We’ve shown how “social science” is unequal to the task of justifying initiated force. But “social science” also fails in another crucial way…
It denies the value of individual humanity. It treats human beings as mere numbers.
To which every self-respecting human being should say…
“I am not a number. I am not a variable. I am a human being. So you can take your fraudulent social science and shove it.”
Related Lever: Can “social science” justify initiated force? Part 1
By Perry Willis & Jim Babka
I don’t understand the use of the word “unequal” in the context of this article. Was it intentional?
I am not the author but I took “unequal” in this context to mean “not up to the task” or “failure to demonstrate the hypothesis convincingly.”
That’s how it was intended — not up to the task.
This is the whole problem with the mindset of the statist. If I may be so bold, it goes back to what your fellow Zappian Way advocate, Perry Willis, said about state idolatry. As he pointed out at Downsize DC on the issue of gun control, the statist sword can cut both ways. https://downsizedc.org/blog/should-congress-legally-require-every-american-to-own-a-gun. The right side of the aisle tends to limit certain types of personal freedom (while supposedly leaving most religious freedom alone as well as other First Amendment rights), while the left side prefers to limit economic freedom and religious freedom.
The Libertarian and Constitution party platforms are both better than the DNC or RNC platform, though if I were voting on platform alone, I’d vote straight Libertarian. (Thank you for your influence in that area!) My current difficulty is the vast difference between the nominee’s position and the platform. This article sums up quite well the reasoning behind my hesitancy:
I recognize not all have the distinct advantage of thirteen parties on the ballot, so are either left with the choice to leave the Presidential race blank, or choose the least bad of three poor choices. Somehow, by not heeding what the Founders said about limiting the number of political parties we are left in these dire straits.
Thanks for the great comment Penni. It thrills me to see our tools be so well-used.
I’d like to make one minor quibble, please. The founders position was far more nuanced than limit the number of political parties. The 18th century word for partisanship was faction. Most founders believed faction was a natural evil. That is, they thought it was destructive but unavoidable. Factions formed right underneath Washington’s nose. But Madison already knew it was coming. He wrote, in Federalist No. 10, that the cure to faction was MORE faction. Faction counters faction. It was, for Madison, the most natural remedy for the problem.
I suspect the founders would be disappointed by the lack of choices, especially in our modern world which offers so many choices in things ranging from snack chips to cable channels. A two-party system is bound to collude into a duopoly that purposely excludes other “factions.” Indeed, it has.
In the great state of Florida, we will have at least 13 choices for President. Many states only have three. I appreciated the ‘quibble’, and agree with your assessment and Madison’s cure. Jay Leno once made the point quite well: “This is a strange country we live in. When it comes to electing a President, we get two choices. (now three) But when we have to select a Miss America, we get fifty!” I personally think, given Ben Franklin’s wit, (as well as some others, Sam Adams and Patrick Henry’s come to mind ) it would be a point they would hammer home in their writing. I also believe they would be at minimum be disappointed, some would question (like Samuel Adams, Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry) whether another revolution will be required.