William Tell, came from the town of Bürglen, and was known as a strong man and an expert shot with the crossbow. In his time, the Habsburg emperors of Austria were seeking control of Uri. Albrecht Gessler, the newly appointed Austrian Vogt of Altdorf, raised a pole in the village’s central square, hung his hat on top of it, and demanded that all the townsfolk bow before the hat. On 18 November 1307, Tell visited Altdorf with his young son and passed by the hat, publicly refusing to bow to it, and so was arrested. Gessler — intrigued by Tell’s famed marksmanship, yet resentful of his defiance — devised a cruel punishment: Tell and his son would be executed, but he could redeem his life by shooting an apple off the head of his son, Walter. Tell shot, and in a single attempt, he split the apple with a bolt from his crossbow. But Gessler noticed that Tell had removed two crossbow bolts from his quiver, not one. Before releasing Tell, he asked why. Tell replied that if he had killed his son, he would have used the second bolt on Gessler himself. Gessler was angered, and had Tell bound. He was brought to Gessler’s ship to be taken to his castle at Küssnacht to spend his newly won life in a dungeon. But, as a storm broke on Lake Lucerne, the soldiers were afraid that their boat would founder, and unbound Tell to steer with all his famed strength. Tell made use of the opportunity to escape, leaping from the boat at the rocky site now known as the Tellsplatte (“Tell’s slab”). Tell then ran cross-country to Küssnacht, and as Gessler arrived, Tell assassinated him with the second crossbow bolt along a stretch of the road cut through the rock between Immensee and Küssnacht, now known as the Hohle Gasse. Tell’s blow for liberty sparked a rebellion, in which he played a leading part. That fed the impetus for the nascent Swiss Confederation. He fought again against Austria in the 1315 Battle of Morgarten.
Theme: Coercion
-
William Tell: An Example Of The Virtue Of Violence
William Tell, came from the town of Bürglen, and was known as a strong man and an expert shot with the crossbow. In his time, the Habsburg emperors of Austria were seeking control of Uri. Albrecht Gessler, the newly appointed Austrian Vogt of Altdorf, raised a pole in the village’s central square, hung his hat on top of it, and demanded that all the townsfolk bow before the hat. On 18 November 1307, Tell visited Altdorf with his young son and passed by the hat, publicly refusing to bow to it, and so was arrested. Gessler — intrigued by Tell’s famed marksmanship, yet resentful of his defiance — devised a cruel punishment: Tell and his son would be executed, but he could redeem his life by shooting an apple off the head of his son, Walter. Tell shot, and in a single attempt, he split the apple with a bolt from his crossbow. But Gessler noticed that Tell had removed two crossbow bolts from his quiver, not one. Before releasing Tell, he asked why. Tell replied that if he had killed his son, he would have used the second bolt on Gessler himself. Gessler was angered, and had Tell bound. He was brought to Gessler’s ship to be taken to his castle at Küssnacht to spend his newly won life in a dungeon. But, as a storm broke on Lake Lucerne, the soldiers were afraid that their boat would founder, and unbound Tell to steer with all his famed strength. Tell made use of the opportunity to escape, leaping from the boat at the rocky site now known as the Tellsplatte (“Tell’s slab”). Tell then ran cross-country to Küssnacht, and as Gessler arrived, Tell assassinated him with the second crossbow bolt along a stretch of the road cut through the rock between Immensee and Küssnacht, now known as the Hohle Gasse. Tell’s blow for liberty sparked a rebellion, in which he played a leading part. That fed the impetus for the nascent Swiss Confederation. He fought again against Austria in the 1315 Battle of Morgarten.
-
WILLIAM TELL An Example Of The Virtue Of Violence William Tell, came from the to
WILLIAM TELL
An Example Of The Virtue Of Violence
William Tell, came from the town of Bürglen, and was known as a strong man and an expert shot with the crossbow. In his time, the Habsburg emperors of Austria were seeking control of Uri.
Albrecht (or Hermann) Gessler, the newly appointed Austrian Vogt of Altdorf, raised a pole in the village’s central square, hung his hat on top of it, and demanded that all the townsfolk bow before the hat.
On 18 November 1307, Tell visited Altdorf with his young son and passed by the hat, publicly refusing to bow to it, and so was arrested.
Gessler — intrigued by Tell’s famed marksmanship, yet resentful of his defiance — devised a cruel punishment: Tell and his son would be executed, but he could redeem his life by shooting an apple off the head of his son, Walter. And, in a single attempt. Tell split the apple with a bolt from his crossbow.
But Gessler noticed that Tell had removed two crossbow bolts from his quiver, not one. Before releasing Tell, he asked why. Tell replied that if he had killed his son, he would have used the second bolt on Gessler himself. Gessler was angered, and had Tell bound. He was brought to Gessler’s ship to be taken to his castle at Küssnacht to spend his newly won life in a dungeon. But, as a storm broke on Lake Lucerne, the soldiers were afraid that their boat would founder, and unbound Tell to steer with all his famed strength. Tell made use of the opportunity to escape, leaping from the boat at the rocky site now known as the Tellsplatte (“Tell’s slab”).
Tell ran cross-country to Küssnacht, and as Gessler arrived, Tell assassinated him with the second crossbow bolt along a stretch of the road cut through the rock between Immensee and Küssnacht, now known as the Hohle Gasse.
Tell’s blow for liberty sparked a rebellion, in which he played a leading part. That fed the impetus for the nascent Swiss Confederation. He fought again against Austria in the 1315 Battle of Morgarten.
Source date (UTC): 2012-03-12 01:52:00 UTC
-
The Conservative Strategy
“The conservative strategy is to starve the beast as the only hope of preserving their freedom and their culture. In that context, their approach is entirely rational: in the battle between the public intellectual who would undermine their culture, and the entrepreneur who would preserve it, they are funding the entrepreneur. It is an entirely rational strategy. It is absolutely straightforward. Just as it is rational that Schumpeterian public intellectuals seek to fund the state.” VERSUS 1) Bankrupt the state before it can bankrupt us, versus bankrupt the entrepreneurs so that we have all political power. 2) Society as a collection of competing groups with different interests where the government is a referee and property rights the rules, versus society as an extension of the family wherein interests are assumed to be homogenous. 3) The constrained vision of human ability where society is fragile, everything is scarce, and change should be organic because of inescapable human hubris, versus the unconstrained vision of human ability where society i stable, everything is plentiful, and change should be directed and consensual, and problems are always solvable. 4) The feminine social order where the purpose of society is to produce as many children as possible, consume as much as possible, and provide the safest most nurturing world for all, versus the masculine social order where the purpose of society is to constrain the worst, concentrate resources in the best, and produce individual excellences. These are simply facts. Sowell was correct in stating the difference between the constrained vision and the unconstrained vision. He was insufficient in that the purpose of the social orders is secured by masculine and feminine biological preferences writ large. Nor was he, or anyone else, clear that the source of western innovation was the manorial system’s evolutionary ability to suppress the birth rates of the lower classes and in doing so create a more intelligent society capable of greater progress.
-
The Conservative Strategy
“The conservative strategy is to starve the beast as the only hope of preserving their freedom and their culture. In that context, their approach is entirely rational: in the battle between the public intellectual who would undermine their culture, and the entrepreneur who would preserve it, they are funding the entrepreneur. It is an entirely rational strategy. It is absolutely straightforward. Just as it is rational that Schumpeterian public intellectuals seek to fund the state.” VERSUS 1) Bankrupt the state before it can bankrupt us, versus bankrupt the entrepreneurs so that we have all political power. 2) Society as a collection of competing groups with different interests where the government is a referee and property rights the rules, versus society as an extension of the family wherein interests are assumed to be homogenous. 3) The constrained vision of human ability where society is fragile, everything is scarce, and change should be organic because of inescapable human hubris, versus the unconstrained vision of human ability where society i stable, everything is plentiful, and change should be directed and consensual, and problems are always solvable. 4) The feminine social order where the purpose of society is to produce as many children as possible, consume as much as possible, and provide the safest most nurturing world for all, versus the masculine social order where the purpose of society is to constrain the worst, concentrate resources in the best, and produce individual excellences. These are simply facts. Sowell was correct in stating the difference between the constrained vision and the unconstrained vision. He was insufficient in that the purpose of the social orders is secured by masculine and feminine biological preferences writ large. Nor was he, or anyone else, clear that the source of western innovation was the manorial system’s evolutionary ability to suppress the birth rates of the lower classes and in doing so create a more intelligent society capable of greater progress.
-
THE CONSERVATIVE STRATEGY “The conservative strategy is to starve the beast as t
THE CONSERVATIVE STRATEGY
“The conservative strategy is to starve the beast as the only hope of preserving their freedom and their culture. In that context, their approach is entirely rational: in the battle between the public intellectual who would undermine their culture, and the entrepreneur who would preserve it, they are funding the entrepreneur. It is an entirely rational strategy. It is absolutely straightforward. Just as it is rational that Schumpeterian public intellectuals seek to fund the state.”
Bankrupt the state before it can bankrupt us, versus bankrupt the entrepreneurs so that we have all political power.
Society as a collection of competing groups with different interests where the government is a referee and property rights the rules, versus society as an extension of the family wherein interests are assumed to be homogenous.
The constrained vision of human ability where society is fragile, everything is scarce, and change should be organic because of inescapable human hubris, versus the unconstrained vision of human ability where society i stable, everything is plentiful, and change should be directed and consensual, and problems are always solvable.
The feminine social order where the purpose of society is to produce as many children as possible, consume as much as possible, and provide the safest most nurturing world for all, versus the masculine social order where the purpose of society is to constrain the worst, concentrate resources in the best, and produce individual excellences.
These are simply facts. Sowell was correct in stating the difference between the constrained vision and the unconstrained vision. He was insufficient in that the purpose of the social orders is secured by masculine and feminine biological preferences writ large. Nor was he, or anyone else, clear that the source of western innovation was the manorial system’s evolutionary ability to suppress the birth rates of the lower classes and in doing so create a more intelligent society capable of greater progress.
Source date (UTC): 2012-03-08 04:30:00 UTC
-
No, I Have No Problem With The War Against Iraq. I Have A Problem With Nation Building.
I’ve been criticized today about my support for war. As a libertarian my tolerance for violence makes me an outlier. But I have no problem with war — at all. The war against Saddam was not a problem for me assuming that it was to create a base from which we could topple the Iranian government and its terror-exporting leadership. And that was my understanding of the intention of the Neocons. The absurd moralistic christian folly of post-war nation-building was simply ridiculous — a criminal stupidity born of ideological vanity and self-congratulatory christian sentiments. That was unforgivable. It still is.
-
No, I Have No Problem With The War Against Iraq. I Have A Problem With Nation Building.
I’ve been criticized today about my support for war. As a libertarian my tolerance for violence makes me an outlier. But I have no problem with war — at all. The war against Saddam was not a problem for me assuming that it was to create a base from which we could topple the Iranian government and its terror-exporting leadership. And that was my understanding of the intention of the Neocons. The absurd moralistic christian folly of post-war nation-building was simply ridiculous — a criminal stupidity born of ideological vanity and self-congratulatory christian sentiments. That was unforgivable. It still is.
-
The National Review Reflects My Criticism Of The American Conservative’s Pacifism
As a followup to my criticism of The American Conservative’s position on Iran, The National Review’s David French http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/292767/legal-case-striking-iran-david-french states:
There has, in fact, been an “armed attack” against the United States. Iran has been waging a low-intensity war against America and Israel — both directly and by proxy — for more than two decades. Iran’s Quds Force has planned and directed attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq and on Israelis in Israel and abroad. Iran has directly supplied our enemies with deadly weaponry in Iraq and Afghanistan, and is responsible for hundreds of American military deaths — including the Marine barracks bombing in Beirut and the Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia. In other words, Iran attacked us long ago, and our forbearance to this point is neither required by international law nor does it bind us to continued forbearance. In fact, when a declared and hostile enemy escalates its military capabilities dramatically, that presents a direct challenge to American security and the security of our allies. The Left is attempting to delegitimize the classical legal framework for the laws of war. In their view, military action is to be viewed as a set of discrete responses to discrete acts — more like law enforcement than warfare. In other words, Iran’s long history of terrorist acts don’t constitute casus belli (a justification for war), they merely represent just cause for, say, an attempt to capture the specific terrorists responsible. Yet international law has never required this level of national restraint, and such restraint is not required under the U.N. Charter.
So, while my libertarian friends may argue with me, I ask them to understand that my understanding of freedom is not based upon the presumption of non-violence. It is based on the presumption that property rights are created and maintained through the application of organized violence. And that markets were made by intention, and freedom a systemic desire of the manorial warrior system. My work is to propagate aristocratic liberty, not proletarian liberty. They need not be incompatible. The state is the enemy, not violence.
-
The National Review Reflects My Criticism Of The American Conservative’s Pacifism
As a followup to my criticism of The American Conservative’s position on Iran, The National Review’s David French http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/292767/legal-case-striking-iran-david-french states:
There has, in fact, been an “armed attack” against the United States. Iran has been waging a low-intensity war against America and Israel — both directly and by proxy — for more than two decades. Iran’s Quds Force has planned and directed attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq and on Israelis in Israel and abroad. Iran has directly supplied our enemies with deadly weaponry in Iraq and Afghanistan, and is responsible for hundreds of American military deaths — including the Marine barracks bombing in Beirut and the Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia. In other words, Iran attacked us long ago, and our forbearance to this point is neither required by international law nor does it bind us to continued forbearance. In fact, when a declared and hostile enemy escalates its military capabilities dramatically, that presents a direct challenge to American security and the security of our allies. The Left is attempting to delegitimize the classical legal framework for the laws of war. In their view, military action is to be viewed as a set of discrete responses to discrete acts — more like law enforcement than warfare. In other words, Iran’s long history of terrorist acts don’t constitute casus belli (a justification for war), they merely represent just cause for, say, an attempt to capture the specific terrorists responsible. Yet international law has never required this level of national restraint, and such restraint is not required under the U.N. Charter.
So, while my libertarian friends may argue with me, I ask them to understand that my understanding of freedom is not based upon the presumption of non-violence. It is based on the presumption that property rights are created and maintained through the application of organized violence. And that markets were made by intention, and freedom a systemic desire of the manorial warrior system. My work is to propagate aristocratic liberty, not proletarian liberty. They need not be incompatible. The state is the enemy, not violence.