He has some good comments on Monarchy, true, but I’m afraid that most of the Hoppe interview is the same old Rothbardian Anarcho-Capitalist crap, which is in no way reactionary, and is utterly unworkable into the bargain. Hoppe may prefer some idealized Anarcho-Capitalist utopia to Democracy or Monarchy, and so would I if it could actually exist, but say what you will, democracies and monarchies have at least existed at some point in time, and have worked (insofar as any governments “works”)for hundreds of years. Anarcho-Capitalism, like “true” Communism, has never existed, which, given the length and variety of human history, probably tells us something. Very disappointing, one expects better from a man of Hoppe’s stature.

  5. Handle says:

    Why is it that the more the President acts like a Monarch, (i.e. effectively allowed to initiate a war on a whim – in this case as part of “bleeding-heart militarism” or “humanitarian imperialism”) the more I wish the position were less Monarch-like?

    I understand the neocameralist argument that a real Monarch (or CEO) would be more properly incentivized, less inclined to pursue unprofitable, expensive, and ideologically-based expeditions, and more focused on maximizing the long-term value of the nation, (and perhaps better policed by the board of directors).

    But still, the notion that it would be best if the Executive were limited by charter and had to achieve some kind of widespread consensus of authorization before committing our troops and risking their lives for capricious ventures like these retains some seductive appeal over my instincts.

  6. Most people seem to be sure power is maldistributed between Congress and the President. I have often wondered if it is divided 50-50, with half pointing to the nearly at-will power of the President to make war, and half pointing to the nearly nil power of the President to fire anyone or control the details of how budgets are spent or laws are enforced.

    My sense is that if you took a ship, cuts its rudder in half, doubled the size of its engines, and tripled its mass, you could have some very interesting arguments about whether the helmsman or the navigator was at fault for the resulting collisions. Nonetheless, the problem would not lie with either the helmsman or the navigator.

    • RS says:

      Congress has the power to make noise.

      • We’ll probably have to “agree to disagree” on this one. A lack of political will isn’t a lack of power. Our elected representatives are cowards. They need to fire the CIA, the State Department, the Department of Education, and most of HHS. (Defund NPR and the universities, privatize SS & Medicare, etc.)

        If they couldn’t do that it would make them innocent; in fact they are guilty as sin.

      • josh says:

        “A lack of political will isn’t a lack of power.”

        I’m not sure there is such thing as a lack of political will attributable to anything other than a lack of power. At the very least, a congressman lacks the power to actually survive having a political will.

        Anybody else what a pipe-smoking update? Probably not.

  7. dearieme says:

    Beware of hiring half-tame wolves to be dogs.

  8. dearieme says:

    Or, better, beware of wolves in dogs’ clothing.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: