David Thompson
Subscribe

Categories

Blog powered by Typepad

« Pathology Dressed As Politics | Main | Friday Ephemera »

July 03, 2019

Comments

Spiny Norman

Is this more "decolonizing" the university?

Clam

It's only racist when *other* people do it.

Regina

This is wrong teaching, in history or life every one has his origin. Lets not lie to the World but the truth should be taught.

David

It reminded me of a supposedly serious science documentary that I saw a while ago, the title of which now escapes me. It opened with a protracted, fawning interview with a group of aboriginal people, supposedly sharing their deep insights into the Milky Way and the nature of the universe. The actual content of the aboriginal mumblings was farcical, tedious and had zero scientific content, yet the tone was hushed and reverential, as if the very secrets of creation were being uttered.

NickM

But isn't the achievement of the Aboriginals getting to Australia with ultra primitive tech something to be darned proud of...

Adam

But if you lectured science students based on the first chapters of Genesis, you would be marched out of your classroom, handed your termination notice, and whacked from behind with a sock-enveloped bicycle lock wielded by an Antifa “protestor”.

Tom
But if you lectured science students based on the first chapters of Genesis...

Posted by: Adam

o_ʘ

Farnsworth M Muldoon

But isn't the achievement of the Aboriginals getting to Australia with ultra primitive tech something to be darned proud of...

One would think that crossing even narrow bits of ocean with only loincloth canoes would indeed be a bit of a marvel, but that would tend to invalidate the notion that they always "owned" the land as opposed to their having been spawned whole, as if Minerva from the forehead of Jupiter, from Ayers Rock or whatever the legend is.

SumDumGuy

‘reflects the beliefs of many Indigenous Australians that they have always been in Australia, from the beginning of time, and came from the land’.

If a landmass forms in the ocean and no one is around to inhabit it, does it really exist?

David

having been spawned whole, as if Minerva from the forehead of Jupiter, from Ayers Rock or whatever the legend is.

Heh. Classy.

Antipholus Papps

whacked from behind with a sock-enveloped bicycle lock wielded by an Antifa “protestor”

I initially read that as “professor”. 😎

David

I initially read that as “professor”.

There’s not always a lot of difference.

david

I'm waiting for them to start teaching creationism in Biology 101

Jacob

the beliefs of many Indigenous Australians that they have always been in Australia, from the beginning of time,

There was time before Australia existed. Am I allowed to say that?

David

There was time before Australia existed.

Perhaps the planet coalesced underneath the aboriginals, who were previously just drifting in space.

Steve E

If you lived in a stone-age culture that was largely hunter/gatherer by nature with a little subsistence farming thrown in, your day would be long and hard and would consist of searching for food, fuel and water.

It should come as no surprise that these things have come to be revered in the cultures of indigenous peoples. It has nothing to do with spirituality and everything to do with survival. They weren't being particularly spiritual when they were stealing these things from their neighbours while attempting to wipe them out.

Governor Squid

...this ‘reflects the beliefs of many Indigenous Australians that they have always been in Australia, from the beginning of time, and came from the land.’

Is there a recent survey showing how many Aborigines really believe this creation myth? I mean, I shudder to think that this could be a case where the severely educated Woke Whites reduce a minority group to a two-dimensional cartoon in order to protect them from something they've never worried about before.

Heavens forfend!

Sam

If this is such an issue why did whitey bother teaching them to read?

Hal

But if you lectured science students based on the first chapters of Genesis, . . . .

. . . . then you would be in a bog standard comparative faith class.

Genesis would be the beginning of the track studying the Tanakh/Christian Testament/Koran/Book of Mormon/Lavey, et al, Satanism sequence of the Abrahamic faiths. There would be the track studying the Hindi faith(s). There would be assorted forms of animism prolly such as Shinto, Etc. Etc . . . . . .

Monty James

Now I have to buy another 'Christ-that's-the-stupidest-shit-I've-ever-heard-of-in-59-years' meter. The one I had was perfectly good, but started sparking and smoking when I read that.

Not blaming you, David. It's not your fault.

Nate Whilk

David wrote,

The actual content of the aboriginal mumblings was farcical, tedious and had zero scientific content, yet the tone was hushed and reverential, as if the very secrets of creation were being uttered.

Oh, good grief! I didn't see the documentary, but in February the subject somehow got into the Astronomy Picture of the Day! https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap190208.html

The link on "first astronomers" goes to a credulous article at ABC Science! http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2009/07/27/2632463.htm

I thought that was a huge stretch and even commented about it on their message board. I would've gone with something like David's, but I thought they'd be far less tolerant of that at APOD than here.

https://asterisk.apod.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=39149&p=289671#p289671

David

I didn’t see the documentary, but in February the subject somehow got into the Astronomy Picture of the Day

Yes, the “great celestial Emu” was part of the mumbling and allegedly profound. As you can imagine, modern astronomy, all of physics, pales in comparison with such explanatory richness. They really were stretching the meaning of the word astronomy way past its breaking point.

[ Added: ]

I suppose you might find the ramblings about sky emus interesting as an anthropological footnote, assuming you collect the half-baked barrel-bottom creation myths of very primitive cultures. But the hushed and deferential tone of the documentary was comical, as if the blathering on offer were somehow profound, a lost intellectual treasure. It was absurdly indulgent of the aboriginal people and faintly insulting to the viewer. Apparently, we weren’t supposed to notice the sudden drop in standards.

Monty James

"First astronomers"? Bah. Stretching themselves too thin. They can't even tell us the sex of the Turtle.

David

The spam filter’s taken an exception to Mr James. Not sure why. If anyone has trouble with comments not appearing, email me and I’ll poke the thing with a broom handle.

Though not for the next eight hours.

JML

Emus all the way down.

Sam

I’ll poke the thing with a broom handle

Go on...

NTSOG

@ Steve E: ''They weren't being particularly spiritual when they were stealing these things from their neighbours while attempting to wipe them out.''

The ''noble savages'', i.e. the Aboriginals who lived in Australia pre-colonisation, were not so noble to other family groups/tribes/clans, nor to their women folk, notwithstanding the desire of the trendy socialist mobs to paint them and their ''culture'' in an extremely positive light. They were brutal to each other. It's also interesting that Aboriginal ''activists'' are still inventing ancient cultural practices to this day, e.g. welcome to country ceremonies.

neal

Um, humans tend to begin creation myth in song and words.
The migration is encoded in the caves and scratched on rocks and danced out into rituals.
Quite like getting there, drawing a map, then day 1.
I thought this was understood and not something to be fussed over.
We use carbon dating and genetic drift but that makes maps too, no?
Now call that education or a just a dream and here we are. Happy landings. Happy birthday.

aelfheld

It's discouraging to watch academia force those under their tutelage into a stunted & stultifying worldview.

Farnsworth M Muldoon

...begin creation myth in song and words....

Philip

Is there a recent survey showing how many Aborigines really believe this creation myth?

It doesn't matter what they think or feel. Aborigines are cast as sacred cows, Mahnmaler to reinforce the narrative of Anglo-Celtic Australia being a shameful episode between a pure indigenous past and a redeeming multikulti future.

Historians and astronomers know that there's no science without keeping track of years. When they're pretending to take dream chronology seriously they know that you know they're pretending. The more absurd the thing they're pretending to take seriously, the better the display of wokeness.

notwithstanding the desire of the trendy socialist mobs to paint them and their ''culture'' in an extremely positive light

I recently watched Nicholas Roeg's film Walkabout, where Jenny Agutter and her brother get lost in the outback and are taken under the wing of an aboriginal boy. The opening sequence shows these cold, pale northern Europeans eating shrinkwrapped meat in airconditioned suburban homes where they're alienated from blah blah blah. So the audience is cued to expect that Jenny is going to go on a liberating journey where she takes her clothes off to symbolize getting back in touch with nature and humanity etc etc.

But it's not clear at all that that's what it's about. Nature is shown as brutal - creatures dying in the sun and being eaten by creepy crawlies. And Aboriginal culture is shown as low and squalid, although some of that is the fault of whites. I was puzzled enough by the film that I read all of the IMDB reviews to see if anyone else could make head or tail of it. To be fair, most of the top-voted reviews (this is the review I found most interesting) take note of the ambiguity of the film. But a lot of the reviewers don't seem to have watched the film at all. NPC cue - quote-unquote civilization is really barbaric, and the quote-unquote barbarians are really the civilized ones. Applause lights on, start clapping.

pst314

They can't even tell us the sex of the Turtle.

We cannot know the sex of the turtle until zit tells us. ;-)

Lady Cutekitten of Lolcat

Walkabout’s a great, though sad, movie.

Mr. Saturn

The left: Christianity is stupid and dumb and people who believe it are stupid and dumb. Stupid dumb dumb dumbs.

Also the left: Aboriginal/Native American/First People/Etc. religious views should be taught as accurate.

juliaeryn

Serious question:
I remember learning about the dreaming and other aspects of Indigenous spirituality throughout school. I think there were touches of it through Uni as well. As an Australian, I can understand the improtance/relevance of learning about how Indigenous people understood and made sense of the world. In the same way its useful to learn about the traditions of otehr cultures. It was not presented as a 'science.' I'm 30 now, so this may have changed.
But there are hundreds (thousands?) of different indigenous communities around austraia with different languages. Are these dreaming traditions/myths relevant to all communities? It seems really unlikely to me given their diversity in other aspects of their culture, they would all adopt the same mythos. I can imagine a large or prominent community who communicated more with white people may have held these beliefs/traditions, but other communities do not. If so, I wouldn't like to be assuming 'all aboriginal ppl beieve this' and treating only one mythos as gospel Because they are not just one 'block' of people.
but i honestly don't know - can anyone shed any light on this?

Rosco

Some fifteen years ago, whilst working in South Sudan, I listened to the sonorous voice of a herdsman wafting across the morning veldt. "Why is he singing?" I asked my Boya-speaking colleague. "He is singing of the strength and beauty of his bull," replied my colleague. Soon the singer strode into view, smeared from head to toe with dried cattle dung, following the bull closely as he sang, his right hand and forearm enclosed within the arsewards of the bull.

"And why is the man's hand stuck up the bull's ass?" I asked my colleague.

"It is how he guides the bull," my patient colleague explained.

"Why is he singing to the bull as he guides it along with his hand encased within the bull's ass?"

"Because his people have chosen to honor him and his bull by allowing him to sing of the bull's strength and beauty."

It is because of encounters such as this, over and again, with Diverse and Vibrant Peoples of the World that I instantly recognized the deep wisdom of AOC's Green Nude Eel plan to harness the cultures of these Peoples to heal the Earth from wypipo's capitalist ruin.

Of course they will, with their dung-smeared arms stuffed up our collective arses.

David

NPC cue - quote-unquote civilization is really barbaric, and the quote-unquote barbarians are really the civilized ones.

From the gushing review:

What is life changing about this film is you get to experience the life of an aborigine in his natural environment. With no help from anything except the land itself and thousands of years of culture behind him, he hunts lizards and kangaroos with handmade spears straightened by his teeth.

That would be thousands of years of essentially fossilised Stone Age culture - static, incurious and terminal, and uncomplicated by such barbarities as written language and dentistry.

Lady Cutekitten of Lolcat

Happy 4th, fellow Americans!

You Brits may just twist your sneaker toes in the dirt and mumble.

David

The neighbours, this morning.

Daniel Ream

.

Hal

Happy 4th, fellow Americans!

You Brits may just twist your sneaker toes in the dirt and mumble.

Do the British observe the 4th of July?

Well, yes, of course.

It's the day that occurs between the third of July and the fifth of July, which are also observed as they go by . . . .

Zionist Overlord #73

The neighbours, this morning.

At least it's not a Union Jack. That would be a hate crime!

@ juliaeryn

Never been to Australia, but I'm pretty sure the explanation is this: When they say "Aboriginals", they're not talking about individual people, or groups of people. It is a neo-Marxist abstraction. Aboriginals are a Class, like the Proletariat or the Bourgeoisie. Statements about Marxist classes are disputed according to Marxist theory, not by comparing to reality. Now, if an individual agrees with a statement which has already been proven correct, that's fine. If he disagrees, then he's either suffering from False Consciousness, or is actually a Kulak, or his parents were Kulaks, or maybe he's just a Class Traitor. So send him to the Gulag, or stand him up against a wall. Any more individuals want to express their opinions? Good. Also, remember that any Proven Marxist Statement today might turn out to be Trotskyite propaganda tomorrow. Still no individuals who want to express their opinions? Great! Form up and march forwards to the Glorious Future, Comrades!

So if you keep trying to dispute neo-marxist statements by appeals to reality, you're obviously Problematic (because that's such a white thing to do), and possibly alt-right to boot, and need to be bludgeoned into compliance. You understand that, Fascist!?!

TimT

Maybe this partly reflects recent discoveries that offer pretty consistent evidence for their being human habitation in Australia for much longer than 40,000 years. There've been several human fossils found that are much older than 40,000 years.

If the story is not just a beat up (and I'm a little cynical, knowing how scurrilous the media can be) it's pretty ignorant , since 'The Dreaming' isn't even thought of as a fixed point in history. It's more an ever present mythical landscape; maybe it's best thought of as a kind of folk version of Plato's forms.

Pretty interesting stuff anyway, check out a Wikipedia precis here.

Jonathan

It's funny how the left regard brown people as being indigenous to a particular nation or continent but when it comes to white people, the term is considered 'deeply offensive'.

David

It’s funny how the left regard brown people as being indigenous to a particular nation or continent but when it comes to white people, the term is considered ‘deeply offensive’.

And it took not one but two lecturers to construct such a piss-poor shambles of an argument.

Jonathan

The first step in liquidating a people,' said Hubl, 'is to erase its memory. Destroy its books, its culture, its history. Then have somebody write new books, manufacture a new culture, invent a new history. Before long the nation will begin to forget what it is and what it was. The world around it will forget even faster. ― Milan Kundera, The Book of Laughter and Forgetting

Makes you think...

He also wrote this:

Dogs are our link to paradise. They don't know evil or jealousy or discontent. To sit with a dog on a hillside on a glorious afternoon is to be back in Eden, where doing nothing was not boring--it was peace.

I'd say M. Kundera is onto something.

Ted S, Catskill Mtns, NY, USA

I never understood why Jenny didn't just follow the car's tracks and go back the way they came in.

Farnsworth M Muldoon

The important thing is not to include any acts of racist cultural appropriation in today's celebrations of the first Brexit.

Bob Radley

Oh it gets better. Some fantasist wrote a fictional book about Aboriginal history (BTW original indigenous Australian's couldn't read or write, so the history has been confected since 2000 by pseudo-academics) called "Dark Emu" in which it's claimed they built housing (which magically disappeared) built dams (ditto) farmed crops (no farms found yet - 231 years of looking), invented science, and the kicker - wait for it - invented democracy. We are living in a golden age of fiction. For people who'd struggle to read a Golden Book.

David

The important thing is not to include any acts of racist cultural appropriation in today’s celebrations of the first Brexit.

Culture is made for sharing. That’s rather the point of it, isn’t it?

Farnsworth M Muldoon

That’s rather the point of it, isn’t it?

Of culture, yes, I am just moderately amazed at some of the stuff popping up today for example...

...though I am not sure what else one would call the fourth day of the seventh month.

David

...though I am not sure what else one would call the fourth day of the seventh month.

It saves a lot of time to bear in mind that these aren’t statements of good faith. There’s no integrity there, no reciprocal principle, no genuine enquiry. It’s nothing more high-minded than needy status posturing. And disdaining the home team is very in right now. That’s the level it works on, the level it’s devised on. It’s the only level on which these things make any kind of sense or have any kind of internal consistency.

Zionist Overlord #73

...though I am not sure what else one would call the fourth day of the seventh month.

I vote for "Four Days Before the Nones of Quintilis".

pst314

The neighbours, this morning.

Are they Americans, or are they Brits who are fond of America?

Also: That's a lot of trees. (The more the better, to my way of thinking.) I take it you do not live in an old, densely-populated, built-up city center.

Burnsie

Rename July 4th literally anything else.

Ah yes. Our modern-day Puritans are outraged once again that somebody, somewhere, is having fun.

David

Are they Americans, or are they Brits who are fond of America?

They’re quite English. The husband likes flags and they vary throughout the year. I’m assuming there’s some sort of system, maybe sporting events and major holidays, though I can’t honestly be sure.

That’s a lot of trees... I take it you do not live in an old, densely-populated, built-up city center.

Edge of town, happily. The Peak District National Park is five minutes away.

pst314

They’re quite English. The husband likes flags and they vary throughout the year.

Sweet!

Edge of town, happily. The Peak District National Park is five minutes away.

My God, that looks like a indescribably beautiful place to live.

Farnsworth M Muldoon

It’s nothing more high-minded than needy status posturing.

It never ends, though it would be nice if they came up with something original for a change.

Meanwhile...

Linda

Fourth of July's ugly truth exposed...

http://www.unz.com/isteve/and-then-they-came-for-thomas-jefferson/

You might think that, on the whole, American history is, relative to world history, fairly impressive and heartening.

But it’s precisely American history’s virtues, more than anything else, that enrage so many people these days against the great men of the American past. While the Founding Fathers might be nominally condemned for their misdeeds, they are largely resented for their accomplishments.

Human history suggests that people are naturally prejudiced in favor of their own ancestors, because the accomplishments of their forefathers reflect well upon them.

America is increasingly dominated by people with shallow roots in this country. So it’s hardly surprising that they find it insulting to reflect upon what Americans not related to them once accomplished. Instead, it’s heartening to denounce the Founding Fathers as bad men whose descendants deserve their displacement.

Darleen

the life of an aborigine in his natural environment.

I noticed this years ago that contingent of our betters who desire to preserve these Stone-aged people like they were nesting puffins rather than fellow human beings.

There's something wrong with not at least offering people things like vaccines, indoor plumbing and basic literacy. Why not let them set up places where they can practice making spears by hands and teeth for tourists and, at the end of the day, go back to a home to shower, open the frig and relax with a cold beverage?

It's not like anyone is forced to live the 18th Century 24/7.

David

nesting puffins

Heh.

Daniel Ream

Why not let them set up places where they can practice making spears by hands and teeth for tourists

I live about an hour and a half from Stratford (no, not that one) where there's a sizable indigenous art gallery. Every summer a native artist sets up out front with a massive log, which he carves, sands and paints over the course of the tourist season until he has a completed totem pole, which goes to the gallery. He doesn't live on the res, and when he's not doing the heap-big-injun routine for the tourists he's just like the rest of the inhabitants who live off of the tourist trade.

I asked him once how long it actually takes him to make a totem pole and he said about two weeks.

WTP

The husband likes flags

I have such a neighbor. Flies them in his backyard where only a handful of us can see them. Mostly US Civil War military unit battle flags. Most from Tennessee units but others. Some are quite colorful. And older US flags with varying numbers of stars.

As for people with shallow roots who denounce the FF. I'm sure there's a good bit of that in the illegal immigrant areas but most Indians, Mexicans, Venezuelans, Cubans, etc. that I know are fairly pro-American. Some much so. Even those who express D-party sympathies. Though many of them seem to be leaning pro-Trump if not pro-GOP. At worst not vocal either way. The most significant anti-American people whom I know, and also see quite often in the media, are spoiled rich kids, the lazy, many pot heads (BIRM a little), whose white families have been in this country longer than half of mine. This is another reason I'm kinda partial to a big death tax on large estates. People need to go out and hustle for a job so they can appreciate the opportunities that this country offers.

Sort-Of-Mad Max

People need to go out and hustle for a job so they can appreciate the opportunities that this country offers

My brother-in-law 'Tommie the Trust-Fund Commie' epitomizes this sort. Chundering along in the herd of independent minds, and spamming my Facebook timeline with the kind of lefty crapola that MSNBC poots out. Like that kind of idiocy is hard to find.

Squires

No matter what you do you will become eternally guilty, of something, at some time.

That is how they like you, and you will be shown tolerance if you accept it.

Jen

nesting puffins

Band name.

Captain Nemo

She's one of our intellectual "betters" in the media, and she decided to tweet this:

https://twitter.com/KayBurley/status/1146734195269611530

It hasn't gone well for her...

Darleen

This is another reason I'm kinda partial to a big death tax on large estates

The problem is defining "large estate". Bill Gates kind of wealth can be sheltered far beyond the taxman's reach quite easily. But pity the kulaks whose wealth is owning a home free-and-clear or a small business or farm. Gates, et al, are FOR "more taxes" including death taxes because that keeps any competition to their wealth out of the game.

Rest assured that if the trust-fund brat ever gets control of the family wealth, it will be gone by the time they're dead. Lots of truth in the "from shirt sleeves to shirt sleeves in 3 generations" expression.

People have the absolute right to decide what happens with their own earnings - to leave it to charity or the family dog.

Jeff Wood

Darleen, the English equivalent is "Clogs to clogs..".

I worked as an accountant long enough to see it happen, and more than once.

My dear Nemo, I would never have guessed that a Twatter thread could make me laugh...

bgates

Rename July 4th literally anything else

Well, in the spirit of the accompanying image, Happy Nordic American Supremacy Day, everybody!

Darleen

Happy Nordic American Supremacy Day, everybody!

:::snert:::: almost lost my monitor with that one!

Oh... why isn't this cultural appropriation?

WTP

Deciding what is a "large estate" is a problem in the same sense as are strata of income used to determine income taxes. Might as well eliminate taxation entirely? It's a silly argument. The real problem is we have allowed the lawyers to redefine the meaning of words to such a degree that words, contracts, laws, etc. are basically meaningless. Did Trump "collude"? After tens of millions of dollars you can get lawyers who will still argue he did as many who will argue he didn't. Yadda-yadda-yadda. Saying that the wealthy can hide their taxes via lawyers so why tax them with a new tax is simply a cop out. As for the kulaks, what I'm saying is that's where our new generations of commies are coming from. Give your kids an education. A real education. They are owed nothing after that.

That said, I really, really tire of people whining about taxes when they refuse to take up the fight against government spending. THAT is where the problem lies. Everything else is like digging a hole in a lake.

Lady Cutekitten of Lolcat

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=v4xZUr0BEfE

Since these guys more or less admitted Genghis Khan is their great-great-great-etc grandaddy, don’t they owe darn near everybody in the world reparations?

I want mine evenly divided between American currency, Chinese currency, and gold, please. Thanks, gentlemen.

Darleen

They are owed nothing after that.

As determined by their parents or by the government?

No. Strip people of their property rights on the basis of "fairness" and you don't have free people anymore. Whether I want to leave my grandma's quilt or my home or my investment portfolio to my kids or grandkids or the church down the street is NONE of the government's business. They've taxed all of my property every which way from Sunday my whole life. They should fuck off on the event of my death.

Taxes should be visible, equitable and necessary. Not for social nudging or punishment. Taxes are supposed to cover the necessary functions of a limited government..that's it.

Darleen

This includes the major networks who all refused to cover the parade in DC.

It's completely just that the U.S. military, yes with tanks and warplanes, should be part of the celebration of that inherently political act.

Of course, right now we have a peculiar situation in which celebrating the independence of America and the achievements of Americans is seen as not just political, but partisan, because a whole wing of American politics right now is dedicated to the proposition that all men are not created equal; that the clerisy, the lettered, those with Ivy-League degrees and the right family connections, form a distinct and natural aristocracy that should by rights not just govern, but rule.

So it's no wonder that they object to this Independence Day parade; Trump's election and his surprising success as president challenge their most deeply-held belief.

It challenges the belief that they rule by right.

WTP

As determined by their parents or by the government?

As determined by nature really. Once you're dead there's not much say you have in where your stuff goes. Like none. 'Cause you're dead. That's not me talking, that's reality. And another reality is that every material thing that you work for can be taken away. So what do you leave your children? Material things or the ideas and values that will enable them to prosper? Look, in general I don't like the idea and if parents were to make any serious effort to raise their children properly instead of focusing 100% of their energies on getting rich (not that there's anything wrong with getting rich), we likely wouldn't be having this discussion. But such is reality. I'm going out on a limb here but I suspect this is why someone like Maggie Thatcher was able to lead Western Civilization out of the socialist shithole 40 years ago and not some Lord or Duke Tory with much greater resources at their disposals. She came from middle class, shopkeeper society. I am sick of seeing generations of Rockefellers, Mellons, Vanderbilts, etc. etc. etc. sucking the freedoms out of this country because their great-granddaddies make a shit ton of money and they lack the imagination, determination, inspiration to do a damn productive thing yet run about the country creating failed systems and propagating failed ideas so as to give themselves a false miserable sense of self-worth. They (and more importantly us) would all have been much better off if the government or...i dunno...roving bands of gypsies, space aliens (please God send someone) had taken that wealth and put it somewhere that the spoiled brats would never have gotten their hands on it or squandered it or sank it to the bottom of the Marianas Trench. The latter of which is where I'm considering dumping my excess wealth when I go. Problem is there's no way to be sure that that is what will be done with my wealth 'cause I'll be, you know...dead.

WTP

Also note that social nudging, fairness, etc. are all strawmen. I don't really care about any of that and I don't think I gave those as reasons. I simply don't want resources in the hands of people who are so weak willed, weak spiritually, weak mentally, and weak minded such that they can do great harm well beyond their natural capacity to produce such wealth otherwise. Go out and produce the wealth on your own. It ought to keep you busy enough for a lifetime such that you stay out of everybody else's hair.

WTP

Actually...let's try this on for "property rights". So you say I have rights to my property, rights such that continue after I die. Well per my above post, let's say when I go to join the choir invisible there's a sizable sum...for arguments sake we'll say 5 million (not that I have anywhere near that now but hey, if a man's reach doth not exceed his grasp...). I want MY property disposed of. Sunk to the bottom of the Marianas Trench or better yet, launched into the sun. Do you really think that such a thing would, could, should ever happen? Yet it's MY property, correct?

jabrwok

I simply don't want resources in the hands of people who are so weak willed, weak spiritually, weak mentally, and weak minded such that they can do great harm well beyond their natural capacity to produce such wealth otherwise.

Like politicians and bureaucrats?

Do you really think that such a thing [tossing WTPs estate into the sun] would, could, should ever happen?

Should? Sure. It was yours and that's what you wanted done with it. Would or could are different issues as it probably costs more than your hypothetical $5mil to throw anything into the sun.

WTP

At least some money would filter through to the general purpose, some of it legit, of a government. Putting 100% of in the hands of a baby Rockefeller would yield a much, much worse result, IMNSHO.

as it probably costs more than your hypothetical $5mil to throw anything into the sun

If you think that's the biggest problem there, you do not understand the problem there.

Darleen

So you say I have rights to my property,

It's not on my say-so. If you're a free person, then what you earn is yours. If it isn't yours, you're a slave. Make your choice.

rights such that continue after I die.

I said no such thing. I said the disposition of your property upon your death is YOUR right, not the government's. Once title has passed, how your heirs handle it is their affair ... still not yours nor the governments.

She came from middle class, shopkeeper society.

She was a kulak of the kulak class, the ones that are crippled or wiped out by death taxes. Maggie was hated - still is - for that background.

Do you really think that such a thing would, could, should ever happen? Yet it's MY property, correct?

Why should it NOT happen? It is YOUR property. Why are you operating under the belief that its utility to others negates your property rights?

People (and by extension, their rights) don't exist based on their utility TO OTHERS. My husband and I saved for more than a year to take a three week vacation in Japan. It was quite a chunk of change. But you know, it was unnecessary recreation when there are starving children in the world. How dare us! Someone should have just confiscated our savings for A BETTER USE.

Right?

WTP

It's not on my say-so. If you're a free person, then what you earn is yours. If it isn't yours, you're a slave. Make your choice.

We are talking past each other. Either I am failing to properly articulate (likely) or you are in a narrative where you need to shoehorn what I'm saying into a right/left political model.

As for the title, etc. You are dead. You have no control over your property. It is now up to the state, via legal contracts that you signed, to determine where your property goes. If your heirs are properly raised, this is somewhat invisible and as we would all like, the wealth is transferred to those who will do no harm. But that's not the experience that I'm seeing. Again...and again and again and again, I am not interested one way or the other in getting reveue for the state. I want to cut off revenue to the communist/socialist/spoiled brat twits at universities (heh, look how endowments are misspen) and elsewhere. The Heinz Kerrys, the Bushes even.

No time to state this better right now. Got to go.

Darleen

I want to cut off revenue to the communist/socialist/spoiled brat twits at universities (heh, look how endowments are misspen) and elsewhere. The Heinz Kerrys, the Bushes even.

And I don't want the state to make that determination. Yes, people can misuse their property. Focus on the misuse, stop focusing on property. You sound too much like Bill DeBalsio when he said "There's plenty of money in this country, it's just in the wrong hands."

WTP

You sound too much like Bill DeBalsio when he said "There's plenty of money in this country, it's just in the wrong hands."

See, you're not listening to me. Geez...It's like a Patterico Trump argument. Taxes, no matter how they are taken, always have an element of socialism to them. I am not endorsing taking money for the purpose of generating new revenue nor expanding the state. You are skimming over various other aspects of my point to fit a narrative that you already have an answer for. What I am suggesting is that leaving vast sums of money to people who do not truly understand the responsibility of that wealth, nor the ability to put it to productive use, is folly. My thoughts are strongly with Andrew Carnegie here. A quick web search sums up his feelings...would prefer direct quotes from him but no time to fuss with it now as this seems sufficient...

Arlene Weismantel writes: “The same ethos that turned Andrew Carnegie into one of the biggest philanthropists of all time made him a fervent proponent of taxing big inheritances. Carnegie argued that handing large fortunes to the next generation wasted money, as it was unlikely that descendants would match the exceptional abilities that had created the wealth into which they were born. He was still actively giving in 1911 after he had already given away 90% of his wealth to causes he cared passionately about, especially libraries.”
https://americanlibrariesmagazine.org/latest-links/andrew-carnegies-disdain-inherited-wealth/

Also note, I'm more willing to passively accept this overstep of government over others that are more intrusive and damaging. What I'm saying is that estate taxes are not the hill to die on, nor even worth much of a fight, all things considered. If one could get something better in return whilst engaged in the sausage making of tax policies, I really don't see much of an issue with them. Also, it might spur people to give some wealth to their heirs while they are still alive such that one could observe how they handle it. Kind of like serving wine to underage teenagers at Thanksgiving.

Sam

fit a narrative that you already have an answer for

Sounds like a bit of projection, honestly. Constructive criticism and not offense intended.

Your last will and testament is meant to be your last expression of agency on this earth. Yes, the state enforces that will (if necessary) because the state enforces all property rights. It's simply a formal system of expressing said agency that works pretty well.

If, in principle, you agree that the state owns someone's property upon their death regardless of their last wishes then you are negating the agency of that individual while they were living. Such a principle would allow for the taking of property while someone is alive simply because you don't like how they'll spend it.

In addition, your assertion that monies in the hands of the state (the same state run by rich assholes and the children of rich assholes) is somehow less potentially harmful than in private (rich) hands is untenable. The state is the mechanism by which the people you despise do harm.

And it is particularly nefarious to advocate for the taxation of monies that have, at minimum, been taxed once already.

TL;DR - it's too goddamn bad that you don't like that asshole rich kids are ruining things, that doesn't make it your property. As you said: "take up the fight against government spending. THAT is where the problem lies." Mitigate state spending and control and then these assholes can only waste their parent's money on fancy drugs and Italian cars.

WTP

Sounds like a bit of projection, honestly. Constructive criticism and not offense intended.

Yeah. Same here. Funny how that works. What you are failing to grasp is that ownership of property, simply by the nature of reality, depends on the owner of that property physically, presently, with full intent an if necessary by use of belligerent means, controlling it. This is what separates all other forms of property from real estate property. Real estate is much more dependent upon the whims of whomever is in charge of the army that protects it. With personal property, you possess it. If someone tries to take it, government or whomever, you have the power to hide it, relocate it, etc. But once you are dead, or mentally incapacitated, you no longer have that direct control. I'm not saying that the state necessarily owns it, but I am saying that its ownership is temporarily in limbo until someone, and it is most often the state at least in the context of this discussion, decides to own it or has the authority, the will, the power to pass that property on to another party. Once that party possesses it in the manner I described, things are back to square one. This is why being alive is the crux of this. The world, reality, etc. doesn't recognize principles at the lowest levels.

The state is the mechanism by which the people you despise do harm.

And AGAIN, I am generally inclined to agree except that we don't really don't know that for sure. It's a guess. The answer lies in the unknowable solution to the formula of how evil is the government relative to people who have never had to earn a living in their lives. No democracy or rights-respecting government is 100% evil. The best are only necessarily so. Thus any wealth going into does have some benefit if only to prevent the same amount of wealth being extracted by (and again presumably) other means (and of course one must also weigh the one means against the other). Also, no collection of prospective heirs, even including the stupid ones, is 100% evil. Thus the imaginary math question is:
Heirs = h
Probability Of Stupidity In Heirs = p(h)
Amount Of Wealth Trading Hands Via Inheritance = totLoot
Minimal Things Government Needs To Do For Society To Function = minGov
Other Stupid Things Government Wastes Money On = wasteGov
Percent of Waste In Government = wasteGovPct = wasteGov / (minGov + wasteGov)

Thus:
if (p(h) * totLoot > wasteGovPct * totLoot)
{
doCarnegieThing();
}
else
{
keepOnTruckinYOLO();
}

And again, formula above assumes (huge assumption but sometimes sausage ain't so bad) that totLoot will not augment the government coffers just replace some other form of revenue that is more oppressive to society as a whole.

Now that said...AGAIN...for a society to function successfully and prosperously, we rarely dig down to this sub-atomic level of ownership and such. But that does not mean that the underlying realities are not there.

Mitigate state spending and control and then these assholes can only waste their parent's money on fancy drugs and Italian cars.

Oh, I'd be fine with that relatively speaking. But I don't see anyone much interested in cutting spending. Especially in so-called "conservative" circles, and especially among even the "respectable" rich kids. Plenty of crying about taxes but very, very little, relatively speaking, about cutting spending. Partly because the Richie Riches, when they do have ambitions, tend to lean into government/political jobs where they pretend to want to cut spending but somehow always seem to get lost in the swamp. Hence we need to create more Maggie Thatchers and fewer W's and Mittens.

WTP

I realize I wasn't clear above in my formula. The stupidity in heirs that I was speaking of is absolutely NOT Italian sports cars or trips to Monaco. I'm all for that. It's the funding of leftist initiatives. I don't want their money, I don't envy their money, and I wouldn't care what they spent it on, though spending it on illegal drugs is a big negative still not my place to say. But too much leftist ideology is being perpetuated via university endowments, Hienz-Kerryites, etc. etc. etc.

Sam

we rarely dig down to this sub-atomic level of ownership and such

True, and though I like the occasional deep-dive exploring philosophies it's not what I'm responding to here. Partially because we probably agree anyway, and partially because of a vicious hangover.

The world, reality, etc. doesn't recognize principles at the lowest levels.

Which is why humans need to constantly define, apply, and defend them. It might be last night's rum talking, but it looks to me like you're doing an awful lot of gymnastics to defend taking property for capricious reasons, allowing your justifiable anger to override your principles.

I'll get some sleep and re-read your posts. Cheers.

WTP

Which is why humans need to constantly define, apply, and defend them.

Principles are a function of human consciousness. Reality doesn't care. As soon as you die, your property, whatever you considered yours at the moment of expiring your last breath, enters a state of limbo. As far as the temporal world is concerned, you don't exist. Your body is still here decaying, and people have memories of you. But you're gone. That is nature. And AGAIN, I am not taking property. Don't want it. Don't need it. Nor is my anger (so overstated) driving this anymore than Carnegie's "anger" drove his opinion on the matter. Everything that you worked for in this life and every bit of that prosperity that you are willing to fight for belongs to you. And AGAIN...this was more of an aside to a different comment. It's not something I passionately care about. I'll admit that I do passionately care about how principles align with reality and how things really work and why they work often in spite of principles. Well, actually I'm also procrastinating doing a miserable thing that I'm telling myself I need to digest by not thinking about that thing I really need to do right now...but I digress...My point is only that it's a valid tradeoff in the domain of determining an approach to the necessary evil of taxation. The leftists love taxes. I say anything that gets more of them (the living not the dead) to pay them than us is a good thing. In the aggregate. This would be using their own principles against (mostly) them.

David

A belated footnote:

Consider the broader implications of a system of thought that includes these theories of Aboriginal creationism. If the ancestors of modern Australian Aboriginal people didn’t migrate, but instead “came from the land” on the Australian continent, then they cannot be said to share a common ancestry with the rest of the world’s human population. They would literally be of a completely different phylogenetic order, since they would have experienced an entirely separate evolutionary history that did not involve primates. Is this not the very basis of racism—to believe that a particular group is not really human?

Andrew Glover, over at Quillette.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blogroll