fare, posts by tag: mu - LiveJournal

Jesus famously said "Render unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar". I'll argue that he meant 23 Deadly Stab Wounds — and yet that he wasn't advocating violence.

( Read more...Collapse )

When someone rises to unilaterally denounce the involvement of one government in some conflict, or more generally the policy of any person or institution on any contested issue, that someone is precisely not staying out of the conflict, but taking sides.

As I've argued previously, mu should be the a priori answer by most honest people to most such questions, affirmations or intimidations. Before he may dare to step out of the prudent refusal to take sides that ought to be his default stance, an honest man should master basic competency and knowledge in the subject at stake.

But while pointing out this obvious requirement of intellectual honesty is sadly the only thing to reply to most appeals to action, as spread by fools who speak authoritatively of what they refuse to make any effort to know, or from crooks who try to draft you in support of their plans, there are still times when a question is worth trying to answer earnestly, and "mu" doesn't apply. Which of a limited number of alternatives should be preferred by whom? How do the costs and benefits of some policy compare over its rivals? What would or will a competent administrator do? Which of two oppressors is more deserving of being obeyed or opposed, of being supported or rebelled against? And for what reasons?

Not only are these questions in themselves not always vain, they can also have very practical consequences. And I'm not speaking just for the appointed or presumptive administrator, shareholder, investigator or otherwise scholarly specialist in an institution empowered to make policy decisions. Even the layman without any political decision power may have to make important decisions based on such analysis. For instance, he may choose when to invest in which country and when to divest from it; choose when to consider migrating (if ever) to which other country (if any); determine what is the most effective way to deploy charitable help and in which country, assuming one wants to maximize the positive effects of it; determine what conflicts are worth committing one's resources to and which should be avoided like plague; etc.

At times questions of politics can be objectively answered. And even when an objective answer would be contingent on assumptions that one is unable to confirm or infirm, or on counter-factuals posited for the sake of exercise, it is sometimes worth making the effort of developing the discipline that allows to think correctly about this class of issues. That is where it is important to develop a good narrative that can explain what's going on. Understanding conflicts and how they should be resolved is not only an important proficiency to understand past history, it's but also an essential tool to anticipate and create the future.

In response to the judicious remarks of my friend Hodja whose comments on my blog I appreciate immensely, I will add a few clarifications to complete my previous Defense of Libertarian Imperialism in a series of posts.

First, and most importantly, I think that hodja and I actually agree on the importance of staying out (emotionally, physically, etc.) of conflicts that others try to impose upon us. Every time we manage to stay out of a conflict into which others are trying to draw us against our will, we make a small victory against oppression. I even wrote quite a few posts on this topic already, most of them in French: mu — the zen buddhist answer that unasks a question the premises of which you deny to accept.

( Read more...Collapse )

Juste parce que j'affirme que Chirac est mieux que Le Pen (ou que Le Pen est moins mauvais que Chirac) ne fait pas de moi un chiraquien (ou un lepéniste). D'ailleurs, je n'ai voté ni l'un ni l'autre. Une préférence, affirmation descriptive, n'est donc pas une action, pas un engagement de ressource. Je n'ai "soutenu" ou "défendu" ni Chirac ni Le Pen. Face à l'alternative proposée, je ne réponds ni oui, ni non, mais Mu. C'est-à-dire que je rejette l'alternative et je refuse de cautionner l'un ou l'autre, comme je suis (heureusement) encore libre de le faire. En fait, je ne cautionne même pas l'élection: je boycotte les urnes par principe.

Et pour rendre la chose plus claire encore: entre Hitler et Staline, si on me forçait à choisir, je choisirais bien l'un des deux. Cela ne fait de moi ni un hitlérien ni un stalinien. Et d'ailleurs, ma préférence marginale pour l'un n'empêche pas que je n'ai rien fait pour soutenir l'un ou l'autre. Mu. Bien au contraire, j'engage ma part de ressources dans la recherche thérapeutique contre le national- et l'international- socialisme. (Si ce cas-là vous paraît trop difficile à trancher, remplacez l'un des deux par un méchant "évidemment" moindre mais toujours néanmoins monstrueux à vos yeux, que ce soit Mussolini, Roosevelt, Napoléon, Barbe Bleue, etc.)

Ceux qui forcent d'autres à choisir sont des criminels. Ceux qui interprètent une préférence comme un engagement sont des imbéciles.

J'aime bien cette cinglante de Tom G. Palmer:

I'm sure that I'll get the usual share of you're objectively pro-war email from the usual crackpots. I'm not. (I'm amazed that so many people assume that if you criticize a bad argument against the war, that makes you pro-war, rather than anti-bad argument and therefore pro-good argument.) But anyway, screw 'em; I've got better things to do than to worry about that sort.

Aux ceusses de tous bords (j'en rencontre surtout mais pas exclusivement des anti-guerre) qui ont du mal à vouloir comprendre mon mu comme réponse aux questions sur la guerre en Irak, voici une n-ième clarification, élaborée suite à une discussion sur liberaux.org (quelques précédentes clarifications, entre autres: 1, 2, 3).

( Lire la suite...Collapse )

No, I am not a devil-worshipper, a proponent of capitalist exploitation, an opponent of the glorious democracy, an enemy of the State, a traitor to the Nation, or any such thing. Indeed, the devil doesn't exist, and neither do capitalist exploitation, the glorious democracy, the State or the Nation — they are delusions. I am not taking a stance opposite to yours, I am rejecting your premises. I am not immoral, I challenge your notion of morality. I am not your enemy — I am your doctor. In as much as I care for the categories against which you're trying to classify me, I am here to cure you from believing in their relevance. The treatment may hurt, but if anything is being fought, it isn't you, but parasites that feed upon you. I am not going against you, I am going against some nefarious memes that use you for transportation, but that are not you: they hurt you and you don't need them.

Do you prefer X or Y?

Mu. The question is irrelevant to me, because it's not a choice I have or am ever likely to have.

OK, but what if you could make this choice?

How so?

For instance, imagine you had a magic wand that you could wave either way, to achieve either X or Y?

You mean a device possessing a great power capable of achieving either X or Y?

( Read more...Collapse )

J'ai déjà publié sur ce sujet (voir ces articles: 1, 2, 3), mais suite à une intervention sur un forum, voilà un résumé.

( Lire la suite...Collapse )

Sur la liste des libertariens, un ami libéral constate que

L'Etat fwançais c'est la corruption PLUS la mauvaise gestion. Pourris ET bêtes.

Il a tort. Car les hommes de l'état sont intelligents et efficaces, mais il y a un "mais". En complément à mon article récent sur la soi-disant efficacité de l'Etat pour résoudre nos problèmes, voici donc ma réponse à ce libéral...

( Read more...Collapse )