As a lawyer, I give your list an A+. #27 is interesting in that of course the moral "real aristocracy" a la Carlyle, that doesn't get its statues BTW, will always oppose evil. The root or source of that morality is interesting, and I bet to be found in a natural law concept of God and Man. But then as the moral dissidents prepare the spring, it is that morality that will in the end be the source of the laws that will replace the degenerate ones of this corrupt dying civilization, and its millions of Neros and Caligulas. So I am still bothered by the notion of law being upstream from culture. You do allude to that being a bit more complicated than that.
This is an excellent point. If we point to 'evil in the list, shouldn't we have a 'Faith is upstream of it all" point? To not do so simply replaces their good with our good and not THE Good.
Great list, but yes I found that one puzzling. Maybe I just misunderstand the sentiment. How the culture of my people is downstream from laws on gay marriage, holocaust denial and (going back a lot further) the requirement of a London cabbie to carry a bale of hay would seem a tough sell on a dissident's doorstep. Anyway, plenty of smart ideas among the others that I had never thought about properly.
One could say that culture is downstream of the law because the law influences culture, but culture also influences the law to an arguably greater extent. By that token a lot of things are downstream of each other.
A law imposed on nations - usually by an outside force - did change the genetics of the populations and thus cultures. But we are talking about generations, not years or decades.
I've always held they mutually reinforce one another, to an extent.
However, once it gets to a point where a particular law isn't obeyed by the majority, it becomes the culture to scoff that particular law (marijuana legalization is a good example).
So, it's arguable that law can *reinforce* culture, but only to a point. After that point, it simply becomes another baton to batter belligerent dissidents.
Culture is obviously critically important, that's why they-them-those work so hard on so many fronts to influence it (typically to degenerate and demoralize it in order to generate a more pliant population).
Yes and it can work the other way too. There's no law against a 65 year old man marrying a mentally impaired 16-year-old girl, but thankfully our culture won't accept it.
Given that Rothbard in his later years turned against immigration, and was always against the central banks, can we give paleolibertarians a pass? Or do we throw them on the pyre as well?
As a lawyer, I give your list an A+. #27 is interesting in that of course the moral "real aristocracy" a la Carlyle, that doesn't get its statues BTW, will always oppose evil. The root or source of that morality is interesting, and I bet to be found in a natural law concept of God and Man. But then as the moral dissidents prepare the spring, it is that morality that will in the end be the source of the laws that will replace the degenerate ones of this corrupt dying civilization, and its millions of Neros and Caligulas. So I am still bothered by the notion of law being upstream from culture. You do allude to that being a bit more complicated than that.
This is an excellent point. If we point to 'evil in the list, shouldn't we have a 'Faith is upstream of it all" point? To not do so simply replaces their good with our good and not THE Good.
Brave of you to admit your profession here heheh
Indeed. I only know former lawyers who have.
Interesting observation, given how dire when it comes to global affairs.
All of these points merit an essay at least!
Good stuff!
If the word 'Ideology' here was replaced with 'religion' would it change any of these points ? No
I am doubtful on number 10.
I will get to this point when I have a chance.
Great list, but yes I found that one puzzling. Maybe I just misunderstand the sentiment. How the culture of my people is downstream from laws on gay marriage, holocaust denial and (going back a lot further) the requirement of a London cabbie to carry a bale of hay would seem a tough sell on a dissident's doorstep. Anyway, plenty of smart ideas among the others that I had never thought about properly.
One could say that culture is downstream of the law because the law influences culture, but culture also influences the law to an arguably greater extent. By that token a lot of things are downstream of each other.
A law imposed on nations - usually by an outside force - did change the genetics of the populations and thus cultures. But we are talking about generations, not years or decades.
I've always held they mutually reinforce one another, to an extent.
However, once it gets to a point where a particular law isn't obeyed by the majority, it becomes the culture to scoff that particular law (marijuana legalization is a good example).
So, it's arguable that law can *reinforce* culture, but only to a point. After that point, it simply becomes another baton to batter belligerent dissidents.
Culture is obviously critically important, that's why they-them-those work so hard on so many fronts to influence it (typically to degenerate and demoralize it in order to generate a more pliant population).
Yes and it can work the other way too. There's no law against a 65 year old man marrying a mentally impaired 16-year-old girl, but thankfully our culture won't accept it.
Unless the girl lives in a state where she's too young, or declared incompetent to contract.
But, your point is well taken.
Who's door do want us to nail this on?
Define culture.
1. The Arts
2. Human group behaviour produced by a gene pool
22. Ethnic in-group preference has greater explanatory power than individual merit at a societal level
Cope.
Was is JG who said “[they] aren’t smarter than us, just more cunning.”
How did that go?
Brilliant.
A very interesting tl;tr about power itself. I wonder if you can explain these in detail, though.
Given that Rothbard in his later years turned against immigration, and was always against the central banks, can we give paleolibertarians a pass? Or do we throw them on the pyre as well?
54. If the official explanation for something is ‘they were just evil’, be sure to read the person concerned in the own words
Assuming the "the" should be a "their"
Good