Applying Science To Social Issues

There's a danger to applying science to social interactions and economics. You might end up with technocrats trying to use Tinkertoys to build society, when people on an individual basis have the ability to form themselves into useful social structures without imposed, utopian, artificial order. But the quest for truth in science can inform our quest for truths about the human condition.

Brian Cox, during his TedTalks: Space Trek episode, "Why We Need Explorers," closed with this about Humphry Davy, English inventor and chemist:

The argument has always been made, and it will always be made, that we know enough about the universe. You could have made it in the 1920s; you wouldn't have penicillin. You could have made it in the 1890s; you wouldn't have had the transistor. And it's made today, in these difficult economic times. Surely we know enough. We don't need to know anything else about the universe.

Let me leave the last words to someone who is rapidly becoming a hero of mine. Humphry Davy, who did his science at the turn of the 19th century. He was clearly under assault all of the time. We know enough at the time of the 19th century. Just exploit it. Just build things ...

Wikipedia.org

"Nothing is more fatal to the progress of the human mind than to presume that our views of science are ultimate, that triumphs are complete, that there are no new mysteries of nature, and no new worlds to conquer." Humphry Davy (1778-1829).

So to paraphrase Davy:

Nothing is more fatal to the progress of the human condition than to presume that our views of life, freedom, and property are ultimate, that triumphs are complete, that there are no new mysteries in society, and no new evils to conquer.

Counterstatism

The freedom movement seems to be torn in two directions. On the one hand we have: practicing freedom. On the other hand we have: fighting the state.

Free living versus counterstatism.

Both are needed. If you only fight the state, then you have nothing to defend. For example, support the gun-rights movement, but make sure to go shooting, talk guns, and patronize those who support your freedom.

USA Ripe for Denazification?

Bear with me.

In no way do I see the current state of the United States as an analog for Nazi Germany, so bear with me.

But the United States does have a political system, that has as part of its core, a strong propaganda machine (MSM and Federal govt produced documents, media, and advertising) and a cadre of (party) members, but bear with me.

Denazification was a system put into place by the victorious allies after World War II to remove Nazi's from positions of influence, rehabilitate and punish former Nazi administration members, Nazi Party members, war profiteers, etc., and rehabilitate the entire population through censorship and education in democracy.

So what's the point?

Obama and our politically system have been labeled nazis, communists, fascists, and statists often in the alternative media. There is an assumption that there is something totalitarian about our current government. So where does denazification play into the current state of the country? We have a presumption within and without government institutions that the central state has the authority and right to determine what is best for individuals, businesses, communities, states, and foreign countries. That belief is pervasive and runs counter to the belief that was central to the founding of this country's original independent government - natural law (classical liberalism). We can call the current political system statist, though our system is officially known as representative democracy. The pervasiveness of statism within our culture might need a strong response that is multifaceted - a destatification program.

As Michael Bolton likes to say, the Federal government is powerless without the help of state and local governments - and individuals. That's another story, when it comes to local and state governments. That's another reason that a multifaceted destatification program is needed to restore classical liberalism, natural law, and to carry forth the promise of libertarianism, anarcho capitalism, anarchism, and voluntaryism.

Fatal Statist Fallacy 3.1: Social Cooperation

The state is required for the promotion of social cooperation.

Libertarians (including anarcho-capitalists, anarchists, and voluntaryists) have been accused of being selfish, social atomists, and against the organizing ability of society. But if one takes classical liberalism and anarchism to their logical conclusion, one finds that there would be more social cooperation in the absence of state's forced "cooperation" and the resulting avoidance behaviors of individuals.

Fatal Statist Fallacy 4: Military Justice

A separate military legal system is required for the discipline, readiness, and fighting capability of service members.

Fatal Statist Fallacy 3: Social Cooperation

The state is required for the promotion of social cooperation.

Fatal Statist Fallacy 2: Anarchy

Anarchy equals chaos.

Fatal Statist Fallacy 1: National Interest

National interest requires national control.

Arsenal (and Imposed Denial) of Democracy 1.0

1.0: The Question

A conventional wisdom is that one of the reasons that Nazi Germany lost WWII was that it was still devoting resources to production of "luxury" goods even up until the very last days of the war. The implication is that, in contrast, the United States was rationing everything, so therefore the U.S. won the war. That stands in sharp contrast to what the federal government was pushing post 9/11. There was a fear that our economy would collapse, if we didn't spend spend spend.

Which approach is correct: A command economy that stiffles consumer spending or a command economy that promotes it - or neither? Well, Nazi Germany was dealing with a vastly different economic reality than WWII U.S. or War-on-Terrorism U.S., but I think it is profitable to compare the approaches, or at least bust some myths.