Love…

A lot more along the same lines here.

In memory of George Carlin

I’m not sure if I haven’t posted the first one before, but even if I have it’s well worth watching it a second time:

LOL!

Just played this blitzgame with black against ‘Chess_man’ on playchess (server elo: 2470):

1.e4…e5,
2.Nf3…Nf6,
3.Bc4…d6,
4.Nc3…Be7,
5.d3…0-0,
6.0-0…Nc6,
7.a3…Bg4,
8.h3…Bh5,
9.g4…Bg6,
10.Ne2…d5,
11.exd5…Nxd5,
12.Ng3…a6,
13.Kg2…b5,
14.Ba2…Nd4,
15.Nh2…Ra7,
16.f4…Qa8,
17.f5?? Ne3+!

0-1

Fritz went from -0,3 to -20 in just one move, and white of course resigned. The position before the killer check:

Questions

Just some random questions I have been asking myself. If you think you know the answer to one or more of them, please leave a comment.

1.
a) What would in your view happen if a nuclear weapon would explode in a major American city, ie. New York or Washington, within the next 25 years?
b) How likely do you find such an event?
c) Would the retaliation be nuclear?

I would really like to know the answer to that last question. I have absolutely no idea. Also,

d) how big a deterrent is the nuclear retaliation threat to potential (the non-suicide of them) terrorists?

2.
a) Which places are more likely to become involved in nuclear warfare during this time period than the US?
Tyler Cowen thinks Japan is the most likely target, and that Pakistan is second. It’s very popular to focus on the Middle East these days when discussing foreign policy, but there are a lot of other ‘interesting areas’ to consider when it comes to this discussion. I agree with Tyler that Pakistan is a likely candidate, but I disagree with his views on North Korea. North Korea, or rather Kim Jong-il, would – at least within a reasonable time span – only contemplate using a ‘bomb’ defensively, in case of an invasion, and if he was to use one it wouldn’t matter one bit if it hit ‘his fellow Korean countrymen’ or not, in my opinion it would most likely hit Seoul, just like thousands of artillery shells would. The idea that this guy would even have second thoughts about killing people from SK seems ludicrous to me, he has no problem killing his own ‘true countrymen’ in droves. In short, there’s no way to ‘liberate’ NK without SK being bombed back into the stone age, both the Koreans and the American military advisers know this, and that’s one of the main reasons (there are others too, of course) why NK hasn’t yet and never will be ‘liberated’ by outside forces. The North Koreans are poor, but their military expenses are big enough for them to have a lot of shit pointing in a very ugly direction. Also, as long as China implicitly backs Kim Jong-il, nothing much will happen up there except people starving and getting killed and all that usual stuff. On the other hand, there is an important reservation to this analysis, the ‘within a reasonable timespan’ part. A nuclear NK might in the long run turn into a serious threat, Kim Jong-il is a power-crazed Stalinist dictator after all, so the most likely scenario is that SK will eventually get the bomb thus establishing a new status quo equilibrium of mutual deterrence.

Which other places might be of interest here? I’m thinking Moscow or another big Russian city, it’s certainly not impossible that the ’situation’ in Chechnya will cause something really ugly to happen again. Also, it might be easier for terrorists to get their hands on nuclear material in Russia than it would be a lot of other places.

3. Which new countries will have obtained nuclear weapons in 20 years? Here is one relevant analysis, it is a transcript from a conference on proliferation. As mentioned above, SK seems like a likely candidate. Japan is having this discussion too. Also, not only because of NK but also in light of China’s recent and massive mobilization efforts, I would also not find it unlikely that Taiwan might choose to go nuclear. Moving west, Iran is almost a safe bet. Egypt and the Saudis would probably not like them to be all alone with those nice weapons, so they will surely go in the same direction. Probably Turkey too, but this depends a lot on how all that EU stuff develops. Going to the Americas, if Venezuela goes nuclear so will Brazil, and probably Argentina too. I don’t know how likely this is, but it certainly can’t be dismissed out of hand, it’s not a year since Chavez by a slim margin didn’t manage to establish himself as a lifetime dictator. He’ll try again, next time he might be succesful, and two of his best friends (Iran and NK) are both going nuclear.

4)
There are 9 nuclear powers today. The number will only go up, not down. How do we deal with this, how do we slow down this development as much as possible? Is a slowdown even possible? Is it unconditionally preferable?

Ok, those are tough questions, too tough to demand an answer for. The following is tough too, but it’s probably somewhat easier.

Now, this particular foreign policy subject strikes me as inarguably one of the most important of all areas of foreign policy. Yet nobody talks about it. When discussing foreign policy, people in the West talk a lot about terrorism, they talk about islam, they talk about Iraq and Afghanistan, they talk about Venezuela, Darfur and Zimbabwe, they talk about all kinds of stuff. But they almost never talk about nuclear proliferation. Why is this?

5)
The last point is not a question, just a remark. I’ve mentioned it before, I’ll probably mention in again, non-state proliferators are a big and often overlooked threat here that needs to be dealt with somehow. As the transcript linked to above concludes:

James Russell of the Naval Postgraduate School discussed potential non-state proliferators of nuclear weapons and emphasized that the list of potential adversaries is far greater than just al Qaeda. Other non-state actors seeking nuclear weapons include industrial entities and trading groups, quasi-governmental organizations, non-governmental organizations, warlords and militias, transnational criminal networks, and violent non-state actors motivated by anarchist, nationalist, secular left-wing, or religious causes. Globalization makes it more difficult for governments to track or the stop world flow of nuclear materials and information. Non-state actors play a critical role in the proliferation market by providing components and services generally prohibited by states. They also are flexible and adaptive and thwart attempts at regulation.

One important question Russell examined is if we are missing the ball by focusing on the Osama bin Laden-WMD connection? The millennial extremist waves seem to be on the decline. Religious nationalists are not really interested in weapons of mass destruction due to the difficulty of obtaining and using them, and in general they can get what they want using conventional weapons. By focusing on Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, the U.S. government may be missing other non-state actors that are just as dangerous.

The current thinking on proliferation to non-state actors is that it will be a direct transfer from states to non-state actors, either voluntarily or through unauthorized acquisition or theft from an existing site. Another possibility exists for indigenous production using dual-use components and either leaked or stolen materials. Proliferation in 2016 will be a buyers’ market for components, and non-state to non-state transfers will become more common. However, without a whole program nuclear weapons development components are useless.

The non-state proliferation problem is more significant than many people realize, and is about more than just violent non-state actors. The state-non-state divide is creating hybrid organizations that pose a more serious proliferation problem, especially on the supply side of the nuclear marketplace. The collapse of some states has turned them into criminal organizations, such as North Korea. The next problem that might emerge is non-state to non-state transfer of WMD materials, and it is not clear what can be done about it.

More II

A little more from the book:

Priests are [...] responsible for the education of children and adolescents, in which quite as much stress is laid on moral as on academic training. They do their utmost to ensure that, while children are still at an impressionable age, they’re given the right ideas about things – the sort of ideas best calculated to preserve the structure of their society. If thoroughly absorbed in childhood, these ideas will persist throughout adult life, and so contribute greatly to the safety of the state, which is never seriously threatened except by moral defects arising from wrong ideas.

Male priests are allowed to marry – for there’s nothing to stop a woman from becoming a priest, although women aren’t often chosen for the job, and only elderly widows are eligible. As a matter of fact, clergymen’s wives form the cream of Utopian society, for no public figure is respected more than a priest. So much so that, even if a priest commits a crime, he’s not liable to prosecution. They just leave him to God and his own conscience, since, no matter what he has done, they don’t think it right for any human being to lay hands on a man who has been dedicated as a special offering to God. They find this rule quite easy to keep, because priests represent such a tiny minority, and because they’re so carefully chosen. After all, it’s not really very likely that a man who has come out top of a list of excelleent candidates, and who owes his appointment entirely to his moral character, should suddenly become vicious and corrupt.

…

I don’t even need to comment on this section, do I? It kinda speaks for itself.

Modelling the argument

I recently posted a comment over at overcomingbias, where Robin Hanson quoted from a bloggingheads episode where Tyler Cowen and Will Wilkinson talk about different stuff like Japan, children and humility (link here). The comment related to Tyler’s view that “if you ask people who believe in God or are atheists, what’s the chance you’re wrong – I’ve asked atheists what’s the chance you’re wrong and they’ll say something like a trillion to one, and that to me is absurd, that even if you think all of the strongest arguments for atheism are correct, your estimate that atheism is in fact the correct point of view shouldn’t be that high, maybe you know 90-10 or 95 to 5, at most.“

My comment was this:

I’d like to know how likely Tyler finds that the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and Russell’s Teapot are.

I find that both are at least two orders of magnitude more likely to exist than the popular Gods.

I find now that there is a problem with this comment, which I shall delve into here. The problem is that I should have limited myself to Russell’s Teapot. The ‘Flying Spaghetti Monster’ was originally meant to ridicule ID, Bobby Henderson’s argument was that the existence of an intelligent designer named God with or without a long beard was just as likely as the existence of an intelligent designer named the Flying Spaghetti Monster. That is, The Flying Spaghetti Monster shares some of christianity’s claims, as what it’s meant to do is to mock these claims (in particular claims related to ID), whereas the only claim related to ‘Russell’s teapot’ is the existence claim.

Where’s the problem you ask? Well, here’s the model:

1. The sum of all possibilities is normalized to 1. ‘All possibilities’ includes both the possibility that the specific entity ‘God X’ exists and its counterclaim, thus:
2. The likelihood of the existence of ‘God X’ is smaller than 1.
3. The more claims you make about (God) X, all else equal the less likely X becomes.

This kind of model is pretty standard in probability theory. 3 is the critical assumption. If you doubt it holds, here’s the argument: If 3 isn’t true, I would be able to make up a God that’s more likely than yours by adding an extra claim about X, ie. by making my God more specific than yours. That’s not how it’s supposed to work! The existence of ‘God X’ initially has to have a higher likelihood than the existence of ‘male God X’, as the latter group is a subset of the former. There will always be more ‘potential Gods’ than there will be ‘potential Gods with long white beards’.

Now, the argument I intended to make was that the number of claims put forth in the case of Russell’s Teapot is very limited. Actually, there is only one: The claim of existence, which was the whole point of Russell’s exercise. In the starting point, it’s actually clear that ‘God’ and Russell’s Teapot are equally likely: Neither can be seen, but both are claimed to exist. The very moment you add another trait besides existence to your God entity, your God becomes less likely than Russell’s Teapot. And as most religious people don’t limit themselves to believe in an entity they can’t see, but also ascribe certain other traits to their God, their God is less likely, all else equal, than Russell’s Teapot. This was my point. It would be pure coincidence if religious people’s claims about their personal God were correct, and Russell’s claim about the existence of the Teapot is initially far more likely to be correct; I estimated this difference in likelihoods to be approximately in the order of two magnitudes. The problem with the comment of course is that if you also look at The Flying Spaghetti Monster, the likelihood-difference decreases rapidly, as The Flying Spaghetti Monster is a much more detailed entity than Russell’s Teapot, and because it shares quite a few of the attributes normally associated with the personal gods.

However, even if it was a bad idea to include TFSM, I hold on to ‘my original argument as intended’. Another argument that follows naturally from my choice of ‘alternative Gods’ is this: For every God you can make up, I can think of a hundred others. There’s an infinite amount of potential gods out there. If each of them has a positive likelihood of existence, the model breaks down. It’s an old argument, but it deserves repeating: Everybody are atheists. Those that we call atheists just believe in one less god than most others.

As it is, as you might have guessed I don’t really like Tyler Cowen’s question. I wouldn’t want to answer it. Wrong about what? What Tyler would need to do would be to show me a specific religious claim and be very careful to define his terms – then I would deal with it. But he really shouldn’t ask me to implicitly evaluate all religious claims at once. They are far from equivalent.

Some are downright ludicrous. A lot of them are just a waste of breath.

More 1

Jeg er blevet færdig med Thomas More’s Utopia, som jeg har omtalt før.

Som en generel kommentar bør det bemærkes, at mens More bruger meget tid på at beskrive det ikke-eksisterende Utopia, dets institutioner, indbyggere, interne og eksterne forhold osv, ja så bruger han meget lidt tid på et filosofisk forsvar for den samfundsopbygning Utopia repræsenterer. Lidt kort fortalt, han bruger ikke meget tid på at legitimere det kollektivistiske system moralsk, han siger bare det virker. I dag ved vi kun alt for godt, at det ville det ikke gøre i virkeligheden, men at køre en komplet moderne public choice analyse og at udpege de mange områder hvor Loven Om Uforudsete Konsekvenser højst sandsynligt kunne vise at gøre sig gældende, henover et værk, der er omtrent 500 år gammelt, virker måske en smule overkill på mig. Jeg har stadig ikke rigtig besluttet mig for, hvor meget arbejde bogen er værd, men lige nu hælder jeg mest til de følgende dage at tage enkelte temaer ud, som fortjener en kommentar eller to med på vejen, og så ellers lade den overordnede analyse ligge.

…

Herunder lidt fra bogens sidste del, så læserne kan komme lidt nærmere, hvad der gjorde det utopiske samfund så utopisk. Lidt relevant baggrundsinformation, som Paul Turner valgte at inkludere i en note (s.132) om bogens forfatter, bør præsenteres inden vi starter: Although the worst charges of cruelty to heretics during his Chancellorship have not been substantiated, there seems to be no doubt that More sentenced some people to death (which meant burning alive) for heresy.

Ok, her er lidt fra bogen, fra siderne 100-101 (mine fremhævelser):

one of the most ancient principles of their constitution is that of religious toleration. This principle dates right back to the time of the Conquest. [...] immediately after his victory he [Utopos, the founder of Utopia] made a law, by which everyone was free to practise what religion he liked, and to try and convert other people to his own faith, provided he did it quietly and politely, by rational argument [øhh...?]. But, if he failed to convince them, he was not allowed to make bitter attacks on other religions, nor to employ violence or personal abuse. The normal penalty for being too aggressive in religious controversy is either exile or slavery.

[...]

So he left the choice of creed an open question, to be decided by the individual according to his own ideas – except that he strictly and solemnly forbade his people to believe anything so incompatible with human dignity as the doctrine that the soul dies with the body, and the universe functions aimlessly, without any controlling providence. That’s why they feel so sure that there must be rewards and punishments after death. Anyone who thinks differently has, in their view, forfeited his right to be classed as a human being, by degrading his immortal soul the level of an animal’s body. Still less do they regard him as a Utopian citizen. [...] nobody who subscribes to this doctrine is allowed to receive any public honour, hold any public appointment, or work in any public service. In fact such people are generally regarded as utterly contemptible.

They’re not punished in any way, though [sic! - læs ovenstående passage igen... og nedenstående...], for no one is held responsible for what he believes. Nor are they terrorized into concealing their views, because Utopians simply can’t stand hypocrisy [...]. Admittedly, it’s illegal for any such person to argue in defence of his beliefs, but that’s only in public [aha. De er ikke tvunget til at skjule deres anskuelser, de må bare ikke sige dem højt offentligt. I see... Gad vide hvad More havde i tankerne som straf for at gøre det alligevel, taget i betragtning at i) disse folk rangerede på højde med dyr i utopianernes begrebsverden, og ii) More ikke selv lod til at have noget problem med at brænde den slags mennesker levende i den virkelige verden?]. In private discussions with priests or other serious-minded characters, he’s not merely allowed but positively encouraged to do so, for everyone’s convinced that this type of delusion will eventually yield to reason.

…

Regelmæssige læsere vil vide, hvor meget jeg kunne få ud af bare de to sider. Og det her er altså kun toppen af isbjerget, så nej, en komplet analyse lader sig simpelthen ikke gøre. Lyder ovenstående for øvrigt som et godt bud på det ideelle samfund? Og lyder det som en model, der er kompatibel med kommunisternes samfundsmodel?

Det sidste spørgsmål er interessant. For kommunisterne har i tidens løb brugt More til at legitimere og argumentere for deres egen sag, og har ikke haft svært ved at ‘overse’ nogle af de mere ubehagelige passager, som dem herover, eller skære dem væk og bevare resten. Den oprindelige totalitarisme var stammebaseret. Så kom religionen til, og muliggjorde den religiøst funderede totalitarisme. Så var der nationalisterne og lidt senere kommunisterne, der ikke rigtigt kunne bestemme sig for, om de også var nationalister, deres ‘fremskridt’ var at fjerne en gud og sætte en anden i hans sted. I dag slår de religiøse totalitære igen, væk med grænser og menneskeguder, ind med Ummah!

Hvis jeg havde levet i et tidligt stammesamfund var jeg nok blevet myrdet med en økse, eller måske skarntydesaft… Hvis More havde fået fat i mig i England for 500 år siden, ville jeg være blevet brændt levende. Hans Kongelige Højhed Kong Kristian d.V havde fået min tunge skåret af, og min hals skåret over bagefter. Under Lenin ville jeg være død i en arbejdslejr eller være blevet skudt. Islamisterne i dag lader til at have en forkærlighed for at skære halsen over på deres modstandere.

Både den populære reliøse totalitarisme og den mere moderne nanny-state totalitarisme er meget forskellig fra More’s udgave, eller Platons før ham. Men jeg kan ikke lade være med efter at have læst More at tænke:

Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose…

…

De vil så meget godt. Hvorfor kan de ikke bare nøjes med at skrive om det?

Dagens citat

Hvo som laster Gud eller bespotter hans hellige navn, ord og sakramenter, af ham skal tungen af hans mund levende udskæres, dernæst hans hoved afhugges og tillige med tungen sættes på en stage.
Har nogen troldmand eller troldkvinde forbandet Gud og sin hellige dåb og kristendom og hengivet sig til Djævelen, den bør levende kastes på ilden og opbrændes.

Fra Danske Lov, 1683, citeret i Ole T. Krogsgaards kronik i dagens jp.

…

Update: Hvis nogen er interesseret, er hele loven tilgængelig her.

Haarder vs Olesen

Via et link ovre hos Jarl fandt jeg debatten mellem Bertel Haarder og Ole Birk Olesen fra Cepos årsmøde, en debat som nu er tilgængelig som podcast her.

Et udpluk fra sidste halvdel af debatten:

BH [efter en længere talestrøm]: Lad os dog holde os til realiteter, og kunne du så ikke begynde at angribe dem som vi er oppe imod, i stedet for at angribe os? Har I tænkt på den overenskomstsituation vi har været i? Har I tænkt på hvordan de danske medier har ædt alt hvad Dennis Kristensen har sagt råt? Alt kan siges, uden at der er nogen der går imod det – og hvad gør Cepos? Intet! Undskyld jeg siger det. Jeg troede ikke Cepos, sammen med Arbejderbevægelsens Erhvervsråd og Henning Tjørnehøj sku’ være regeringens vigtigste angribere, det troede jeg da ikke var opgaven. Men sådan er det jo blevet, og, og alt hvad der er blevet sagt siden jeg kom ind af døren bekræfter det billede. Det synes jeg da er et sløjt resultat. Jeg troede Cepos sådan skulle opveje Arbejderbevægelsens Erhvervsråd. Så kommer jeg ind og hører, hvordan Nyrup-regeringen gjorde alt det gode og den borgerlige regering gjorde alt det dårlige. Og jeg kan dokumentere det ikke passer. Altså, hvad er formålet med den holdning?

OBO [indskudt]: Det må vi tale om en anden gang.

BH: Hvorfor dog ikke bruge kræfterne på det som vi er oppe imod? I stedet for at bruge kræfterne imod os? Vi er oppe imod fantastisk stærke kræfter. Et flertal af vælgerbefolkningen som er afhængig af offentlige kasser. Det er da ellers nok en debat værd. Det er da nok nogle analyser værd. Vi lever i et organisationssamfund, hvor organisationsledere er hellige koryfæer som ingen journalister tør stille kritiske spørgsmål til, og som udsender den ene analyse efter den anden, groft fordrejet, og hvem er det der går i flæsket på dem, der laver de analyser? Hvem er det der prøver at opveje dem? Det troede jeg Cepos skulle. Og Ole Birks 180 grader. Men det er meget sjovere at angribe de borgerlige, end det er at angribe dem som de borgerlige er oppe imod. Åbenbart.

OBO: Du fremhævede skattestoppet som en stor succes, og der vil jeg også lige fremhæve hvad du sagde, da jeg spurgte dig til den her undersøgelse. Det kunne jo skyldes, at danskerne føler sig så sikre på, at de ikke skal betale mere i skat, at de til enhver tid gerne kræver højere offentlige udgifter, for de regner ikke med at det rammer dem på pengepungen. Er skattestoppet en boomerang, der overbeviser danskerne om, at de kan kræve alt af det offentlige uden at de skal betale?

BH: Det er da muligt, at det er en bivirkning af skattestoppet. Men, når vi har satset på skattestoppet, og det er efter min opfattelse lige så epokegørende som den faste kronekurs fra 80erne, så er det jo fordi man kan holde fast i skattestoppet uden at skabe utryghed. Altså, danskerne er jo meget glade for deres land, og meget glade for den nuværende tilstand, og den må ikke ændres for meget, og hvis man går til valg på noget, der lyder lidt spekulativt, for eksempel sådan noget med at hvis vi sænker skatterne, så får vi flere penge i statskassen, altså det får man jo ikke borgerlige til at tro på, så tror de at der kommer nogle store besparelser bagefter. Hvad der sikkert også er rigtigt. Øhm, sådan noget tror de ikke på! Dem man kan få dem med på, det er, at nu er skatterne vist høje nok i Danmark, og nu skal de vist ikke højere op. Og hvis vi nu holder dem fast i kroner og ører, der hvor de er fastsat i kroner og ører, og i procenter der er de fastsat i procenter, så giver det os nogle gradvise små skattelettelser, sådan som vi har fået, i alt 7000 pr. indbygger siden regeringen trådte til. Det kan man få danskerne med til. Derfor kan regeringen få lov at sidde, med sin liberale ambition om at flere klarer sig selv, det er det, der er formålet med skattestoppet, at det så kan have nogle bivirkninger, så folk er blevet så sikre på at det holder, så alle bare kan kræve ind, det kan da godt være. Hvad vil du gøre ved det?

…

Nogle betragtninger:

Allerførst: Der er ikke noget ‘vi’. Og Haarder har ikke forstået, at der ikke er noget ‘vi’. ‘Vi’ er ikke oppe imod noget som helst.

Virkeligheden er, at vi har en socialdemokratisk regering og en socialdemokratisk opposition. Regeringen har med sin politik på helt egen hånd undermineret det ‘ydre fjende-argument’ Bertel selv har den frækhed herover at prøve at binde os på ærmet. Endog lige efter at en anden debattør underminerede samme argument, ved at sandsynliggøre at Fogh-regeringen har gjort det komparativt ringere end Socialdemokraterne gjorde det i deres regeringstid i 90erne, set med klassisk liberale briller.

Hvis regeringen fører borgerlig [som i: klassisk liberal] politik, ja så kan Haarder og regeringen forvente Cepos og klassisk liberale kritikeres opbakning. Hvis de ikke gør, så kan de ikke forvente deres opbakning. For at svare på Haarders spørgsmål, så det er skåret helt ud i pap: Formålet med at kritisere regeringen for at føre socialdemokratisk politik, er at få den til at stoppe med at føre socialdemokratisk politik. Det er slet ikke så svært, der er ingen skjult dagsorden.

Et andet relateret forhold som er værd at kommentere på, er det forhold at magtfulde politikere som Haarder tit ender ud med at bilde sig selv ind, at ‘befolkningen’, deres ’støtter’, eller hvem det nu måtte være, skylder dem noget. Det tema går igen i det citerede stykke, Haarder arbejder under den antagelse, at han – og regeringen – har fortjent Cepos’ opbakning. Men det har den ikke, ligesom den ikke har fortjent min opbakning. Jeg skylder ikke Haarder noget som helst, han skal gøre sig fortjent til den, hvis han vil have min opbakning. Haarder kan kræve (en vis) loyalitet fra sine partimedlemmer (/medspillere), men han kan ikke kræve noget som helst fra mig, eller fra Cepos, eller fra Ole Birk Olesen – og det at han afkræver den alligevel, får ham til at fremstå svag. Som jeg har sagt før, dem som kræver min respekt gør sig fortjent til min foragt. Jeg er ligeglad med, hvem Haarder er, om han er med på det grønne hold eller det blå hold, hvilken t-shirt man skal have på for at være en ‘rigtig fan’, alt det er ligemeget. Jeg bekymrer mig om ideer og visioner – men mest af alt: Resultater. Her bør det tilføjes, at selvom Haarder er mægtig stolt over, at hans hold har vundet mesterskabet tre gange i træk, så er disse valgsejre altså for de fleste klassisk liberale overhovedet ikke noget at være stolt over. At Venstre har formået at bevare magten har sat liberale reformer endnu længere ud i fremtiden, og det er et forhold man bør begræde, ikke fejre. Der er intet at fejre, når man tager i betragtning, hvordan de har forvaltet magten.

Communism test

How much do you know about the atrocities that communist regimes have committed? Find out here.

My own score was 60% correct answers, but I could probably have done better if I had spent a little time preparing first. I’m pretty sure I own enough books on the subject to be able to answer almost all of the questions without google or wikipedia (not that I particularly trust the latter on these subjects, as I have mentioned before).

Hmm…

Jeg følte mig på usikker grund da jeg kommenterede ovre hos Hvidberg, så jeg legede lidt med nogle ligninger og grafer, for at få en mere systematiseret model sat op, indtil jeg så hans svar. Dette var første etape af, hvad jeg nåede frem til (jeg havde også skrevet ligninger ned og forklaret antagelser og sådan, men ‘you get the picture’), før jeg blev opmærksom på hans kommentar:

Tale om forskellige tilgangsvinkler…

You just can’t make this stuff up

Oh wait a minute – yes you can!

After following the link you’ll understand what I’m getting at.

A look back in time

I’m currently reading Thomas More’s Utopia, translated by Paul Turner. I shall write more about it later. For now, a quote shall suffice:

According to their [the utopians'] historical records [...] the original houses were merely small huts or cottages, built hurriedly with the first timber that came to hand. The walls were plastered with mud, the roofs ridged and thatched. But nowadays [that is, 1510-15 AD] every houses [the plural error here is from the original] is an imposing three-storey structure. The walls are faced with flint or some other hard stone, or else with bricks, and lined with roughcast. The sloping roofs have been raised to the horizontal, and covered with a special sort of concrete which costs next to nothing, but is better than lead for resisting bad weather conditions, and is also fireproof. They keep out draughts by glazing the windows – oh yes, they use a great deal of glass there – or sometimes by fitting screens of fine linen treated with clear oil or amber, which has the effect of making it more transparent and also more airtight.

In More’s version of the ideal society, people lived in (admittedly big) houses made out of stone and concrete. Not exactly something I would settle for, having been born a few centuries later. Well, how did most people in fact live back then? Don Boudreaux’s recent quote from William Manchester’s book A world lit only by fire gives us a clue:

Lying at the end of a narrow, muddy lane, his rambling edifice of thatch, wattles, mud, and dirty brown wood was almost obscured by a towering dung heap in what, without it, would have been the front yard. The building was large, for it was more than a dwelling. Beneath its sagging roof were a pigpen, a henhouse, cattle sheds, corncribs, straw and hay, and, last and least, the family’s apartment, actually a single room whose walls and timbers were coated with soot. According to Erasmus, who examined such huts, “almost all the floors are of clay and rushes from the marshes, so carelessly renewed that the foundation sometimes remains for twenty years, harboring, there below, spittle and vomit and wine of dogs and men, beer…remnants of fishes, and other filth unnameable. Hence, with the change of weather, a vapor exhales which in my judgment is far from wholesome.”

The centerpiece of the room was a gigantic bedstead, piled high with straw pallets, all seething with vermin. Everyone slept there, regardless of age or gender — grandparents, parents, children, grandchildren, and hens and pigs — and if a couple chose to enjoy intimacy, the others were aware of every movement. In summer they could even watch…..

If this familial situation seems primitive, it should be borne in mind that these were prosperous peasants. [...]

…

We’ve come a long way in those 500 years.

Non-fictional Vogon poetry

Yes, I know, ‘non-fiction’ and ‘poetry’ are two different genres. But Adams doesn’t give us a lot of info on what exactly constitutes ‘Vogon poetry’, and it might be a genre quite different from ordinary poetry. Pretty much all we know is that it is terrible and makes you want to kill yourself. Am I the only one who thinks that Vogon poetry couldn’t possibly be much worse than this?

Title IV shall take over the heading of Title VII, “PROVISIONS ON ENHANCED COOPERATION” and Articles 27 A to 27 E, Articles 40 to 40b and Articles 43 to 45 shall be replaced by the following Article 10, which shall also replace Articles 11 and 11a of the Treaty establishing the European Community. These same articles shall also be replaced by Articles 280 A to 280 I of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, as set out below in point 278 of Article 2…

Imagine being forced to listen to that stuff for several hours.

…

Surprise!

Det duer da ikke at have alt det bøvl med demokratiske valg, når vælgerne alligevel ikke gider makke ret!

Heh…

Jesusandmo.

Yes!

Irerne stemte nej!

Selvom vi formodentligt kun får fred et års tid eller to, før man prøver igen, så er det her dejligt nyt.

Kun 1 ud af 27 EU-lande mente det var nødvendigt at spørge befolkningen, før de ratificerede traktaten. Befolkningen, der blev spurgt, sagde nej. Enten finder bureaukrater og politikere en måde at sikre, at det ikke bliver nødvendigt at spørge nogen næste gang. Eller også beslutter de sig for bare at spørge irerne en gang til (og en til, og en til), indtil de får det resultat, de ønsker. Det stopper ikke her.

Hvem vil vædde?

Quote of the day

We all sort of believe that we’d have been hiding Jews in our basement during the Holocaust. But of course we have never been afraid that our government would put us in a dungeon and rip our fingernails out while sending our families off to forced labor camps. Worse than that, most people probably didn’t even go along because they were afraid. They went along because everyone around them seemed to think it was all right.

Megan McArdle, here.

Robin Hanson has made the point that in order to come closer to the truth, you need to become less allied. The more I think about it, the more reasonable this advice sounds.

Hoping for a no

The Irish are voting today. Here’s what they are voting about, here’s how the “Consolidated version of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union” will look like if they vote yes – go knock yourself out!

As for me, I haven’t read the damn thing. Well, I have read some of it, but not all of it. Why the *** would I care if ‘Article 48′ of some document I don’t know should be replaced by: The Treaties may be amended in accordance with an ordinary revision procedure. They may also be amended in accordance with simplified revision procedures? The least they could have done was to write what the original ‘Article 48′ said. But then again, that would probably have made the referendum twice as long. It’s easy enough for opponents to criticize 287 pages of crap like that, how would it sound if there were 600 pages? Wouldn’t want to make it too easy for the opponents of more European government now, would we?

No, I haven’t read all of it. So I don’t really know what the Irish are voting about. I doubt the Irish voters do either, my guess would be that fewer than 2% of the voters have actually read all of it. Less than half of them would probably even be able to read and understand all of it. But if I don’t know exactly what they’re voting about, how can I allow myself to have an opinion on the subject, one might ask? Well, I have read some of it. And I have read the summary on wikipedia. Two notable changes are that: a) More political areas will become an EU matter (notably foreign policy and global warming), and b) it gets easier for the bureaucrats and politicians to make decisions. I really don’t need to know more, I don’t want more government, I wan’t less government. And I certainly don’t want to make it easier for politicians to collude across borders into making it harder for me to get away from their stupid laws.

Update to Danish readers: Liberalisterne har det på samme måde.

Update to Danish readers ii: For god til ikke også at bringe her. Fra uriasposten:

Til dem som ikke allerede havde gættet det, teksten under piben betyder: ‘Dette er ikke en forfatning‘.

Afskaf de forbandede blasfemi- og racismeparagraffer!

§266B: Den, der offentligt eller med fortsæt til udbredelse i en videre kreds fremsætter udtalelser eller anden meddelelse, ved hvilken en gruppe af personer trues, forhånes eller nedværdiges på grund af sin race, hudfarve, nationale eller etniske oprindelse, tro eller seksuelle orientering, straffes med bøde eller fængsel indtil to år.

§140: Den, der offentligt driver spot med eller forhåner noget her i landet lovligt bestående religionssamfunds troslærdomme eller gudsdyrkelse, straffes med bøde eller fængsel indtil 4 måneder.

…

Indvandrere fra Nigeria er efter alt at dømme dummere end etniske danskere. De er nemlig dårligere uddannet, og nigerianere scorer gennemsnitligt lavere end danskere i internationale IQ-tests (estimater her).

Det er nedværdigende at få at vide, at man er dummere end andre, hvis variablen værdighed er voksende i IQ, hvad den utvivlsomt er. Jeg sandsynliggjorde lige det udsagn, at den gennemsnitlige nigerianer er dummere end den gennemsnitlige dansker, på grund af hans nationalitet/etniske oprindelse. Med andre ord: Jeg brød lige loven. Udsagn som det ovenfor kunne faktisk, med den lovgivning vi har i dag, lede til to års fængsel. Jeg regner ikke med at blive sat fast, men nu må vi se.

…

Den muslimske profet Mohammed var en pædofil krigsherre, og Jesus var en sindsforvirret tømrer. Hvis folk har brug for en bog til at vejlede dem, hvis de har tænkt sig at vælge 1 bog og bruge den som et autoritativt værk og moralsk kompas i alle livets sammenhænge, så synes jeg Folk og røvere i Kardemomme by er et langt bedre bud end både Bibelen og Koranen.

Der gjorde jeg det igen. Ovenstående kunne faktisk, med den lovgivning vi har i dag, lede til 4 måneders fængsel.

Disse love er ikke kompatible med et frit samfund. At vi ikke bruger dem er et argument for at afskaffe dem, ikke det modsatte.

Nogen ville indvende, at jeg i det første eksempel vinklede lidt rigeligt: ‘Sådanne udsagn vil ikke lede til dom’. Jeg burde have sagt noget ‘åbenlyst forhånende’ for at have ‘en bedre sag’, og for at kunne vide mig sikker på, at udsagnet var kriminelt. Problemet er bare, at selvom en dommer måske ville vælge at lade mig gå fri, er udsagnet ovenfor strengt fortolket ulovligt. Dem med sådanne indvendinger ville også tilføje nogle betragtninger om, at der er forskel på lovens bogstav, og dens ånd. Disse indvendinger kan jeg ikke bruge til noget. Hvis en lov er formuleret således, at jeg ikke turde overlade den til min værste fjende og lade ham dømme mig på baggrund af den, så er det en dårlig lov, som skal væk. Og i dette specifikke tilfælde er det også vigtigt at holde sig klart, at ‘lovens ånd’ kun meget vanskeligt kan gøres til et forsvar for loven – ‘ånden’ bag loven er, at det skal være forbudt for mennesker at sige deres mening, hvis nogen specifikke mennesker ikke bryder sig om det, de siger. Det er ikke faktisk ikke noget spor sympatisk grundlag for en lov.

Men vi bruger ikke lovene, især §140 har længe været væk fra de danske retssale, hvorfor så bekymre os om dem? Jeg bekymrer mig, fordi andre lande med lignende love den seneste tid er begyndt at bruge dem særdeles aktivt. Canada er et godt eksempel. 3. afsnit af Alberta’s Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act, som jeg har omtalt før, lyder således:

3(1) No person shall publish, issue or display or cause to be published, issued or displayed before the public any statement, publication, notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation that

(a) indicates discrimination or an intention to discriminate against a person or a class of persons, or
(b) is likely to expose a person or a class of persons to hatred or contempt

because of the race, religious beliefs, colour, gender, physical disability, mental disability, age, ancestry, place of origin, marital status, source of income or family status of that person or class of persons.

(2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to interfere with the free expression of opinion on any subject.

(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to

(a) the display of a notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation displayed to identify facilities customarily used by one gender,

(b) the display or publication by or on behalf of an organization that

(i) is composed exclusively or primarily of persons having the same political or religious beliefs, ancestry or place of origin, and
(ii) is not operated for private profit,

of a statement, publication, notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation indicating a purpose or membership qualification of the organization, or

(c) the display or publication of a form of application or an advertisement that may be used, circulated or published pursuant to section 8(2),

if the statement, publication, notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation is not derogatory, offensive or otherwise improper.

…

‘or otherwise improper’… Smag på ordet: ‘improper’.

Den lovgivning ligner den danske en del, og den har også nogle år på bagen, det sidste vedlæg til loven kom i 1996, for 12 år siden. Forskellen er at nogle canadiere faktisk bruger loven nu, til forskel fra herhjemme. For kort tid siden blev en præst, Stephen Boission, dømt efter denne lovgivning. Recap og kommentarer her, selve dommen her. Et af dommens krav var at:

Mr. Boissoin and [his organization] The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc. shall cease publishing in newspapers, by email, on the radio, in public speeches, or on the Internet, in future, disparaging remarks about gays and homosexuals.

Det ville efter min opfattelse være vanvittigt, hvis folk blev sendt bag tremmer for de udsagn, jeg fremførte ovenfor i blogindlægget. Men loven er der allerede! Vanviddet er ikke længere væk end at man bare begynder at bruge en lov, vi allerede har. Og Boissoin-dommen er det glade vanvid, bare følg linket og læs hele dommen hvis du er i tvivl. Jeg har sagt det før, og jeg vil sige det igen: At det er vanvittigt er ikke nogen garanti for, at det ikke vil ske. Kig mod Canada. Kig mod Storbritannien. Hvor længe varer det, før vi slet ikke behøver kigge ud over vores egen grænse for at finde eksempler?

Råb højt og kræv at de forbandede love bliver afskaffet! Og mens du gør det så husk på, hvem der stemte for at beholde blasfemibestemmelsen, sidste gang den var på valg.

Update: Hvis man nu synes mine eksempler er søgte…

Via højre gøres jeg opmærksom på, at ejerskab af en bænk er nok til at føre til sigtelse for overtrædelse af racismeparagraffen. You can’t make this stuff up! Det er rablende sindssygt!