Slippery Slope: Logical Fallacy But Social Reality

Whenever reactionaries make a slippery slope argument in the public square, they’re almost always correct, although their timing is sometimes off a bit. For instance, they predicted that legalizing contraception for unmarried people would INCREASE the rates of unwed mothers—certainly very counterintuitive at the time. And…they were right. Pretty much everything they have predicted has come to pass. Slippery slope might be a fallacy in the Platonic world of formal logic, but it is an inductive argument that is usually correct when discussing human behavior, politics, or law.


I'm hard pressed to think of any counterexample. 

A Truly Outrageous Graph

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-11-27/when-work-punished-tragedy-americas-welfare-state

Be glad most people can't do math, or we'd be even more screwed than we already are.  The marginal impact of earning an additional dollar 'on the books' in many of these ranges is negative---VERY negative.

Increasingly I'm an aggressive proponent of junking out entire state, local, and federal welfare and social services sections and just cutting everyone---EVERYONE, no means testing---who is a citizen over 18 years of age and not in prison, a citizen's dividend on the order of $10k per year.  You the people demand a fair amount of socialism, and while I think it's a bad idea overall, I think the citizen's dividend solution sucks the least.  It at least would be highly transparent and, if directly linked to something nice and transparent (like replacing the income tax with a consumption tax or perhaps a national property tax, or, my preference, a substantial revenue tariff) would be very capable of defending itself as a political construct (as with the Alaskan citizen's dividend).

A Message to the Republican Party

I normally don't write much for the benefit of the Republican party as such, or for conservatives as opposed to reactionaries for that matter.  In general, I view conservatives as potential, or perhaps latent reactionaries and want to help them achieve their reactionary destiny.
But today, I'll write something of direct partisan interest to Republicans.  Here's the fix you're in.  You have a bunch of networks around the 5th-15th percentile of Leftism relative to the American population.  You have one network right around the 50th percentile.  Even your 'extreme' talk radio types are at most 60th-65th percentile.  Ask yourself this;

Does this not appear to be a recipe for fairly rapid movement Leftward of the universe of acceptable discourse?  The Overton window if you like that term?

If you had any sense, you would, probably instead of dumping money on yet another NCAA college football team, establish a news network that is far to the right of you.  I suggest around 95th percentile---as far Not-Left as the most biased major networks are Left.  This will make you seem much less extreme.  It will make Fox seem 'balanced'.  It will also give you the ability to have neutral or friendly moderators in debates.  In addition, it will give top cover for your guys who make 'gaffes' (read, who say truths imperfectly that most people actually believe in).  It is even better if said network criticizes you from the not-Left extensively, as it will not be seen as your house organ.  There are tons of things in our culture that have 20%, 30%---and even near majority support that are considered unspeakable in the mainstream media.

As to how to get there, well, if you've got the money, I suggest a campaign of terror in the media spectrum auctions.  Even if you don't win initially, you can bleed them of money by ratcheting up the prices they have to pay for access to their spectrum.  If you do win, you can exploit their advantage of incumbency at their position on the frequency dial.

Aren't you tired yet of having your positions of 10 years ago denounced as retrograde and atavistic by YOUR OWN PARTY? 

Authorial Affirmative Action: Even the Politically Incorrect Rarely Engage on More than a Single Aspect

One of the things that is rather amazing about authorial affirmative action is how pervasive it is, even among artists who are pretty transgressive against Cathedral hegemony relative to their peers.

For instance, the movie Idiocracy (opening scene http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icmRCixQrx8 )
opens with a demonstration of the massive delta in fertility between the smart and the stupid.

The smart couple, Trevor, IQ 138 and Carol, IQ 141 basically have no descendants.

Do you see the authorial affirmative action, even in this least PC movie made in recent memory?

Here it is:  First of all, women in the 2-3 sigma range are substantially rarer than men.  So it is much more likely that the IQs are reversed, even ignoring hypergamy.  Second, women in the 2-3 sigma IQ range are VERY hypergamous on IQ, because it is almost invariably a huge component of their identity.  We discussed this back a few months ago.  Simply put, a woman in that category will almost never accept a mate who isn't smarter than she is, by an amount sufficient for her ego to accept that fact.  Been there, married that.  So you see a concession to feminism practically right in the opening credits.
Then you see the IQ 84 couple, which are OF COURSE, not black or Hispanic, despite this being fairly probable (50% of the black population is there or below, about 15-16% of the white population is---given the relative ratios of the population in the US, you'd expect randomly selected such couples to be black or Hispanic around half the time).  No, they had to be fat rednecks for authorial affirmative action purposes (although the fat part requires no affirmative action, most people in that IQ range in the US are obese.

You see much the same sort of authorial affirmative action in the 'Unincorporated Man' series-in particular, the 'Unincorporated Woman' being in fact, a woman.  Given her nature and capabilities, the probability that she is a she is damned near zero.  Amusingly, you could rewrite her character to be a man with next to no effort, leading me to conclude that it is blatant authorial AA.  It's also easy to ignore if you want to enjoy the story and its exploration of a lot of ideas. The series to date is well worth the read.  But whenever a good author writes a character of a protected class and you could divest them of that status with a trivial rewrite (it isn't load bearing in the characterization), it's authorial AA at work.

Perhaps it is a reluctance to fight a war on more than one front?  Unfortunately, what you're facing isn't so much multiple possible fronts, against powers that would otherwise not be at war with you simultaneously, but more akin to multiple army groups loosely coordinated all on the same front against you.  You can't assume that the other groups aren't going to counterattack you if you leave them alone while you're dealing with your primary target.  If you're an outlaw conservative or reactionary anyway, best to give not even a pinch of incense to the Cathedral.

UN Encourages Obama Administration to Overturn the Colorado and Washington Pot Initiatives

http://theincendiaryinsight.blogspot.com/2012/11/un-to-dc-ignore-colorado-washington.html#!/2012/11/un-to-dc-ignore-colorado-washington.html

What is there for reactionaries to do but cheer at blue on blue violence?  Indeed, we should help the weaker side so as to prolong the conflict while encouraging the stronger to keep doubling down.  To that end, make sure to practice Who...Whom jury nullification whenever you get the chance.

And while Obama might have no personal animus against the potheads, his nature will not allow him to surrender the power of the FDA without a fight.

Even, or perhaps, especially, when you consider that it is insane that pot is scheduled as it is.

Struggles like this have the potential of minting tons of low-church libertarians (i.e.---leave us the hell alone), and not a few genuine reactionaries.  You'll note that the whole FDA and Prohibition thing was a Progressive Cathedral affair from the very start.  Prior to 1900, you could probably mail order whatever drug you wanted---subject, of course, to the requirement that said drug had to actually have been invented.
Similarly, you could mail order pretty much any firearm you liked as well, and if you go back further, you could---and no small number did---own the genuine munitions of War as well like cannon and warships.

Pre-Cathedral reactionaries in the US tolerated levels of negative freedom nearly unimaginable by most moderns.  But you had to deal with the fact that other people could, and frequently did, ostracize you if they didn't like how you used it---or didn't like you for whatever reason.  Someone, after all, always has to be in the back of the bus.

Nope, No Outbreak of Sanity After All

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/an-anti-ip-turn-for-the-gop/

So after an incredibly positive reception, they've gone and disowned and pulled their paper.
What a bunch of imbeciles.  Listen:

Intellectual property, the term, is an act of intellectual pickpocketing.  IP isn't really property, it is a grant of monopoly status for a limited (haha) time.  Were it property, violating it would be natural law theft and reasonable consciences would twinge against it.  It is granted purely for prudential reasons, not for moral ones, and therefore prudential arguments against it are totally cricket.  Allowing the other side to in some way sacralize what they call IP is insane.  Instead, let's call it Intellectual Monopoly or Intellectual Cronyism, depending on whether we like the holder or not.

But it's worse than that for the Republicans.  Even if you're not inspired by the truth, you ought to at least appreciate the Who...Whom of this issue.  If you can't smite your enemies and reward your friends, you will lose to those that can.   Remember the stronger horse.

Is the Republican Party Having a Minor Outbreak of Sanity?

http://www.volokh.com/2012/11/16/republicans-repudiate-40-years-of-tougher-copyright-laws/

I've written about copyright quite a bit here at the Chariot.  Perhaps someone has been reading?
Intellectual property is NOT a natural right granted by God, nor does it exist in a 'state of Nature'.  It is a purely contractual privileges, granted by a legislature in the hope of promoting some common good.  The Constitution in fact authorizes the issuance of its instruments---copyrights and patents---for precisely this reason.  Note the difference in the way this is worded versus, say, almost everything in the bill of rights.  Pretty much all the rights alleged to exist in the Bill of Rights are not granted by that document,  but simply recognized and theoretically protected from infringement (how'd that work out?).
It frankly disgusts me to see propaganda attempting to smuggle copyright infringement under the moral aegis of theft.  It's not, it's more like violating a regulation granting a monopoly to a favored crony.  Perhaps the Republicans are starting to realize this as well.

The Neurotypical American and Their Complex About their Hired Help

http://isteve.blogspot.com/2012/11/what-pundits-really-mean-when-they-say.html

Sailer is always worth reading, but occasionally he turns up something really exceptional.  Here's his summation:

In summary, your service workers used to be real people to you, and that was a major hassle. Now, they are just The Other, and you like it like that.


I am, I suppose, an upper middle class person, with a lot of friends ranging from upper middle class down to medium proletariat.  What Sailer is saying is such a common sentiment that it is almost painful.  But we almost never talk about it explicitly.

Most, by which I mean neurotypical white Americans have a lot of hangups about hiring things done.  There's usually a nagging sense of guilt---as in---you should do this for yourself and not hire it done.  This is especially true for things that aren't hard, just time consuming and unpleasant.  And, as Sailer notes---hiring someone who could be a member of your social circle in theory is even worse.

And, oh my God---hiring someone who actually IS in your social circle is just beyond the pale if you're a typical neurotypical American.

Having several maids who are friends of ours through church circles, that sort of attitude is pretty pervasive.  Amusingly, one who does maid service part time through her own business pretty much proves this rule through the exception.  I'm probably her MOST neurotypical client.  All of her other clients are significantly more non-neurotypical than I.  It helps that her husband is pretty far on the scale, and that she has something of a passion for the creation of Order.  How many maids do you know of that enjoy not just cleaning but reorganizing as well?
The other maid echos the standard position---she takes pains never to work for anyone that she actually knows from any social circle, although she does make good referral suggestions, as in when we needed a thorough post-moving cleaning.  The reason why is of course the standard American awkwardness as regards 'the help'.
Personally I find the attitude somewhat absurd.  When I've a job that I'd prefer to hire out than to spend the organizational capacity to do within the nuclear family, my first thought is ALWAYS, do we have any friends who make their living this way that we can offer our business?  All of these are perfectly honorable vocations, and, if I actually like you, I prefer to give you my business at the normal market rate.  But apparently my attitude is pretty rare, and these complexes are likely driving a lot of the support for open borders among the 'nice white lady' set.

The Dog That Rarely Barks in Free Trade Discussions

Is it just me, or are there ANY free trade arguments that could not also be made against income or sales taxes, usually without any rewording at all?  It is almost as if we've totally lost sight of the fact that tariffs were originally a revenue measure, and quite an effective one, requiring far less invasion into people's lives and businesses than sales taxes or especially income taxes.  It is almost as if we have forgotten that belts hold one's pants up and are a fashion accessory for the sartorially inclined and solely discuss them in the context of domestic discipline.

Let's see---deadweight losses due to making transactions no longer profitable to both sides and thus not happening?  Check.
Interfering in patterns of specialization and comparative advantage?  Absolutely
Opportunities for rent-seeking and favored groups?  Yes, on steroids

So why is it that we here so much about these arguments when we're talking international trade and hardly ever when we're talking about intra-national trade?  Why are the 'free traders' so privileged in the discourse?

An Appeal to the Neurotypical

Please stop professing things that you don't believe---especially as regards moral universalism.  It's horrible for the children and the non-neurotypicals, and it has already and will continue to come back to bite you.

When I say 'believe', I'm speaking of the way Christians understand the word.  We don't mean believe in terms of 'give the mere acknowledgement of the existence of'----that's the kind of belief that the demons have, and tremble.
Instead, we mean the sort of belief that you demonstrate when you sit in a chair which you believe to be behind you---a reliance on the basic truth and goodness of what you are asserting.

Let's face facts.  You are NOT a good moral universalist.  Not even Singer is, and he'll fess up to it, even without a few drinks in advance.
You'll of course respond---yeah but the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.  To which I reply:
Bullshit
Observation of your actions and your gut reactions is consistent with one thing and one thing only:

Your ethics insofar as they exist are primarily duty-based.
What's more,
That is NOTHING TO BE ASHAMED OF.

You feel a greater duty to your cat than you do to the 'starving children of FILL IN THE BLANK HERE'.
You feel a greater duty to your own children than you do to anyone else's, even those of your neighbors.  The ratio of this duty is astronomical...off the charts.  If someone told you, and you believed them, that the benefits derived by the other children in a bad school that your child would normally be assigned to was 200 times the negative to your child from attending said school...guess what?
If you had the choice, you WOULDN'T send your kid there.  You might pretend to profess admiration for other parents who chose otherwise---although they're likely rationalizing their inability or unwillingness to make the sacrifices necessary to make the choice you favor.  But you wouldn't really feel it in your gut.  You'd feel they were something 'off'.  And, God bless you for feeling that way.  It means that you haven't 'denied the faith and thus become worse than the heathen'.  You see, God and Nature have given YOU the duty to care for YOUR children.  You are charged with it.  Your children are not means towards an end---you might say, they ARE the end.  Your duty to them is deep and profound.  A mere deuce from this suit of particularism trumps all four aces of moral universalism.  You know this in your gut.  This is why conspicuous displays of moral universalism make you so uncomfortable.  Yeah, there are a few people---VERY VERY few, who actually walk that walk sorta-kinda.  But the bootleggers in that crew so far outnumber the baptists that you probably couldn't find a Bible if you had the TSA strip-search the lot of them.

How I Learned To Stop Worrying and Love Elizabeth Warren

Everyone's favorite fake American Indian has won her race for the Senate, despite appalling levels of bad faith and who...whom.

I've often joked that perhaps everyone should check whatever race gives the most benefits to them, which would mean calling yourself white on census forms (which establish group denominators and numerators for disparate impact) and Hispanic/Black/Indian/whatever on any applications with individual benefits associated with them.

It's bad faith, even if you could trump up a stepfather's last name or the like which is something like Diaz or Garcia. It is gaming the system. If you're not darker than Zimmerman, you've got no business calling yourself 'Hispanic' in an honest game.


But the system long ago ceased to have the moral standing necessary for people to respect it sufficiently not to game it much. Let the bad faith flow like a river from the mountain of hypocrisy!

Let the young adopt the credo of the Munchkin, checking whatever box gives the biggest bonus.

Let us force the hand of the servants of sanctimony. Let us force them to demand a blood quantum. Perhaps it is even time to steal a page from the 'transgendered', and subvert affirmative action for women as well.

You're a lesbian Hispanic transgendered woman. So say us all.

One Business, At Least, Happy With the Election Results

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-07/smith-wesson-gunmakers-rally-after-obama-re-elected.html

The stock market in general isn't too happy with yesterday's results, but at least one industry is probably glowing.
Obama already has exceeded Bill Clinton as the greatest gun salesman in history, and he's back in his sequel.  America's Golden Dawn will likely be far better armed when its time comes.  More so than gun sales themselves, I'm particularly interested in ammunition sales.  Someone buying an expensive rifle and a few boxes of ammunition is sending an entirely different message than someone buying ammunition in bulk.   Zombie Apocalypse gallows humor indeed...

How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Women in Combat

Putting women in combat arms in the US military has already unquestionably lowered its combat effectiveness.  Arguing otherwise is lunacy.  What's more, it has also lowered the nation's effective casualty tolerance, which is yet another 'force divisor'.  In addition, it will predictably result in the lowering of standards---you don't SERIOUSLY think women flunking out Marine Infantry Officer training will be tolerated very long will you?---and not just for women.  We're not capable of a least-hard honest quota system, we're way too insane for that.

But, honestly, I'm not terribly upset about this.  Consider, who is the US military likely to be used against in the future?  Can you think of any conflicts it might get used in that are beneficial to the interests of non-elite white people that aren't dead certain to go NBC on us?  Also, hardly out of the question is that institution being used Janissary-style against us.  So weakening and desacralizing the institution now is probably actually to the good.  The existing order does NOT deserve the courage and sacrifice of men like the two former SEALs who gave the last full measure of their devotion to employees of a State department that holds their like in contempt.  This is one of the reasons reactionaries---and frankly libertarians and conservatives as well---should support truly profound cuts in the military budget--at least 50% and probably more than that.  Not only can't we afford it, it is extremely dangerous and creates undue temptations to go off in quest of monsters to slay.

Things To Consider For Next Week's Election

I'm not going to ask anyone to vote for anyone in particular.  Frankly, I don't see any particularly good options for the Presidency this year.  Even the Constitution party candidate has significant 'invade the world' tendencies.  But I would like my readers to consider carefully several issues that haven't already been done to death in this sphere.  Towards that end, I'm not going to talk about Iran, the Supreme Court, or abortion.

What I'm going to ask you to consider is this:
There is a reasonable probability that within the next 8 years that we will have a 'things fall apart, the center can not hold' event.  There are lots of ways to get there, and there's no slack in the system to keep them from creating cascading chains of failure.  Cascading chains of failure have serious potential to create what I'll euphemistically call a 'national triage event'.  Recent moderately severe weather events (the various derechos, Sandy, etc) should have updated your priors as to the failure modes of our terribly complex, incredibly brittle system of provision.

Who do you least want having a strong influence on 'national triage event' decisions?  Who do you most want having that influence?  Consider these questions very very carefully.