Everyone I know with an interest in or familiarity with the dismal disciplinesi regaled me with some version of "you know you'll have to do Spencer sooner or later". Well... I know no such thing, honestly speaking, but then again who am I to disagree with so many intelligent fellows. Let's doii Spenceriii already, what the hell's it cost usiv ?
The New Toryismv
1. It is to my eyes incorrect to claim that Tories and Liberals stood for militarism (there called militantism) and industrialism respectively. I do not dispute that they may have so represented their relative situations on occasion, but I am willing to say that it is unlikely any one then living understood the nature or substance of either consideration in any meaningful sense (this being a common enough occurence through history, I don't even expect it to be contentious). This view is perhaps anachronism on my part ; but if it is, it is no greater a diversion than the insanity produced on the topic of the German (successful) military campaigns in the 20th century. If, by virtue of sheer psychotic nonsense, a century of German effort to destructure the British empire can somehow be translated into hallucinatory "ill effects" of the ascendancy of the "Junker class" (ie landed gentry, identical to the "Tories" in this discussion) so as to fit in the broader international-socialist narrative of "progress" and such gargle then certainly the struggles to self-understand and self-represent of a handful of British niggers can be interpreted as naught more than the retelling of some momentary symptoms of the failure of the socialist lie fraudulently put forth as "the definitive solution" to actually paper over the underlying problem. Don't you find ?
2. The discussion of status and contract strikes me as a pedestrian retelling of that old story ; it should be interesting to note just how recent this collapse actually is -- Spencer talks of it as if it were an event that happened within his lifetime (which is probably correct).
3. I suppose it is evident, two pages in, how this entire exercise will go. He calls the superior "primitive", as if gold is to be somehow less valued than plastic because, you see, plastic's a more recent aparition.vi In any case the words are misused, there's strictly nothing illiterate about Republican views, seeing how the entirety of socialism is rather an attempt to apevii the original texts of the Republic.
4. His notion that the bait-and-switch inherent in all socialism is somehow accidental is outright fucking endearing. Really, "men have forgotten" ? Which men ? The common man never knew nor will ever care. "How are we to explain this spreading confusion" indeed!
5. The confusion between king and government is more concerning. There is no relation between the two, the king is entirely different from the scar tissue with which modern & contemporary socialsm attempts to replace him. That Spencer doesn't seem at all aware of the difference betrays an ignorance of the early part of the millenium comparable with attempting to discuss industrialization while unaware of say the steam engine. What of
What's he that wishes so ? My cousin Westmoreland ? No, my fair cousin : if we are mark'd to die, we are enough to do our country loss ; and if to live, the fewer men, the greater share of honour. God's will! I pray thee, wish not one man more. O, no, do not wish one more! Rather proclaim it, Westmoreland, throughout my host, that he which hath no stomach for this fight, let him depart ; his passport shall be made and crowns for convoy put into his purse. We would not die in that man's company that fears his fellowship to die with us.
where's your government now, bitch ?! Coercion, do tell me more, this fascinating new larnin' amazes me. Too bad we primitives have books ; the enlightment of the banana-shaped Earth is such a valuable lotion nost on us!
6. While it's absolutely true that set theory is a perfectly fine basis for all mathematics (which directly stands for "thought" here), his statement is inept and his discussion of it painful to read. Really, cetacean mammals ? Gimme a break. Yes, yes, I'm aware they didn't have set theory back then. What do you want me to do ? I'm not reading it back then.
7. That he doesn't think much of the perfect government of yore I place on the same fundamental ignorance of the world specific to the English speaker that say Rothbard evinces. They're just not very well read, the marginal barbarians, what can you do ?
8. The ultimate point which he makes, being that socialists end up drinking their own cool-aid and in the end confusing the indirect results of their struggle to poison existing arrangements with some sort of viable goal once those arrangements (that supported them like they supported everything else) are extinct and the "revolutionary" is called upon to actually somehow govern is altogether quite accurate.
9. It is I guess entirely forgotten today that the Irish of 1880 were legally declared retarded, as a collective, by the English Parliamentviii, yet nevertheless this was a historical fact. Put that in your "potato famine" pipe and smoke it, hm ? In any case, his catalogue of 1860s legislation may well be interesting to the young reader.
10. His en passant criticism of socialist miseducation, as well as socialist pseudoscience, is quite pointedly prescient, even if coated in a very quaintly 19th century vision of "what is plainly impossible for the future". Turns out it wasn't nearly as impossible as all that, to everyone's detriment.
The Coming Slavery
11. It is a pleasure to see the distinction between the deserving and the undeserving poor in print. Have you noticed how nobody wants to hear of this distinction anymore ? Is there indeed no difference between the deservingly needy and the accidentally neededy just because a hospital's crewix will treat the idiot who ran headfirst into a tree and the misfortunate who slipped on an unexpected bit of black ice in the same manner ?
12. The notion that misery and misconduct are associated is perhaps the right's equivalent delusion to the left's "bright future" nonsense. I've in my experience failed to find that much of a connection. It's true that ineptitude naturally doesn't thrive, generally doesn't thrive, and this state of affairs shouldn't be altered ; but misery is generally a function of the faculty for reflection, with the dumbest also being the least miserable. There's no pain for the paralytic, no frostbite for the marble, what are you going to do, belabour to fix this ?
13. I must say that his very open-handed use of rhetorical devices is, if somewhat uncourtly, still quite endearing.
14. The story of Spanish (arguably bipedal) cattle is entertaining enough to wish to quote it later, so here goes :
It is said that when railways were first opened in Spain, peasants standing on the tracks were not unfrequently run over ; and that the blame fell on the engine-drivers for not stopping : rural experiences having yielded no conception of the momentum of a large mass moving at a high velocity.
The incident is recalled to me on contemplating the ideas of the so-called "practical" politician, into whose mind there enters no thought of such a thing as political momentum, still less of a political momentum which, instead of diminishing or remaining constant, increases. The theory on which he daily proceeds is that the change caused by his measure will stop where he intends it to stop.
Who ever knew that there's nothing original about the New Jersey method!
15. That provedly fertile women were preferred in 1880 as they were preferred at all points in history is not itself a cause of concern ; but that the idler of late 19th century London chose exactly in the manner the idler of late 20th century Baltimore, by the income the headcount of a woman's children could bring him is rather... why exactly am I having this worthless schmuck provide me with children I don't fuck ? Let him pimp out his wife to me like in the old days, and earn his meagre subsistence in the proper manner for one such as him -- ie, an old woman.
16. The amusing part of Spencer's critique of the ineptitude of the SOPS, is that leaving aside what they can't imagine, he can't imagine that in less than a century they will actually respond to their inability by claiming the dangerous momentum he speaks of is actually both a justification of their rightness and their ultimate goal! This is exactly like the alcoholic claiming cirrhosis proves alcohol is good for him (perhaps through some contorted reasoning proposing that it makes him fat or somesuch) and declaring it the ultimate goal of his efforts anyway.
17. "Failure does not destroy faith in the agencies employed, but merely suggests more stringent use of such agencies or wider ramifications of them" is quite exactly the description of "representative democracy" idiocy. Once the stupid comes to believe he is also infallible, there's no other possible output -- and a parliament can never ever be anything besides stupid. "Habits of improvidence having for generations been cultivated by the Poor Law, and the improvident enabled to multiply, the evils produced by compulsory charity are now proposed to be met by compulsory insurance" you see. Do you see ?
18. "Popular education results in an extensive reading of publications which foster pleasant illusions". Yes ?
19. He evinces the functioning of England's idiocy ("the Poor Law") would be a fine topic to use as an introductory study into the hopelessness of representative democracy in an economic and societal-organizational perspective. I don't actually know "that prophecy made in Parliament that continuation of the old Poor Law for another thirty years will throw the land out of cultivation", but I know for a fact that the English speaking Parliament has in more recent memory been systematically dedicated to anti-representative activity whenever its supposed representative duties came in conflict with its religious notions or threatened to upset the narrative of its cult -- such as for instance the celebrated case of Mr. Enoch Powell, MP.
From Freedom To Bondage
20. The ancient Toqueville point, that serfs rebel against oppression not in proportion to its actual burden upon them but in proportion to its amelioration as perceived in living memory, is memorably here repeated, particularly because the connection is drawn with a typical delusion of they "educated" in the socialist sense of "being exposed to the diffusion of pleasant errors rather than stern truths" through observing these defective minds' tendency to discount the actual effects of actually working mechanisms in favour of cultish explanations. In the eyes of a crowd of state-educated nitwits, the more clearly and deeply theoretical physics explains perceived phenomena, the less credible the scientific process which yielded such explanations appears, and the more credible the idle posturing of religious niggers. It is a perfectly natural heuristic, this, and to be entirely unexpected : just as their ancestor monkey discounted the present value of a present berry bush in direct proportion to the berries it had already had picked from it while at the same time increased the perceived value of a distant bush yet unpicked in the same proportion, "thinking" in the unthinking way of apes that if this here bush was worth ten berries then that one across the valley would be worth perhaps "at least ten", so exactly the monkey of today, even if dressed in multiple layers and inhabiting a cave dressed in wainscotting, nevertheless imagines that the more benefit the Republic delivered therefore the less the Republic is actually worth to it, and the more imagined Empire-in-the-sky may one day be worth, if only the valley be crossed. This dysfunctional mental process, strictly unworthy of the label "thought", is so very specific to the subhuman ape still unfortunately infesting the otherwise pleasant Earth to this very day that it almost serves as a distinguishing heuristic.
21. We fully disagree, both that "the fates of the great majority have ever been, and doubtless still are, so sad that it is painful to think of them" or that "unquestionably the existing type of social organization is one which none who care for their kind can contemplate with satisfaction". It pains me not one whit, at all, earlier watching that excellent exercise in cinematographic rendering of business that is Glengarry Glenn Ross my girl asked if I'm sad for Levine The Machine, and I said no. Because I aren't, not at all, there's nothing there to elicit sadness. As to the unquestionable... lawds' mercy. Any system in which the poor do not die of hunger in the streets is absolutely immoral and entirely intolerable for cheating the rich out of their richly deserved entertainment, that is of seeing the painful, dolorous and preferably slow extinction of those defeated. This is no small matter, because once cheated of this capital font of all pleasure and of all enjoyment one is already prepped for a subhuman existence irrespective of any other consideration ; once man surrenders the ancient truth, that the greatest joy is to defeat one's enemies, to drive them before him, to take from them all they possess, to see those who mistakenly loved them in tears for the realisation of their error, and of the unworthiness of the fraudulent object of their misplaced affection, and to embrace them as his chattels, there is no hope left for him. Absent that necessary basis of humanity, absent a soul, however you construct the remainder you'll have naught more than some kind of zombie, a plaster cast of the live animal. Perhaps you make it out of almond paste and you imagine it valuable for this reason, perhaps it may even be interesting -- but it will not be alive. I don't know what "sympathetic imagination" likes to dwell in the hallucination of equality, but such boyish nonsense is to be left behind with the rest of the plushies.
22. He can take his "actual workers" nonsense and shove it. Just because the common man is a goat, and as any good goat thinks every other man a goat just like himself does not actually make it so. The intangible contribution of the boss is more important for being intangible than the tangible contribution of the shop girl, not less important, for the plainly obvious reason that it is always cheaper and easier to reproduce the tangible. This constant blather that the lowest workers in an entreprise "receive too little a share" is patent nonsense I am well and thoroughly sick of hearing.
23. It is utterly untrue that every man works that he may avoid suffering. I know this because I am a man, and never in my life did I do such a thing or ever conceived of doing it ; not as a little boy in school and not hence. I work because I'm good at what I do, and because I enjoy doing it ; not working would certainly be less suffering (in a limited sense -- my original retirement in my 20s lasted for a few years until it drove me up the wall). There is a faint sense of duty involved, I suppose, but very faint indeed. There's also a certain pity for the inanimate objects and assorted abstracts which rather depend on my agency for their existence in this world. What fucking suffering ? How would it fucking dare ?!
24. The Icarians! Who today remembers this hysterical socialist utopia of the 1800s ? They almost made it to 1900 in Corning, Iowa!
The Sins Of Legislators
25. His insistence that military success comes out of regimented subordination actually contradicts military practice in all times, but especially so in his time. The victory of admiral Nelson over the French at Trafalgar is a particularly shining example of the superiority of principled military agents over the efforts of obedient military agents ; but the exact same situation is readily apparent throughout military history, from the remnants of the once glorious US Army's constant, bitterly humiliating defeats throughout the second half of the previous century into our present day all the way to the systematic defeats of the numerous Parthians at the hands of the decisive Greeks. I have yet to encounter a case where Spencer's idea of military discipline was ever anything other than the most ominous of dark omens. I would propose that his ideas of war and its carrying stand roughly equivalent to red skins' notions of cabaline husbandry in the early 16th century, or to the Zulu notion of a Gatling gun : he who has never worked a thing has wonderous notions indeed as to the manner of working of that thing.
26. The point that no "legislator" appointed by the idiot empires pompously pretending to a sovereignity they may never have was ever made responsible for the ill effects of his idiotic intermeddling is welcome, and bears repeating of an insistence in excess of any item currently found in popular culture. Nevermind vampires and pure maidens rescued and brave lads on their quest's journey! Hear ye all, and hear ye every day, and every hour, multiple times, hear until you fall over all about how the parlamentarian was hung for buying IBM. It's really the only lessonx worth imprinting upon the multitude : that if you make a law, or if you involve yourself in the enforcing of a law, I will have your head, after I've hung your children by their own guts before your very eyes, to dangle softly in the breeze.
27. The concept of law-made evils, as a third category properly set above either natural evil and man-made evil in the overpopulated sadness that pompously and for no proper reason calls itself "civilisation" is actually a significantly useful analytical tool. Of a year's murders, how many are natural, how many are due to man's agency, and how many are produced by legalistic idiocy ? For instance, how many women have died so far this year because some idiots somewhere, sitting pretty behind walls of comfort and abundance others supplied, hallucinated the bizarre notion that equating the punishment for violent sexual usage of an unwilling partner with the punishment for murder would serve to deter said usage rather than to encourage decapitation after the deed is done ? If the criminal took his cue from legislators and law enforcers he obviously wouldn't be a criminal in the first place ; but so boundless is the empty vanity of the castratto that he mentally represents the criminal as a sort of clerk-at-crime, more eager than anything to imbibe of the ever precious edicts of the conclave of cucks! How could things be otherwise ? If the doctor gave way to the clerk-at-doctory, if the scientist gave way to the clerk-at-scientry, how could the criminal not yield himself to be replaced with a clerk-at-criminy ?! For the bureaucrat to conceive of life outside of bureaucracy is difficult indeed -- ironically about as hard as it is for the criminal, and yet this readily accessible model doesn't apparently lend itself to much actual accessing. Let's wonder together whyxi that is!
28. His idea that scholarly pursuit, either in languages or literature, helps judgement "not in the least" and political acumen "not appreciably" is rank fucking nonsense. More generally, there are no special sorts of knowledge ; all of it is itself and naught else.
29. The notion that the size of the statistical sample is the only considerationxii coupled with the batshit insane proposition that ancient societies were somehow smallxiii leads him astray. The relatively uninteresting accidents of modernity are a comparatively weaker source of understanding of the kind that arms policymaking than the older comings and goings of Antiquity.
30. In particular, the Greek expressing of spears "being guided by a God" is poetic license and naught more. The Greeks did not literally believe that actual spears were literally god-moved ; and from the sheer insanity of the proposition I can intuit Spencer didn't read Greek.
31. There is no such thing, nor ever was such thing, nor ever could be such a thing as a causal relation "among social phenomena", which is to say in group behaviour. That he imagines these are "in our days becoming clear enough" is a slice cut off the same loaf as "physics is now a complete discipline", entirely soaked in the intoxicating wine of early modern intellectual provincialism.
32. The problem with Spencer's view of state is that, ultimately, he actually believes in the pantsuit derpage, that the state is important, meaningful and powerful ; that the state can change people, and so forth. All this is dreck, the state is about as powerful as cardboard -- until the first rain --, about as meaningful as Rapunzel -- works fine for as long as you're about nine years old -- and about as important as parasites of the crotch -- yes if you neglect your hygiene and that of your women for long enough you'll eventually (and "unavoidably") get it, but how about you don't do that!
33. His Lamarckian notions of inheritable traits would seem out of place, inexplicably limited and quaint, if it weren't for his ridiculous notions of scholarship, of statistical sampling, of physics and the state pricked above. The man is consistent, the problem with his consistency is that he's consistent in a certain sort of uncurious, disinterested, approximating manner.
34. His theory that "species advancement" correlates with young care is dubious on the face. A crocodile's babies receive significantly more parental care than a deer's kids, and are absolutely incapable to survive without it to a degree most mammals' offspring aren't. The crocodile is one of the most primitive creatures, truly an antique living fossil, about as early in comparison to what one imagines when they think "reptiles" as these in turn are to rats ; but this is by no means the only example. In general, apex predators will overwhelmingly nurturexiv whereas animals at the bottom of the food pyramid will spawn very independent offspring ; this is still imprecise, but a much better heuristic than his proposed "advancement" criteria.
35. The notion that slaves (he uses children, nonsensically, but he means slaves) receive resources in relation to their need, whereas lords, sovereign and independent, receive valuation in relation to their performance, is not useful as he states it nor exactly correct in any case. The performance of slaves, which is to say some women, most children, a good fraction of employees, clients and other dependents is judged by different criteria than the performance of sovereign lords, this much is true. But if one were to sit down and correctly evaluate, including properly time-discounted cash values of all the things involved, that one's bound to notice that there is in fact no difference across the board. Yes I gave young Bitcoin an immense sum, immense then as now, because "it needed it" ; but if you were to do my accounts, and see the immense wealth this "unworthy" young pup has brought in due time, you'd understand that no, there's nothing socialistic about nurturing the young slave, whatever shape she may take. If she credibly may one day win you the Triple Crown, even if she doesn't end up doing it nevertheless the oats of yesteryear were justifiable and justified capital outlay, not charity. Consequently we do not at all agree that inside the human family it would be fatal to proportion benefits to merits ; it would be fatal to incorrectly judge merits, but otherwise... start eating fucking babies already.
And it is here that we must, amicably but nevertheless, part ways. While a pleasant writer sitting atop an undisputable vein of gold, we are by now so far divorced from one another as to require the separation. I do not think Herbert Spencer should not be read, on the contrary, but I would warn against the danger of reading him too young (in the mental sense of that term).———
- It can not be properly said that there's such a thing as "Social Sciences", or such a thing as "Sociology", "Psychology", "Economy" etcetera, or such a thing as a scientific basis for government.
On one hand, as far as purely gnoseologic considerations are concerned, the accumulated pile of spurious commentary "based on" misunderstood accident, however packaged and labelled, stays nevertheless what it was to begin with. There has not yet been a "sociology", for instance, howsoever formulated (with, possibly, the exception of this present note, if one's willing to accept this much and no more as Sociology with capital S), that wasn't exactly and without remainder some kind of The Proceedings Of A Few Provincial Spinsters On The Problems Of The World Produced While Knitting These Here Ugly Sweaters. Moreover, as it is forbidden to have a course in nonsense, any retelling of this gunk from any other perspective besides "here's what narrow minded old girls hurr at each other instead of (and to protect themselves from) maturing already" is a waste of the time of everyone involved ; and, if undiscerning youths are at all molested, also profoundly immoral.
On the other hand, as far as teleology goes, get the fuck out of my face already. Pretense is a very poor prosthetic for the dumb and the feckless, and besides you sad lot have absolutely no business here anyway. Just go away, preferably to die in the darkness in a corner somewhere. In silence. [↩]
- While we'll be using the 1960s Caxton edition, in homage of some young slut being from Idaho, we'll nevertheless discard out of hand the pompous wrangling of some random retard (A. J. Nock), not just because of sufficient considerations already explained, but also (and with extreme prejudice) because seriously, get some anodyne georgist to introduce Spencer ? What sort of imbecile Americana is this ?!
For the newcomer : "Georgism" is shorthand for the shockingly inept proposition that taxation should consist chiefly if not exclusively of a tax on rents (the original was formulated with a view to land rent, but the concept is readily extensible) because it is the "perfect taxation" in the sense that if one owned a block downtown it is nevertheless "society" (undefined) that "gave it its value" (ostensibly, through deciding to bless the plot of land with downtowness) and therefore it is only fair it should take the value "it has given back" for "its own purposes" ; and that "true value" (of labour, capital etcetera) can only be seen once such taxation extracts the whole value of the rent. Leaving aside... actually, let's not leave aside. If I own a plot of downtown, that therefore makes me a better person than the man who doesn't so own, exactly in the manner in which for owning women as chattel property I am a better man than any man merely married to one (not to mention the unworldly cucks who incel and other such transvestites), and exactly in the manner in which for having letters I am a better man than one who doesn't, and exactly in the manner in which for owning an immense pile of Bitcoin I am a better man than any other man, who ever lived, and who will ever live, and so following.
Moreover, this necessarily and inescapably subservient relationship between the rest of the men, who don't own a plot of downtown, and me, who does so own, is to inform the future -- specifically, the future disposition of assets, the future flow of production and capital, and quite strictly the future behaviour of said men (or rather, more interestingly -- their wives, sisters and daughters). Any idle pretense to the contrary is very readily reduced to its pretentious idleness : we just each retreat into our respective castles of "I don't care what you say" only to in very short order discover that my plot of downtown makes a way the fuck better castle than the hurr durr of MIT.
Contrariwise, should the ineptitude be enacted, the socialist abomination thus produced will still find itself in need of a hierarchy. How will it supply that, once it's cut its own head off by eschewing the natural order ? Hire a bunch of niggers to be "servant leaders" ? Good fucking luck.
As you might imagine, Georgism is as qualified to speak of Spencer as the run of the mill pantsuit is qualified to talk of freedom. [↩]
- In fairness, and before we begin : the broad criticism to Spencer in my mind is very much the same as stands baring the way to the future for the entire anglo-saxon tradition on "liberty" : that dividing cooperation between "voluntary" and "involuntary" (which, for one, is an entirely spurious distinction without possible real correlate besides its very significant costs) they then proceed to choose "voluntary" as "the only good one", which is patent nonsense, if for no other reason then because all education is rape. As this brief comment should have made clear, it's not evident that "cooperation" even has any sort of meaning or importance -- indeed it seems rather a purely literary construct of no actual cognitive content, similar to the Italian coinage "altruism" or any other random nonsense some poet came up with because he needed a three syllable word that rhymed with orange. [↩]
- Well, over a thousand words so far, but what's that, 1/10 of an image amirite. [↩]
- If you need a copy you could use this. [↩]
- This may seem as a ridiculous piece of nonsense "nobody is actually proposing" until you stop and consider what inept anti-Bitcoinists actually think and actually say. Your "nobody could be this fucking stupid" would be a lot more convincing if it weren't stuck in a recursive loop where it keeps having to invent alternative explanations for patently idiotic statements and behaviours, only to be confronted with dispositive counterproofs to whatever alternative explanations it might devise, and then proceed to alternatively explain those to the same effect until paper eventually runs out. [↩]
- What did you think "the englightment" was if not a sort of "chukcha found Trilema and here's a hunk of Aristotle glued to the front of chukcha horse" ? Hm ?
Let's resolve a recent mystery : Domus Aurea. [↩]
- In which it was decreed that specially appointed social workers must go and buy the seeds these dumbasses must plant, and have them plant the seeds correctly. Because, you understand, exactly in the manner in which Monty Python mendaciously misrepresents "the upper class twit of the year", the Irishman of late XIXth century was, literally, fucked in the head, perfectly apt of digging one hole per acre, taking all the seed, putting it in that hole, covering it up and heading to the pub, there to whine in a society of his peers about the unfairness of inequality and his lack of opportunities. Does this remind you of the "African American" of today ? And if so, what exactly does this mean to you ? [↩]
- And there's a reason I don't use the word "doctor", as in the liberal profession. There's nothing liberal about the modern hospital whatsoever. Consider :
- ME: Well, if he refuses, what are the alternatives?
THEM: We'd have to discharge him on oral antibiotics.
ME: Would this work?
THEM: Well, it's not ideal. There's a good chance he'd end up back here in the hospital in a few days.
ME (not punching anyone): if he has someone at home who can help take care of him, etc, he, unfortunately, (squeezing the thumbtacks in my hand) has the right to refuse.
THEM (frustrated, angry): Fine. Whatever. They have to sign an AMA discharge, and know that we're not responsible for what happens.
Note the final aggressive maneuver. It's the only thing they can do to "punish" the patient-- for not doing what they wanted. It's more clearly seen when I say this:
- ME: Unfortunately, (tacks in hand again) his refusal doesn't discharge our obligation to treat. He'll need an outpatient appointment within a day or so.
THEM: No, I'm not doing that. If he doesn't want to follow my prescribed treatment, I'm not going to alter my schedule for him.
ME: Unfortunately, if you were ready to find him incompetent and keep him in the hospital, lawyers won't understand why you didn't follow such a sick person more closely as an outpatient.
I always blame lawyers, not because they are to blame, but because it's the only thing doctors really understand. But either the patient is really sick, and we can have a discussion about incompetency, or they're not, and we shouldn't be having the discussion.
Doctors ? I think not. Clerks, forget about it. [↩]
- It is one of mylord Newton's most respectable traits, that his complete record of parliamentary contribution consists of one phrase asking for the windows to be open. This is more the testament of a working mind to my eye than the theory of gravity, or infinitesimal calculus. [↩]
- Consider "moral" dork X, who sits there and tells me that it is his right to decide (through the avenue of his passing a law to that effect) that woman Y should be killed on top of being raped, in order that he, dork X, should be able to feel good about the world, which is to say his notions as to what is as bad as what else to gain through usage more currency among others than they previously held. Consider then same "moral" dork X, who sits still there and now tells me that the actual rapist-murderer involved nevertheless doesn't have the right to decide woman Y should be killed on top of being raped in order that he, the criminal, should be able to feel good about the world. Why exactly is that to be ? What flavour of special pleading will we be regaled with to justify the bureaucrat's right to behave like a criminal but not the criminal's right to behave like one ?
There is absolutely no difference, you understand ? The criminals that are too cowardly, too lazy or too inept to indulge a life of crime join up the bureaucracy instead. That's exactly it, the two categories of social marginals are exactly identical in all aspects otherwise. Just like a school and a factory are the same thing separated by a mere few decades, just so a parliament and a jail are the same thing separated by a mere trifle of ability, dedication and competency. [↩]
- There is a VERY large difference between sample quality and sample size. For instance, genitally inspecting one woman randomly picked out of each fiat pretender to sovereignity, for a total of a couple hundred, will yield immensely closer estimations to reality of the prevalence of devulvulation at the present time than genital inspection of a contingent of girlies picked off US collegiate campuses, no matter either how large or how selected. Sample quality may correlate with sample size, but there is no more there. [↩]
- The fact that New York's few millions are numerically in excess of ancient Rome's million does not in fact amount to a larger size of society. Roman society of the first century was doubtless larger than anything built hence anywhere, without exception. In most cases (such as is the case today) larger by a degree of magnitude or more. [↩]
- It makes fucking sense for a ton's worth of crocodile to guard its nest, because what could possibly threaten it ? Meanwhile it makes no sense for a half ounce quail to attempt the same, it'd be tantamount to an invitation to the table addressed to the larger half of the whole world. [↩]