New Member Introductions

[Mimi, Co-Moderator]

I also lived through MAD and remember practicing hiding from nuclear fallout in the basement hallway of our grade school. Did you know that three feet of earth, six inches of cement and one inch of lead provide the same level of protection from radioactivity? Ninth grade lesson there.

There were powerful forces in the government at the time who wanted to nuke the USSR. I believe it was either two remarkable men (JFK and Khrushchev) or plain old serendipity rather than any general greatness of human spirit that saved us.

In that instance, two men recognized the insanity and prevailed over their respective military establishments. Now, we have a tiny class of people heavily invested in fossil fuels who are spreading disinformation about climate change and complacency in the general population by claiming that we will adapt to it. Masses of people in the U.S. are attracted to their message because taking action means government exercising power, and the business lobby has seen to it for the last 30 years that the message Government Bad, Free Market Good has percolated into corners of the populace who know nothing about economics or science. (Yes, undermining public education is part of their methodology.)

It is true that the Chinese government has finally recognized that it has a serious problem, probably because of the people wearing masks in Beijing. But if we wait for your great environmentalists from Asia, it will be too late. We have only decades, not hundreds of years.

There are people with the will to change, especially in Europe. Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark etc. have set aggressive goals to wean themselves off carbon. But they can't do it alone. The U.S. produces more pollution per capita than any country on Earth, so we have to be aggressive in our clean energy goals, along with China and the rest of Asia.

According to the National Park Service, Glacier National Park will be glacier-free by 2030. There's not much time.

[Charles]

Alan, not quite sure where to pose this question. I read Alan Ryan's "political philosophy " 2 volume set couple years back and thought it a great introduction to the leading lights of historical political and philosophical thought. It turned me on to a number of authors and works. I am now delving into the originals, grateful for the general intro Mr. Ryan provided me. I would be interested in knowing who also has read it and their reactions and thoughts on it.

[Alan, Founding Moderator and Author]

Charles wrote: "Alan, not quite sure where to pose this question. I read Alan Ryan's "political philosophy " 2 volume set couple years back and thought it a great introduction to the leading lights of historical p..."

I'm not familiar with Alan Ryan and have not read his work. Perhaps Randal or another group member has.

I've just finished writing my book on Roger Williams. Although I have not yet converted it to a paperback format, my best guess is that it will probably be about 350 pages of text and 150 pages of endnotes. I'm preparing the Selected Bibliography right now, and then I will prepare the Index (initially without page references). I am working with Amazon CreateSpace to produce the paperback edition and will also have a Kindle e-book edition. According to my communications with them today, the publishing process may take a few weeks. After I have finished my part of it, I should be able to focus again on this site and perhaps address some of the works you and others are reading. But I encourage others to contribute also. Don't wait for me! We now have more than 250 people in this group, and any thoughtful and rational posts are welcome, regardless of whether or not I agree with them.

[Randal]

Mimi wrote: " Now, we have a tiny class of people heavily invested in fossil fuels who are spreading disinformation about climate change and complacency in the general population by claiming that we will adapt to it.... But if we wait for your great environmentalists from Asia, it will be too late. We have only decades, not hundreds of years. . . . "

Goodreads doesn't have a "Like" button, as far as I can see, but I certainly applaud this post, Mimi. As Sheldon Whitehouse said in his 100th address to an empty Senate chamber yesterday on this issue, the oil and gas industry has promulgated a fraudulent message of climate change denial that protects the billions that they earn from selling their dangerous product. This is exactly the same strategy used for decades by the tobacco industry before their self-serving fraud was unmasked.

As you have so aptly said, we don't have decades to unmask this current fraud. The consequences of fossil fuel economy on temperature rise in our atmosphere and oceans, rise in sea level, and acidification of our oceans are already vividly apparent from reports from the IPCC and almost every other scientific organization that has studied this matter.

This issue is relevant to this discussion group because it shows the consequences of the free market ideologies that have been embraced by so many members here. If the invisible hand is best for all, then why has lack of regulation of carbon fuel production grown to be such a threat? I prefer the message of Adam Smith's earlier book that we should look to an "impartial spectator" to decide the best public policies. (See my post on this here.) The overwhelming scientific consensus on this matter that continued use of fossil fuels will lead to unacceptable changes in the Earth’s climate and oceans looks like an impartial spectator to me.

Of course, some of us ARE partial. Those whose wealth and power depend upon fossil fuel sales have a strong incentive to continue to obfuscate the public discourse on this matter. I realize that it is hard for the rest of us, without knowledge of the overwhelming scientific evidence in favor of the consequences of continued use of fossil fuels, to see a need for us to change our daily habits when barraged by a blizzard of self-serving lies. But we need to keep trying to convince our peers of the need for them to do what they can to not just adapt, but to eliminate fossil fuels from our economies.

It is a false characterization to compare climate change denial to denial that "peak oil" would lead to oblivion. Actually, it is the absence of peak oil that is leading us there. As Herman Kahn predicted, shale oil extraction has resulted in a boom in fossil fuel availability. Unfortunately, our scientific community is telling us that if we don’t leave those fossil fuels in the ground, the consequences for our climate and ocean ecologies will be quite dire.

So this leads me to think that this should be discussed in another thread. How about “Has free market ideology led us to climate change oblivion?” References to John Stuart Mill, Karl Marx, and F.A. Hayek welcome.

Regards,

Randal

[Randal]

Charles wrote: "Alan, not quite sure where to pose this question. I read Alan Ryan's "political philosophy " 2 volume set couple years back and thought it a great introduction to the leading lights of historical p..."

Charles,

Looks like a splendid book. Haven't read it. Actually haven't read a general history of political philosophy since Sheldon Wolin's book, Politics and Vision. I should add it to my shelves.

Thanks for the reference.

Regards,

Randal

[Alan, Founding Moderator and Author]

Randal wrote: "Mimi wrote: " Now, we have a tiny class of people heavily invested in fossil fuels who are spreading disinformation about climate change and complacency in the general population by claiming that w..."

Mimi has turned off her computer for the evening (we're in the Eastern time zone), but she has read your post and may have additional thoughts tomorrow.

A new thread along that line is fine, though perhaps it might be more neutrally labeled "Environmental Justice" or some such topic. But I'm not that picky about the title, so please feel free to create it under your title if you wish.

[Randal]

Good Idea, Alan!

[Alan, Founding Moderator and Author]

I have now created a new topic called Environmental Justice. Please post further messages regarding environmental and related economic issues in that new topic.

[Charles]

Charles wrote: "Mimi wrote: "Charles wrote: I am a humanistic optimist, with a profound belief in our ability to adapt and change when our survival is at risk.

Unlike others in this group, I’m not well-schooled ..."hi Mimi and everyone, know we are moving this discussion elsewhere, but just saw this article in the WSJ by an independent energy scholar and thought it counterintuitive and thought provoking. No one has talked about "peak demand and" though I was hinting at it in my comment on Chinese/Indian development. Read on...

Why the World’s Appetite for Oil Will Peak Soon

By
Amy Myers Jaffe

Updated May 5, 2015 11:05 p.m. ET
When it comes to oil demand, the conventional wisdom is clear: Population growth and a rising global middle class guarantee that demand—and prices—will rise over the coming decades. It is a story line that is almost universally accepted by investors, governments and industry alike.

But like many such consensus views, it is one that should be treated with caution.

The world’s economy is experiencing transformational changes that, I believe, will dramatically alter patterns of energy use over the next 20 years. Exponential gains in industrial productivity, software-assisted logistics, rapid urbanization, increased political turmoil in key regions of the developing world, and large bets on renewable energy are among the many factors that will combine to slow the previous breakneck growth for oil.

The result, in my opinion, is as startling as it is world-changing: Global oil demand will peak within the next two decades.

A less potent weapon

The geopolitical and economic implications of peaking demand will be huge. The fall in the importance of Saudi Arabia is already palpable, with all the major powers from the U.S. to China more willing to accommodate Saudi archrival Iran. In addition, Russia’s ability to use oil as a weapon will wane, as will the economic leverage of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries. As economic growth becomes increasingly disconnected from oil, world powers will likely shift their attention to other increasingly scarce resources that will be equally critical to economic well-being, such as food, water and minerals. A greater interest in Africa, for example, is already starting to emerge.

For sure, peak demand is far from how the oil patch sees things. The oil industry’s operating premise is that a rising global middle class from China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand and parts of Africa and the Middle East will translate into soaring car ownership and fuel consumption. Officially, the International Energy Agency forecasts oil demand rising to 104 million barrels a day by 2040 from 90 million barrels a day in 2013, as surging demand in the developing world dwarfs the demand declines expected in the industrialized countries.

But I believe this forecast misses on both fronts—underestimating the extent of the decline in demand for oil in the developed world and overestimating the extent of the rise in the developing countries.

Signs of change are already apparent. Most everyone agrees, for instance, that a combination of policy inducements, energy taxes and technological breakthroughs has resulted in a peak in oil demand in the largest industrialized economies. Europe’s oil use last year hit its lowest level since the mid-1990s. The U.S. Energy Information Administration declared 2007 as the peak year for oil use in the U.S., with demand expected to fall by between 1.8 million and 2.7 million barrels a day by 2035 based on improvements in automotive efficiency and demographic trends.

Moreover, signs are emerging of slowing oil demand even in China, which has been the biggest source of growth in consumption over the past decade. Diesel demand in China fell in each of the past two years, raising doubts about how much longer China’s economy will require a growing supply of oil. China Petroleum & Chemical Corp., one of China’s largest fuel marketers, recently said on a call with analysts that China’s diesel demand could peak by 2017 and gasoline by 2025 as the country transitions to less-energy-intensive activities and sees through an aggressive national energy policy that promotes renewable energy and advanced automotive technology at home and for export.

IT efficiencies

But these trends are just the beginning of what will be a gradual shift that will eventually get the whole world to a peaking of oil demand.

Let’s start with the most important: the advent of information technology and big data, which are bringing revolutionary changes to daily life, especially for millennials. Exponential gains in productivity are expected for everything from transportation logistics to industrial equipment, which together with the growth of the sharing economy offer potentially dramatic savings on energy use.

We all know how much we optimize routing, timing, loading and sharing through the use of our own mobile devices. Mobile apps that help drivers avoid traffic congestion save fuel, for example, since idling in traffic wastes about 2.9 billion gallons of fuel a year in the U.S.

What might be less obvious is how this combination of satellite imagery, remote sensors, communications technology, cloud-based computing, robotics and “smart” industrial machinery is reducing the amount of fuel needed in other kinds of economic activity. Big-data analytics applied to aviation navigation is already shaving 10% to 20% off fuel demand, and similar advances are expected in the rail industry. Manufacturing via automation and 3-D printing are also expected to reduce fuel requirements.

Business-as-usual oil forecasts are also predicated on a rising need for consumer plastics, but this, too, may prove wildly overstated. Roughly 5% of global oil consumption goes to plastics production.

While it is hard to eliminate plastics from daily life, consumer companies have been trying to reduce their plastics footprint, in part in response to millennial consumers who are pushing companies to reduce waste, lower carbon emissions and eliminate landfills through intelligent design, smarter materials and recycling. Global retailers, such as apparel companies, are moving away from plastic packaging, and car companies are considering similar strategies that would curb demand for plastics substantially.

Fewer car commuters

Rapid urbanization may also point to a future drop in oil demand. Cities currently account for about 66% of global energy use, with forecasters projecting that figure to rise to 80% as the population shifts to urban centers.

But this trend of massive urbanization will more likely reduce the viability of private car ownership in the very places that are supposed to serve as the new centers of oil use, such as India, Indonesia and the Arab Gulf. Chances are, air-pollution concerns and congestion in mega-cities will prevent giant increases in the number of cars, and therefore hinder the substantial rise in oil demand that forecasters are expecting.

Increasingly, cities around the world are seeking smarter designs for transport systems as well as penalties and restrictions on car ownership. Already in the West, trendsetting millennials are urbanizing, eliminating the need for commuting and interest in individual car ownership, just as their baby-boomer parents are retiring and driving less.

At the same time, increased turmoil and low oil prices are crippling economic activity in parts of the Middle East and Africa, the two regions that are supposed to be the big drivers of continued growth in oil use. The wealth-accumulation prospects for the middle classes in these societies are uncertain—and so, therefore, is their demand for oil. What’s more, many state-sponsored fuel-price subsidies, which have been a key driver of oil demand in the developing world, are rapidly disappearing.

Finally, renewable energy is turning out to be more promising than expected, eating away at oil’s share of electricity production—and, eventually, automotive energy. China’s commitment to an industrialization program pushing itself to be the world’s major exporter of solar panels and advanced vehicles, including the production of five million electric vehicles a year, is another source of caution to those who forecast oil demand will rise exponentially forever.

None of this is set in stone, of course. A lot could change in the coming years—economically, politically, technologically—that could alter the oil-demand equation. But as Paris climate talks approach, governments around the world will be working to highlight their energy-efficiency policies and sharing information on how to lower oil intensity for the global economy. Whatever collective gains they make could seal the deal for peak demand.

Ms. Jaffe is executive director of energy and sustainability at the University of California, Davis, and chairwoman of the Future of Oil and Gas for the World Economic Forum. Email her at reports@wsj.com.

[Christoffer]

My name is Christoffer Skuthälla.

I believe libertarianism is the ideal system (if we want to realize something approachin the common good), however it is not possible to realize, man being what he is. I think Hobbes was right in saying that unless there is a power to overawe us all, we would be in a constant strife of all against all. I think the libertarians make the same mistake as the marxists and assume an inherent unselfishness in man.

The central government is no solution either, since man, being what he is, will seek to use government for his own benefit.

In conclusion I think the attitude of Benjamin in 1948 is the correct one. What will happen, will happen. Life will go on, tomorrow will not be drastically different from today. (My own paraphrase)

[Alan, Founding Moderator and Author]

Christoffer wrote: "My name is Christoffer Skuthälla.

I believe libertarianism is the ideal system (if we want to realize something approachin the common good), however it is not possible to realize, man being what h..."

Welcome to the group, Christoffer. I agree that theoretical libertarianism, like theoretical Marxism, is a utopian system that insufficiently accounts for the negative aspects of human nature and that accordingly has evil consequences when attempted to be implemented. (See my posts in the Classical Liberalism; Libertarianism and Anarchocapitalism; Objectivism topic of this group.) Still, it is true that both libertarian and Marxist analysts have something to teach us. And I do think that a central government, at least when not under the control of private financial interests, can sometimes do good. In the USA, for example, one thinks of the abolition of slavery and the institution of Social Security.

I have not read Benjamin, so I cannot comment on him/her.

(Note to all group members: I will be preoccupied with other commitments during the next couple of weeks and accordingly may not be able to post comments during that time.)

[Christoffer]

thanks!

I was referring to the donkey Benjamin in Orwells' 1984

but I wrote 1948... no wonder you hadn't read about him :)

[Alan, Founding Moderator and Author]

Christoffer wrote: "thanks!

I was referring to the donkey Benjamin in Orwells' 1984

but I wrote 1948... no wonder you hadn't read about him :)"

Good one! It's been so long since I read 1984 that I forgot about him. I'll have to reread it one of these days.

[Ronaldo]

Alan wrote:
Still, it is true that both libertarian and Marxist analysts have something to teach us. That´s right. I strongly agree.
And I do think that a central government, at least when not under the control of private financial interests - problem is find gvmt without manipulation of private interest. Regards. Ron Carneiro

[Randal]

Christoffer wrote: "Life will go on, tomorrow will not be drastically different from today.... I was referring to the donkey Benjamin in Orwells' 1984..."

I DID recently re-read 1984 and don't recall a donkey! But there is a donkey Benjamin in Animal Farm, as I recall.

I think I prefer the story by the French poet Paul Valery in The Collected Works of Paul Valery (Volume 10 History and Politics) to the effect that poems and creative acts (like revolutions) are as unlikely to happen as for a drop of wine to appear in a glass of water; But they do!

[Christoffer]

heh. the donkey was indeed in animal farm... at least I got his character description right!

yes - the comment about the likeliness of revolution I agree with

[Jeff]

Hello everyone,

I’ve been a member for several months, but haven’t gotten around to introducing myself yet. I’m an American, but have lived overseas for the past fifteen years. I’m currently working as a missionary in West Africa. I live in a small, rural village and when not doing ministry, or reading or writing, you can find me working around our homestead. On the occasions that I’m around an internet connection, you’ll probably find me on goodreads.

I’m fascinated by geo-politics in light of the philosophical, historical and economic factors that contribute to our understanding of what’s happening in the world today. In reading the discussion topics for this group, it seemed like a good fit!

I have a particular interest in the enduring dynamics of the church/state question. I identify most closely theologically and ethically with Anabaptist thought and practice. Politically-speaking, this crosses over into the “free church” contribution to the idea of individual liberty and the latter’s implications for society as a whole. I’m always exploring where I stand on the great questions of philosophy (do we ever actually settle these?). So I look forward to reading what everyone has to share, and to contributing where I can.

I blog at https://hiddenaltar.wordpress.com.

Thanks!

[Alan, Founding Moderator and Author]

Jeff wrote: "Hello everyone,

I’ve been a member for several months, but haven’t gotten around to introducing myself yet. I’m an American, but have lived overseas for the past fifteen years. I’m currently worki..."

Good to hear from you, Jeff. You may find my forthcoming (July 2015) book on Roger Williams of interest, since he was much influenced by Anabaptist thought. He began his most famous work, The Bloudy Tenent of Persecution, with excerpts from a writing of an imprisoned Anabaptist writer. Williams developed the Anabaptist principles of freedom of conscience and separation of church and state. He founded the Town of Providence (Rhode Island) on the basis of these principles after he was banished from Massachusetts for his beliefs on these and related matters. I will make an announcement in this Goodreads group when my book is published. It will be available (both in paperback and in a Kindle e-book) on Amazon.com.

Please don't hesitate to contribute posts on these issues or on any other topic within the general purview of political philosophy or ethics (broadly construed).

Alan Johnson

[Jeff]

Alan,

Yes, I am very interested in reading your upcoming book. From your description it certainly sounds like a book I wouldn't hesitate to snatch up if I ran across it. I'm sure it will generate some enlightening discussion. I'm looking forward to it.

I recently posted an article on my blog of my personal views on Anabaptism. Part Two is coming soon. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on it if you get a chance to read it.

Thanks.

[Alan, Founding Moderator and Author]

Jeff wrote: "Alan,

Yes, I am very interested in reading your upcoming book. From your description it certainly sounds like a book I wouldn't hesitate to snatch up if I ran across it. I'm sure it will generate ..."

Thanks. I'll check out your articles in a couple of days or so. Right now, I'm trying to finish the Index to my book and get it to Amazon CreateSpace, which is preparing the paperback and Kindle editions. I didn't realize until now how laborious the Index and other final technical details are. I won't bore you with the details, but I have spent 50-100 hours on such matters. I was out of town for a few days, which also delayed things. Anyway, I need to get the corrected "proof" to them as soon as possible.

[Jeff]

No problem. I know how much time I put into preparing the texts for my books, and being fiction, they don't have indexes! It seems when you're finished with the actual writing, then comes the hardest part.

[Christoffer]

Welcome Jeff

I like your blog!

[Jeff]

Thanks, Christoffer. I appreciate you taking the time to look at it.

[Alan, Founding Moderator and Author]

Jeff,

Your blog essays on Anabaptism are excellent. I have taken the liberty of posting links to them in the Separation of Church and State and Roger Williams topics in this group.

I wish you the best in all your endeavors. If I were religious (which I am not), I would be an Anabaptist. The Anabaptists have had the most correct view of separation of church and state of any religious group, and I think they also approach most closely what Jesus had in mind. I do, however, have some reservations about their unqualified pacifism, as did Roger Williams. But that is a relatively minor point.

I have purchased your novel on Amazon.com. Alas, I have not read any fiction for decades, and I'm not sure I can recommence reading novels now. However, the price was right, and I'll try to read it when I get a chance.

I'm now "following" your blog and look forward to your future posts. You are an excellent writer. And please do not hesitate to contribute posts to this Political Philosophy and Ethics group when the spirit so moves you.

Best,
Alan

[Alan, Founding Moderator and Author]

ACPhil wrote: "Hello!

I have a BA in Social Science and a M.Sc. in Education. As my focus has been according to the Continental tradition that see Education as an own academic discipline, my research interests a..."

Welcome to this group! I see that you and I have read some of the same books. Please do not hesitate to contribute posts, as you think appropriate, on the general topics of political philosophy and ethics.

[Zack]

Hi my name is Zachary Roberts,

I really enjoy reading anything public policy or political philosophy related. I'm doing my best to learn in the ins and out of our political system. I make a point to read both sides of every argument.

Just recently I started doing youtube reviews of the books I read and hope to open a dialogue between like-minded people on the issues affecting us. My first review was on The Road to Serfdom by F.A. Hayek which discusses socialism. I was wondering if anyone us felt like Democratic Socialism could work in the US possibly. Here's my review and I look forward to meeting everyone.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwwNJ...

[Alan, Founding Moderator and Author]

Zack wrote: "Hi my name is Zachary Roberts,

I really enjoy reading anything public policy or political philosophy related. I'm doing my best to learn in the ins and out of our political system. I make a point ..."

Good to hear from you, Zack. I'll look at your YouTube video when I get a chance (I'm pretty busy during the next few days). However, I think that others may be more qualified than I to address your question. Randal, for example, has a greater knowledge of economics than I, probably especially on questions relating to the practicability of democratic socialism.

[Randal]

Zack wrote: "My first review was on The Road to Serfdom by F.A. Hayek which discusses socialism. I was wondering if anyone us felt like Democratic Socialism could work in the US possibly. ..."

Ciao Zack,

Welcome to the discussion. Great job with the video. I loved the dog and Rebecca's fit, your praise for Hayek, not so much.

I have read a good bit of Hayek, but not, unfortunately the book that you reviewed. Much of his work is deathly dull. But I think, not the work that you have reviewed. I have read some of The Fatal Conceit, which has the same theme as The Road to Serfdom, namely that "socialist aims and programmes are factually impossible to achieve or execute; and they also happen, into the bargain, as it were, to be logically impossible."

This is from the introduction to The Fatal Conceit and I take it to be typical of Hayek's method: inflammatory propaganda against any kind of constraint on capitalism. Is there a difference between Swedish socialism or Roosevelt's New Deal and Hitler's Fascist State. Of course there is, and conflating the two is convenient for Hayek's apparent purpose of inflaming the public against socialism, but it is irresponsible slander, in my view. The thesis that he promulgates in the bit I have quoted above was directly contradicted by Barone, Taylor and Lange. I have reviewed this debate (in outline) here.

You quote Keynes as saying something to the effect that he agreed with much in the book you have reviewed. I assume that is true, but I think you may be missing some of the undertone in Keynes's remark. The book Contra Keynes and Cambridge contains essays published in the journal Economica, which Keynes edited, with heated exchanges between the two. Keynes, while he desperately wanted to save capitalism from itself, could not abide Hayek's smug assumption that nothing should be done by governments in the wake of the Great Depression. The book has a very good (and even handed, for a University of Chicago publication) introduction by Bruce Caldwell setting out the grounds for the debate.

I should promise to read The Road to Serfdom, but I don't think I could keep the promise. I find Hayek a devious bore and don't think I could ever get to the end of it. Also, I don't want to contribute to the Hayek publishing legend to which you allude in your video. But I would agree to talk more about this, perhaps about the Contra Keynes and Cambridge book. Why don't you start a separate topic?

Now I am going to walk the dog.

Cheers,

Randal

[Alan, Founding Moderator and Author]

Gentlemen, I think it would be good to continue this discussion (if it is continued) in the Government and the Economy; Property Rights topic of this group. I will set up there a cross-reference to this discussion, and then you can then add to it in that other topic, as appropriate. As I anticipated, Randal has much more to say about this topic than I do (at least at present, though, as I said elsewhere, I don't think I'll ever catch up).

[Arthur]

Hi, my name is Arthur Schwartz and I am the author of Ethical Empowerment: Virtue Beyond the Paradigms. I am also the host of an internet radio show called Philosophic Perspectives and I am seeking authors and others who have interesting philosophic perspectives--in both pure and applied philosophy, formal and informal--to be guests on my show. If interested, feel free to contact me.

[Alan, Founding Moderator and Author]

Arthur wrote: "Hi, my name is Arthur Schwartz and I am the author of

Ethical Empowerment: Virtue Beyond the Paradigms. I am also the host of an internet radio
show called Philosophic Perspectives and I am seeki..."

Welcome to the group, Arthur. Your book looks very interesting, and I have just put it in my "To Read" Goodreads category as well as my Amazon Kindle WishList. I'll read it when I get a chance.

[Arthur]

Alan wrote: "Arthur wrote: "Hi, my name is Arthur Schwartz and I am the author of

Ethical Empowerment: Virtue Beyond the Paradigms. I am also the host of an internet radio
show called Philosophic Perspectives..."

Thanks much, Alan. I have returned the favor! Best -- Arthur

[Alan, Founding Moderator and Author]

Arthur,

I have now downloaded and have begun reading your book, which is quite interesting. The first few pages remind me of some of the themes of my 2000 book First Philosophy and Human Ethics: A Rational Inquiry, which, however, I intend to revise (see my January 20, 2015 note and link to updates here). After just publishing my book on Roger Williams (who had a deep understanding of ethics and who usually practiced what he preached), I am now returning to the philosophical study of ethics as such and am sure will find your book of great interest. I'm also reading some other books at the same time and accordingly may not finish yours as soon as I otherwise would. But since I am now retired, I have more time for such unencumbered intellectual pursuits.

Alan

[Charles]

Hello all , thought you might be interested to know that the History Book Club is conducting a year long discussion on political philosophy using Alan Ryan's "On Politics: A History of Political Thought from Herodotus " . I read Ryan's book a couple of years ago and gave it 4 stars. It attempted, and I think, delivered a fairly complete description and overview of political thought from the ancients through the modern era. As a relative newcomer to the study of political theory, I was engaged and excited by Ryan's erudite approach and delivery on a vast subject.

[Jeff]

Alan wrote: "Jeff,

Your blog essays on Anabaptism are excellent. I have taken the liberty of posting links to them in the Separation of Church and State and Roger Williams topics in this group.

I wish you th..."

Alan,

Thanks for your kind comments and for posting the links to my blog. I'm pleased to hear you connected ideologically with the Anabaptist posts. I've been out of pocket (read "no internet access") for longer than usual recently, but I hope to get part 3 posted soon.

I just purchased your Roger Williams book from Amazon. I look forward to buckling down to start reading it as soon as it arrives. I'll definitely be sending you my thoughts on it. I too would not necessarily interpret the doctrine of non-resistance as would many in the Anabaptist tradition. I tend to think that some of the more modern interpretations of this doctrine aren't wholly defensible either from Scripture or from early Anabaptist thought. At any rate, it seems more of a peripheral issue to me.

Since I'm back around the internet for a while, hopefully I'll be able to chime in a little more!

Regards,
Jeff

[Alan, Founding Moderator and Author]

Jeff wrote: "Thanks for your kind comments and for posting the links to my blog. I'm pleased to hear you connected ideologically with the Anabaptist posts. I've been out of pocket (read "no internet access") for longer than usual recently, but I hope to get part 3 posted soon."

Thanks, Jeff. You have a great deal of courage and commitment to live apart from "civilization" for extended periods of time. One is reminded of Roger Williams and Albert Schweitzer.

[Elise]

My name is Elise (all the letters are pronounced). I've had an interest in philosophy, jurisprudence and history since I was a small child. My father always encouraged me to read.
I come from an Eastern Orthodox background, but joined a Reformed church in my teens.
In terms of general political philosophy I sympathise most strongly with the American radical libertarians; Lysander Spooner, Albert Jay Nock, H.L. Mencken.
Also influential on me in this regard was theonomic literature, especially Gary North and R.J. Rushdoony. I have strong sympathies with aristocratic and monarchical systems, as well as elements of futurism one can find in radical politics - from the Bolsheviks to David Friedman to Giovanni Gentile.

I am married, and we currently reside in a slightly-Tory part of Canada. However, I have so little sympathy with the modern Western culture and so little regard for its political ideologies (worship of the mass-man, 'human rights', victim-culture) that I'd just as soon accelerate its inevitable implosion. Things are going to get a lot worse, before they get any better.

[Alan, Founding Moderator and Author]

Elise wrote: "My name is Elise (all the letters are pronounced). I've had an interest in philosophy, jurisprudence and history since I was a small child. My father always encouraged me to read.
I come from an Ea..."

Welcome to the group. I gather that you are experimenting with different ways of thinking, as your list of intellectual interests appears eclectic and, at least on the surface, somewhat inconsistent. You are young and certainly not yet set in your ways. I think you will find the various discussions in this group of interest. The people posting comments come from diverse ideological and religious (and nonreligious) perspectives. Some of us are pretty old--past retirement age (as in my case). But please don't feel intimidated by our gray hairs. If you feel you have something to contribute, please don't hesitate to post comments accordingly.

[Alan, Founding Moderator and Author]

Addendum to my post # 90:

With regard to your theonomic views, I suggest you look at the topics Roger Williams (ca. 1603-1683) and Seventeenth-Century Rhode Island Government, Separation of Church and State; Liberty of Conscience and Toleration, and Types of Government: Theocracy and Erastianism in the present group. I discuss these issues in great depth in my recently published book The First American Founder: Roger Williams and Freedom of Conscience. Roger Williams responded to the view, dominant in the seventeenth century, that government had to be merged with religion and that government should persecute "heretics." Roger Williams was a deeply religious (mostly but not entirely Calvinist) minister who explicitly used arguments from religion, reason, and experience to support his views. I frankly don't understand how theonomy can be consistent with libertarianism. All of the libertarians I have read (and I have read many of them, including but not limited to Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, Rand, and Machan) support complete liberty of conscience and separation of church and state as well as economic freedom. Section 1.2 of the platform of the U.S. Libertarian Party states: "We favor the freedom to engage in or abstain from any religious activities that do not violate the rights of others. We oppose government actions which either aid or attack any religion."

[Mimi, Co-Moderator]

Hello Elise. I have a friend who has similar views as yours. He regards the French Revolution as the end of all things good and beautiful. I once sent him a sympathy card on Bastille Day.

Sorry but I never agreed with him about much of anything, but he appreciated the card!

[Elise]

Mimi wrote: "Hello Elise. I have a friend who has similar views as yours. He regards the French Revolution as the end of all things good and beautiful. I once sent him a sympathy card on Bastille Day.

Sorry..."

Heh, well I do regard the French Revolution as a foretaste of Hell on Earth aka the Popular State. That said I do have sympathies with certain elements of ideologies that evolved from it, which includes the Communists, Fascists, and National Socialists.

I am primarily negative when it comes to much of modern (liberal, including American 'conservatives) ideology, but as much as that world0view seems pernicious to me there are related ones I find highly sympathetic - for example, American radical libertarianism, which is a mutant offshoot of liberalism.

The French Revolution was a tragedy and a travesty, but its reasons for occurring - the decadent, self-loathing aristocracy, the atheistic secularized clergy, the insolvent and propagandistic bureaucratic states - are all reasons that the Ancien Regime deserved what it got. Even such an arch-reactionary as Joseph de Maistre concluded essentially the same thing; as bad as the modern age has been - spiritually, intellectually and politically - it is a working out of already latent problems that existed in European historical relations and the failure for the tripartite society of Europe to adjust its functioning for mass societies.

My objections to the Communists and the liberals are partly practical politics. I consider massing of state power based on centralized popular ideologies to be about the most dangerous thing in the world aside from blaspheming the Lord. I also *hate* victim culture. But more than that I oppose its spiritual rot, which is itself a symptom of mass society. A lot of people without any place or proper business are very anxious and lonely, bereft of spiritual comfort or respectable authority. This is the core (secular) problem of politics in the modern age, not so much that egalitarianism is evil (though it is) but that the drift toward egalitarianism is itself a symptom of deeper malaise in the Civilization-Formerly-Known-As-Christendom.

[Alan, Founding Moderator and Author]

Some General Remarks regarding the Nature of this Group:

The present post is not connected with any particular post in this thread but rather with some considerations generally applicable to the "Political Philosophy and Ethics" group.

This group is devoted to serious discussions of political philosophy and/or ethics. Political or other history is relevant only insofar as it bears on such issues. Constitutional issues are often relevant to political philosophy, but the present "Political Philosophy and Ethics" group tries to avoid current hot-button issues if at all possible. Generally, intense debates about current constitutional or political topics (for example, abortion) are best handled in other Goodreads groups that discuss such topics. Similarly, many issues regarding history may be more properly housed in various Goodreads history groups.

Political philosophy asks questions regarding the fundamental principles of a political order. For example: What is the nature of the US political order? What is the best political order? And so forth. As evidenced by many posts in this group by myself and others, such issues do sometimes involve political and/or constitutional history. However, debates, for example, about whether Adolph Hitler ever used the terms "Third Reich" or "Nazi" or "fascist"—as distinguished from the actual principles and operation of his regime—are more appropriately addressed in groups that are focused on such minute historical issues rather than on political philosophy as such.

Although I am not obsessed with rules, some "law and order" occasionally needs to be enforced. Accordingly, it is well to remind group members and prospective group members of the following rule of the group:

"Posts should be polite and not degenerate into ad hominem attacks. The purpose here is to seek light, not heat—rational discourse, not shouting matches. Leave your cable news persona at home and put on your philosopher's mantle when entering this group. Rational argumentation is welcome; emotional hectoring is not."

Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.

Moderator

[Ronaldo]

Alan - "Although I am not obsessed with rules, some "law and order" occasionally needs to be enforced". That´s exactly what I think about. Ron

[S.R.]

Alan wrote: "Some General Remarks regarding the Nature of this Group:

The present post is not connected with any particular post in this thread but rather with some considerations generally applicable to the ..."

Couldn't agree more with you, Alan.

[Alan, Founding Moderator and Author]

Thanks, gentlemen.

Alan

[Alan, Founding Moderator and Author]

Following up on my message 94, I have added three sentences to the group rules. The rules now read as follows:

Subject to copyright law, posters may cite, link, or quote any publication, including their own. Posts should be polite and not degenerate into ad hominem attacks. The purpose here is to seek light, not heat--rational discourse, not shouting matches. Leave your cable news persona at home and put on your philosopher's mantle when entering this group. Rational argumentation is welcome; emotional hectoring is not. All who are genuinely and seriously interested in political philosophy and/or ethics are welcome. However, internet "trolls" and other posters failing to comply with these rules will be removed from membership at the Moderator's discretion. Posters who persist in raising issues that are outside the scope of the subject matter of this group will also be removed from the group.

[Bill]

Hello group,

Bill Bowyer, Bachelor's in Political Theory/Constitutional Democracy from James Madison College.

I've begun to delve into mystical philosophy and theoretical teachings of magic. I've bounced around from Malthus to Caesar in the past two years since graduating and have now entered into the realm of alternative Biblical/temporal teachings. I've also read Manly P. Hall.

Other than that I despise Rousseau and worship de Maistre. Glad to be aboard!

-bb

[Alan, Founding Moderator and Author]

Bill wrote: "Hello group,

Bill Bowyer, Bachelor's in Political Theory/Constitutional Democracy from James Madison College.

I've begun to delve into mystical philosophy and theoretical teachings of magic. I'v..."

Welcome to the group. I see you are an author of fiction. Although I don't read modern fiction, there are many others in this group who do, including some other fiction writers.

You will find that this group includes people of many different political and philosophical viewpoints. I think it is helpful for everyone to be exposed to views other than those they profess. Contrary to the dogmatism that dominates our culture, it is possible to change one's mind upon further knowledge and reflection. I know, because I have done it. As I approach age 70, I'm still learning and sometimes modifying my point of view.

With regard to de Maistre, you might consider alternative church-state perspectives discussed in the Roger Williams (ca. 1603-1683) and Seventeenth-Century Rhode Island Government and Separation of Church and State; Liberty of Conscience and Toleration topics of this group. Roger Williams was deeply religious, but he taught that the civil state should have nothing to do with religion. To go to the next century, I think it is unfortunate that the French Revolution gave a bad name to Enlightenment rationalism and secularism. The American Revolution was more successful, though not perfect. Contrary to Jefferson's prophecy that all young people born in his time would become Unitarians, we are still arguing about biblical religion and separation of church and state. The issue of slavery was not resolved, in principle, until the Thirteenth Amendment, and we are still dealing with its practical effects. Hatred of certain ethnic and/or religious groups rears its ugly head from time to time in American history, including the present. The "possessive individualism" endemic to modernity in general and the American regime in particular leaves out less economically fortunate people and imbues the successful ones with an unseemly obsession with money and consumerism. Nevertheless, the American Revolution was more successful than the French Revolution. I do not think it would be a good idea to restore monarchy and theocracy. The "cure" in such a case would be worse than the disease.

[Alan, Founding Moderator and Author]

Alan wrote (post 100): "The "possessive individualism" endemic to modernity in general"

I was using the term "possessive individualism" here and in some other posts (in other topics) before I read C. B. Macpherson's The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism. Now that I am reading Macpherson's book, I see that he had a different definition of "possessive individualism" from what I had assumed. Accordingly, my use of the term "possessive individualism" here and elsewhere should not be taken as meaning the same thing that Macpherson meant. After I finish his book, I may have additional comments about this concept, albeit probably in another topic of this Goodreads group.

[Benjamin Roberts]

Hi there, I'm Ben Roberts. Currently a sixth form student in the UK, studying maths, further maths, history and economics, my future ambitions are blurry, but I know the importance of a philosophic education in any life that I may lead. My main interest at present is a wide consideration of the various economic and political schools of thought and how they might impact modern society. So far I have found Emma Goldman more convincing than Marx or Plato, but I've barely scratched the surface. Hopefully I can learn from some of the clearly well-read intellects who reside here.

Thanks for this great community, Alan. I look forward to engaging in some productive discourse with you all.