Comments on: Maggie, out

By: admin

admin — Thu, 18 Apr 2013 10:51:39 +0000

No dissent from me.

By: spandrell

spandrell — Thu, 18 Apr 2013 09:44:41 +0000

I know it’s late but I couldn’t help noticing this pal of yours explaining what I meant better than I could express myself:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100212493/margaret-thatcher-took-on-the-unions-the-next-thatcher-will-need-to-take-on-the-establishment-itself/

By: admin

admin — Fri, 12 Apr 2013 04:35:12 +0000

Caplan gets some things crazily wrong, but he get more right, and even when he’s wrong he’s educational and entertaining. His pro-natalism obsession is especially worthwhile and does a lot to cancel out his immigration nuttiness. TMotRV, as you say, is excellent.

By: Rachel Haywire

Rachel Haywire — Fri, 12 Apr 2013 04:04:29 +0000

Feminists do not like her. In fact, they are even harder on her than they are on men. Their hypocrisy is astounding with this.

Powerful women are great unless they are powerful in a way that you disagree with politically. Burn the witch!

By: Peter A. Taylor

Peter A. Taylor — Fri, 12 Apr 2013 03:09:59 +0000

I realize that Bryan Caplan is deservedly persona non gratis around here, but I feel obligated to put in a plug for _The Myth of the Rational Voter_. Vladimir is right. As Caplan put it, lobbyists and other fat cats can only affect policy along the voters’ “margins of indifference”. I think of political movements as consisting of “officers” (professionals) and “enlisted men” (voters and other amateurs). Spandrell’s profits are important to the officers, but these officers can only lead where the enlisted men are willing to follow, and the enlisted men are driven by sanctimony.

By: admin

admin — Fri, 12 Apr 2013 01:30:21 +0000

It will confirm the suspicions of many (most?) right-wing extremists that any self-respecting reactionary needs to be solidly anti-capitalist. The hard laissez-faire hyper-minority can only realistically aim for a few pirate islands (ocean-bed refuges, asteroids, or whatever …)

By: Mark Warburton

Mark Warburton — Fri, 12 Apr 2013 00:25:07 +0000

The Alex Massie article you ADDED to this post uncannily mirrors pretty much my core views. Even the insight I garnered from Wendy Brown: that social conservatism just doesn’t sit well with the loosening of capital. I’ll keep an eye out for his posts in the future,

By: Mark Warburton

Mark Warburton — Thu, 11 Apr 2013 13:02:02 +0000

In the South (Rio Grande de Sul, Santa Caterina) it is neither violent nor ‘dumb’ (compared to Sao Paulo/Rio).It is more euro-centric in the South, but still mixed racially. I’m really not feeling this ‘race/ethnicity’ problem as the fundamental problem. I guess this is the rub.

By: spandrell

spandrell — Thu, 11 Apr 2013 12:15:08 +0000

Well Brazil sucks. It’s a violent, dirty, corrupt, dumb country. The fundamental reason being that the mass of the population is violent dirty, corrupt and dumb. That’s mostly because of their race composition.

The problem with plutocrats is that their interest compels them to insist in changing the populations of western countries to resemble Brazil, with the predictable outcome of becoming violent, dirty, corrupt, dumb countries.

There’s this old point most of the population of Rome being descendant of foreign slaves by the late 1 century AD. We know what happened later.

By: Mark Warburton

Mark Warburton — Thu, 11 Apr 2013 11:27:47 +0000

Still, I don’t see what the rut has got to do with Brazil’s long time mixed-race composition.I do think you have singled out a problem with the capital-reaction position (of the three, the closest one I am to). The plutocratic nature of advanced capitalism IS a quandary. It would all be fine if these billionaries were mirrors of Peter Thiel. advancing research into seasteading/singularity studies etc. etc. etc.. but it simply isn’t the case.