Texans and Libertarians

[70/30]

I brought my campaign back to the streets after a lecture last saturday from an ultraGREEN nun/science professor. Greed is the only explanation why so many around the world can be so fervently exploited with such little hinderance to our consciences. Man must be a steward of the earth, not it's unequivocal owner.

The average Texan and the average member of the Libertarian Party(ultraRepublican) epitomises social unawareness and an uncaring attitude. Today on my gathering of materials to be recycled, I collected 278 aluminum cans in 90minutes. Elect ISHMAEL to city council, he recommends incineration programs instead of recycling programs-it'll save him some money. May as well, you already gave people of his extreme ideology the domination of the entire federal government.

 

[JazzManJim]

Well Done!

Congratulations!!

You've just beaten Tom Daschle for saying the stupidest thing I've heard in the last six months.

In fact, I'm amazed that you could pack so much stupidity and ignorance of your subject into such small paragraphs.

Keep up the good work.

 

[70/30]

They are vague too. Unless of course, it has to do with something that costs them money.

 

[p_p_man]

Re: Well Done!

Congratulations!!

You've just beaten Tom Daschle for saying the stupidest thing I've heard in the last six months.

You'll have to explain that to me...

What exactly is stupid about the post?



ppman

 

[Azwed]

Re: Re: Well Done!

You'll have to explain that to me...

What exactly is stupid about the post?



ppman

Libertarians are not ultraRepublicans nor are they ultraconservatives just to start with.

 

[p_p_man]

Re: Re: Re: Well Done!

Libertarians are not ultraRepublicans nor are they ultraconservatives just to start with.

Thanks!



ppman

 

[Azwed]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Well Done!

Thanks!



ppman

No problem you can repay me by writing my Hobbes Leviathan/Kaplan/Kissinger paper on the nature of realism. I need 2.5 pages single spaced 12 font times new roman by 10:30 am my time.



I hat this class the guy is crazy the damn question is nearly as long as the paper will end up being.

Hold on I will post it for you so you can admire it in all its crappy glory.

 

[horny_giraffe]

Actually, I heard an analysis from a very intelligent friend of mine against recycling paper and glass.

Evidently, every time one recycles glass and paper they can only be used to produce radically inferior products. It is definitely a lossy process. Furthermore, the recycling process uses materials and processes that can create more toxic materials and pollution than the original process. The paper has to be bleached and processed, and still produces inferior materials. The glass has impurities in it which cannot be easily removed--so it is typically turned in to fiberglass and other composite materials, or just thrown away. Which is to say, you may be serving the environment best by throwing paper in a compost heap and glass in the trash.

Aluminum, on the other hand, is totally recyclable.

Are any of you aware of this argument and possible counterarguments? I'm kind of a reflexive recycler--but this argument gave me pause. Obviously, the argument is not against the concept of recycling--it's only that it's only environmentally sound to recycle materials convenient to the process.

 

[Azwed]

The crappy assignment that I hate and wish to burn.

Assignment 3: Hobbesian Realism
Date Assigned: Thursday, 7 November 2002
Date Due: In class, Thursday, 21 November 2002
Format: 2.5 pages, single-spaced, one-inch margins, 12-point pitch

* * * * *


Hobbes' Leviathan is regarded as a foundational text of the classical liberal tradition. It is seen as providing the architecture of the modern liberal state. That architecture is known by the famous term social contract or social covenant. Or, as Hobbes specifically referred to it in his introduction to the book, "the Commonwealth, ecclesiastical and civil."

Let us posit that the commonwealth, the modern liberal state, was Hobbes' answer to the political anxieties that preoccupied him and his contemporaries: How to bring about stable, secure, lasting political forms amidst the chaos and uncertainty produced by revolution and civil war? How to create a system of rules and laws, and the institutions that would give them permanence, from the materials of an early modern Europe, a time when divine justifications for government were losing their sacred status? These were the same anxieties harbored by Machiavelli, and though each articulated quite different answers, many of Machiavelli's concerns are echoed in Hobbes' famous treatise.

The "great Leviathan" -- a biblical beast Hobbes poached from the Book of Job -- was Hobbes' answer to these anxieties. Hobbes gives much of his rhetoric in the book over to a certain inflation of this beastly creature -- a God-like figure comparable to no other power on earth. Indeed, Hobbes might be seen as suggesting that the Leviathan is more powerful than God himself. No matter: the Leviathan, in spite of its artificiality, is more powerful than "man." Art is imitative, Hobbes argues, and at its best it imitates "that rational and most excellent work of nature, man."

We might pause to take note of Hobbes' acknowledgement (indeed, we might even say obsession to the point of insecurity) of the utter artificiality of the social contract. The commonwealth is up to "man" to construct, and by calling it the work of "artifice" Hobbes was juxtaposing it with what we might call "the most natural of natural" -- that which only God could create. We might pause to wonder why Hobbes spent so much time and rhetorical energy helping us to appreciate the Leviathan's inherent artificiality. Yes, yes yes . . . the task was left to humans and humans alone. God was not going to step in to save humans from themselves, though surely it would be nice if he did. How much does all of this really bear repeating?

Why did Hobbes argue this point so strenuously? Does it not betray a certain insecurity on his part, some latent doubts about the very frailty of the social convenant?

Here's one explanation: Hobbes recognized he had arguments and arguments alone. His task was to make a strong case for the need for just this form of government, thereby convincing his fellow citizens, or those tired blokes condemned to a brief and nasty life in the state of nature, that a contract of this particular kind was the only possible answer to the anxieties that forever threatened even Machiavelli's well-constituted republic. The better Hobbes' arguments, the surer the commonwealth's footing and the more stable and secure its system of rules and laws. Yet, these were mere arguments, after all. How could they be made to do the work of God, the work that was assigned to the divine in pre-modern times when Judeo-Christian values predominated?

Hobbes understood perfectly well that he was dealing with mere arguments. He also understood that, in spite of their many limitations, humans were rational creatures, and, at the end of the day, they would be inclined to respond to the force of the better argument. Hence, Hobbes invites us to consider a deeply scientific (that is to say, grounded on rational premises) political theory. This theory is much more robust in its scientific thrust than was Machiavelli's. Machiavelli's science was grounded in a combination of historical interpretation and experiential learning, whereas Hobbes was grounded in demonstrable mathematical proofs. Hobbes said, in effect: "If we can agree on the right names for these things, these constituent elements of our objective world, then we can advance our thinking and ultimately reach a consensus on the right system of rules and laws for our government. The system can be made to work. We can model this science on the geometric and mathematical sciences, and it is clear to all that these sciences lead to great advancements in our thinking about how the universe works."

* * * * *

In reflecting on Henry Kissinger's realism, Robert Kaplan writes that "A grimly convincing view of the human condition may be all that Kissinger ever had to offer" (144). We might say the same about Hobbes, and as with Kissinger, herein lies the realism of Hobbes' political theory: it is a political sensibility driven by needs rather than by designs. "Realism," Kaplan writes, "is thus about deftly playing the hand that has been dealt you. It is not exciting or inspiring" (141). It does not dream of a heavenly truth that it is our task to implement on earth, but neither does it resign in futility in front of the forces of eternal fortuna. It invents God where he never existed in the first place.

* * * * *

Your task in this assignment is not to recapitulate Hobbes' social contract theory as elaborated in the Leviathan. Let us presume that the constituent elements of that theory are clear enough. Instead, your task is to explain the political significance of a system of rules and laws that does not aspire to a utopian, ideal form, but grounds itself in a science of a rather unique kind. That science is designed to formulate linguistic truths, and these truths are to be directed to the task of building a stable and lasting foundation for the commonwealth. But that science formulates these linguistic truths in a particular fashion, with particular ultimate ends in mind. The question to which you are asked to attend is, How? How does Hobbes' science formulate these truths so as to give voice to particular ultimate ends?

Your response might begin by briefly stating what Hobbes' ultimate ends are. It might briefly contrast these with Machiavelli's -- that is, in only a sentence or two. It might then interrogate two of the most important constructs of the Hobbesian system: the state of nature and the social contract. What are these constructs designed to do? What must they do for Hobbes' political theory, Hobbes' political science, in order that it be made to work, in order that it be made to effect a system of rules and laws that might achieve permanence?

Again, it bears repeating (ahem): We might pause to wonder why Hobbes spends so much time and energy helping us to appreciate the Leviathan's intrinsic artificiality. Why did Hobbes argue this point so strenuously? Does it not betray a certain insecurity on his part, some latent doubts about the very frailty of the social covenant? Does it bespeak an intrinsic fragility of any human-made political forms?

You might conclude by engaging a question. Does Hobbes share anything in common with the realism that Kaplan elaborates in his essay, "Kissinger, Metternich, and Realism," a realism that (quite interestingly) he seems so uncomfortable endorsing?

Finally, a hint: You are no doubt aware that Kaplan has read his Hobbes. Indeed, a famous quote from the Leviathan is given as the epigraph of the his book, The Coming Anarchy: "Before the names of just and unjust can have place, there must be some coercive power."

 

[Azwed]

Actually, I heard an analysis from a very intelligent friend of mine against recycling paper and glass.

Evidently, every time one recycles glass and paper they can only be used to produce radically inferior products. It is definitely a lossy process. Furthermore, the recycling process uses materials and processes that can create more toxic materials and pollution than the original process. The paper has to be bleached and processed, and still produces inferior materials. The glass has impurities in it which cannot be easily removed--so it is typically turned in to fiberglass and other composite materials, or just thrown away. Which is to say, you may be serving the environment best by throwing paper in a compost heap and glass in the trash.

Aluminum, on the other hand, is totally recyclable.

Are any of you aware of this argument and possible counterarguments? I'm kind of a reflexive recycler--but this argument gave me pause. Obviously, the argument is not against the concept of recycling--it's only that it's only environmentally sound to recycle materials convenient to the process.

Your friend is partialy true. Glass is simply not worth recycling in most areas because it is much cheaper to make new glass then to recycle the old glass. Glass is just sand for the most part and sand is dirt cheap.

Paper on the otherhand is worth recycling in most circumstances. This is espesialy true if it is newspaper that is going to just be recycled to make more newspapers. Newspaper paper is not of the same quality as office paper or other more high end paper products.

Cardboard and paper grocery bags are also good examples of lower quality paper that should be recycled.

Paper that is recycled to be used as office paper may have some minor imperfections or be not completly white but this can be avoided by not using 100% recycled paper to make the office paper. I have seen office paper that is about 50% recycled and the rest new paper that looked and felt just like completly new paper to me.

It is true that the recycling process can cause enviroment hazzards but this is true of almost any industrial production process. The hazzards caused by recycling must be weighed agianst the hazzards caused by cutting down new trees to make more paper.


Another factor that many people don't think about is the cost of transportation. Trees that are cut to make paper must first be transported from wherever they were felled to a mill of some kind. Keep in mind that forrests and paper mills are generaly not constructed near urban areas. The paper products are then transported to warehouse of some kind. Now the paper is shipped to various companies and eventually consumers will purchase it.

That was four different transportation periods needed to get the product to the customer and the first one is probably quiet a long trip.

Recycled paper only has two trips to make. People drop the paper off in a bin and a truck picks up taking it to the recycling plant. Afterwards the paper is recycled it is sent to a warehouse again and then back to a store to repeat the process.

The recycling center is probably, for most areas, closer to recycle bin then the forrest is to the paper mill/distribution center.

 

[horny_giraffe]

Wow, Azwed.

It doesn't seem like your professor is exactly inviting you to form your own opinion, does it? Still, it's interesting material. I'd be interested in seeing a bibliography. "The Prince," I assume? "The Leviathan." What else?

Oh, and thanks for your insights about recycling. My friend insisted that paper is always made into lower grade material, however--which would mean that newspaper becomes something else. Obviously, it's pointless to recycle an egg carton because it's already nearly the lowest grade paper possible, while cardboard probably has some very long fibers in it, still.

 

[Spinaroonie]

Actually, I heard an analysis from a very intelligent friend of mine against recycling paper and glass.

Evidently, every time one recycles glass and paper they can only be used to produce radically inferior products. It is definitely a lossy process. Furthermore, the recycling process uses materials and processes that can create more toxic materials and pollution than the original process. The paper has to be bleached and processed, and still produces inferior materials. The glass has impurities in it which cannot be easily removed--so it is typically turned in to fiberglass and other composite materials, or just thrown away. Which is to say, you may be serving the environment best by throwing paper in a compost heap and glass in the trash.

WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG

Paper and glass do not create "radically inferior prodcuts". Nor is glass "typically turned into fiberglass". Most of the glass you recycle becomes new bottles. They break it up, melt what they can use and throw out what they can't. Paper is bleached when producing it, and recycling paper requires much less bleach. Also there are times when you can't even tell when paper has or has not been recycled.

 

[Azwed]

Wow, Azwed.

It doesn't seem like your professor is exactly inviting you to form your own opinion, does it? Still, it's interesting material. I'd be interested in seeing a bibliography. "The Prince," I assume? "The Leviathan." What else?

I don't think I am going to use the prince any in my paper but i am not sure yet.

Another book I am using is Robert Kaplan's The Coming Anarchy it is a collection of articles written by the journalist.

Pretty good stuff not that I agree with all his conclusions.

I am also using some things from this speech.

https://courseware.vt.edu/users/scnelson/3615 Inter. Relations Theory/PayingBacktheWest.htm

I think you can get into this without any problems if not I can post the speech here.

 

[horny_giraffe]

WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG

Paper and glass do not create "radically inferior products". Nor is glass "typically turned into fiberglass". Most of the glass you recycle becomes new bottles. They break it up, melt what they can use and throw out what they can't. Paper is bleached when producing it, and recycling paper requires much less bleach. Also there are times when you can't even tell when paper has or has not been recycled.

It would be interesting to see some figures--input, output, by-products. I can't imagine winning the argument with my friend purely by pure vehemence.

IS TOO!...IS NOT!...IS TOO!....


Thanks, Azwed. I got in to the site to look at the paper without any trouble.

 

[Azwed]

I must say I am tempted to go a completly different direction with this paper and call what I think is Hobbes's bluff.

I don't think he belived anything he wrote in the Leviathan. I think the whole thing is a hugely complicated bit of satire to show that there is no way a all powerful figure can rule a nation-state.

I just think Hobbes was too smart to really belive all this bullshit he wrote.

 

[Oliver Clozoff]

I think he believed his arguments completely, Azwed.

Hobbes is my favorite philosopher and I think his insights on the dynamics of human conflict are right on. Our conflicts are born of our complex human natures - man's avariciousness and competitiveness, coupled with his (often rightful) fear of his fellow man, and his inherent tendency to protect his own reputation and honor. Modern psychology, genetics, and neuroscience are factually bearing out many of Hobbes' intuitions about human nature.

Where Hobbes missed the mark, though, was his idea that a Leviathan - a man entrusted with Godlike powers granted by individuals abrogating their perfect freedom for a measure of safety - would be free of the same flaws as the rest of us. As we Americans asked 100 years after Hobbes died, "If the leviathan will save us from each other, who's going to save us from the Leviathan?"

(read Locke to find the answer, of course. )

 

[miles]

Re: Well Done!

Congratulations!!

You've just beaten Tom Daschle for saying the stupidest thing I've heard in the last six months.

In fact, I'm amazed that you could pack so much stupidity and ignorance of your subject into such small paragraphs.

Keep up the good work.

50/50 claims to be a communications major. I don't know which diploma factory he's attending, but he's quite adept at doubletalk.

A politician in the making.

 

[Hamletmaschine]

I had a prof who worked in Kissinger's State Dept. He said Kissinger was a complete asshole.

Feel free to use that in your paper.

 

[SINthysist]

How much time did it take to collect the cans?

How much did you earn?

Was it the BEST use of your resources?

When you can actually get money for cans, I'll recycle the shit out of them...

 

[SINthysist]

Az, was this by any chance your professor's Doctoral dissertation?

I had several profs who could not get past the high point of their careers...

Especially one History Professor whose work was on the spanking of boys in England!

 

[Ishmael]

Machiavelli vs Hobbes

No comparison at all. Nicolo was head and shoulders above Hobbes.

For all of his discourse on science and math as the foundation of the social construct Hobbes ignored, as Marx did, that government is people. And that politics is the art of the possible.

Machiavelli's insights have stood the test of time. Hobbes hasn't. The former Soviet Union was a classic case of Hobbes in action. Everything based on numbers, quota's, science, etc. The complete and utter failure of their system is a testament to the efficacy of these sorts of policies.

I agree with HG. Your professor does not seem to be in search of any independent thought. Just 'validation' of Hobbes theories.

--------------------------------------------------

Paper is not really worth recycling.

First of all, most paper today is made from trees that are grown specifically for that use. Trees are a renewable resource in their own right. It's just that too many people just can't concieve of a crop that takes 28 years from planting to harvest. However, that's how they are grown. Most of the paper companies own the land that the trees are planted on and have shown themselves to be better stewards of the land than the government.

Paper mills have rail heads. A much more efficient means of transporting product than truck. More payload per unit fuel used. More fuel is burned in the collection of the 'recyclable' waste than is used in the distribution of the new product. One of the reasons that recycled paper is MORE expensive, even though of inferior quality.

The laws of economics applies, generally speaking, if it costs more than a similar product the reason is cost of manufacture. Given equivalent man-power requirements, you are now speaking of power usage.

Ishmael

 

[crappie master]

I work in the aluminum recycling industry, recycling cans. we recover about 85% of the cans we melt down, the rest burn up or are lost in the process.

 

[Azwed]

Re: Machiavelli vs Hobbes

No comparison at all. Nicolo was head and shoulders above Hobbes.

For all of his discourse on science and math as the foundation of the socail construct Hobbes ignored, as Marx did, that government is people. And that politics is the are to the possible.

Machiavelli's insights have stood the test of time. Hobbes hasn't. The former Soviet Union was a classic case of Hobbes in action. Everything based on numbers, quota's, science, etc. The complete and utter failure of their system is a testament to the efficacy of these sorts of policies.

I agree with HG. Your professor doen not seem to be in search of any independent thought. Just 'validation' of Hobbes theories.

--------------------------------------------------
Ishmael

The guy pisses me off to no end really. He is ok on some days and on others just crazy.

Dr. Clozof where have you been lately. Nice of you to drop in to say hi.

I have no idea what his dissertation was on but I were to guess I would say probably Machivelli.

 

[someplace]

I concur

I had a prof who worked in Kissinger's State Dept. He said Kissinger was a complete asshole.

Feel free to use that in your paper.

I once escorted the man to a party and found him to be the most arrogant politician I've ever met in over twenty years of political activism.

 

[70/30]

I'm not a communications major, nor have I ever made that claim. I did take Speech Intro.

The average member of the Libertarian Party doesn't vote Libertarian, this is clear from the 382,869 popular votes (.37%) they had in the 2000 presidential election. They are an extreme wing of the Republican Party.

I don't like trash surrounding my neighborhood, I take my wolf dog with me and we pick up materials to be recycled. My benefits: improved aesthetics, ecology, exercise, pleasing my dog, doing community service that's visible and might motivate another. I just don't think others would do it in my absence.

sinthysist, I was under the impression real libertarians were intrinsically virtuous and socially conscious but the state just discourages them with unwanted taxes. Maybe I was wrong, like I so often am.