Michael Gerson: Unmasking Rand Paul

By The Washington Post5 p.m.Feb. 5, 2015

It has become the Rand Paul pattern: A few weeks paddling vigorously in the mainstream, followed by a lapse into authenticity, followed by transparent damage control, followed by churlishness toward anyone in the media who notices. All the signs of a man trying to get comfortable in someone elses skin.

The latest example is vaccination. I have heard of many tragic cases, said Dr. Paul, of walking, talking normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines. Following the ensuing firestorm, Paul insisted, I did not say vaccines caused disorders, just that they were temporally related.

In effect: I did not sleep with that causation.

Paul blamed his troubles on the liberal media which, after a little digging, reported that Paul, in 2009, had called mandatory vaccinations a step toward martial law.

When Chris Christie commits a gaffe on vaccination and reverses himself, it indicates a man out of his depth. With Paul, it reveals the unexplored depths of a highly ideological and conspiratorial worldview.

The same dynamic was at work when Paul accused public health authorities of dishonesty about the true nature of the Ebola threat; or when he raised the prospect of Americans typing emails in a cafe being summarily executed by a Hellfire missile; or when he accused Dick Cheney of supporting the Iraq War to benefit Halliburton; or when he accused the United States of provoking Japan into World War II; or when he criticized the application of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to private enterprise. Wherever you scratch the paint, there is some underlying, consistent philosophy at work.

This, of course, is true of any thoughtful politician (which Paul certainly is). But while many prospective presidential candidates seek catchier ways to express their political philosophy, Paul must take pains to conceal the ambition of his ideals.

Pauls domestic libertarianism provides no philosophic foundation for most of the federal government. As a practical matter, he can call for the end of Obamacare but not for the abolition of Medicare, or Medicaid, or the National Institutes of Health. Yet these concessions to reality are fundamentally arbitrary. The only principle guiding Pauls selectivity is the avoidance of gaffes. Of which he is not always the best judge.

The same is true of Pauls constitutional foreign policy, which he now calls (as evidence of his evolution) conservative realism. There is no previously existing form of realism that urges a dramatically weakened executive in the conduct of foreign and defense policy which is Pauls strong preference. He denies the legal basis for the war on terrorism, warns against an oppressive national security state and proposes to scale back American commitments in Europe, Asia and the Middle East. Paul is properly described as a libertarian noninterventionist.

See the original post here:

Michael Gerson: Unmasking Rand Paul

The Silk Road Trial: WIREDs Gavel-to-Gavel Coverage

After 13 short days of trial, Ross Ulbricht has been convicted of running the unprecedented, anonymous online black market known as the Silk Road. In terms of drama, those days included everything: a hidden drug empire, a secret journal, lofty ideals, friendship and betrayal, deception, threats of violence, and in the end, a highly coordinated law enforcement sting operation.

The jury in Ulbrichts case deliberated for only three and a half hours before convicting him on all counts, including conspiring to sell narcotics, hacking software and counterfeit documents, and a kingpin charge usually reserved for organized crime bosses. But despite that quick outcome, the case will be remembered for delving into issues as varied as bitcoins legal status as money, the FBIs right to warrantlessly hack into foreign servers used by Americans, and the power and limits of anonymity on the internet.

American law enforcement has used the case as a chance to make an example of the Silk Road for anyone seeking to replicate its anonymous marketplace. Ulbrichts arrest and convictionand our seizure of millions of dollars of Silk Road Bitcoinsshould send a clear message to anyone else attempting to operate an online criminal enterprise, wrote U.S. attorney Preet Bharara in a press release Wednesday. The supposed anonymity of the dark web is not a protective shield from arrest and prosecution.

But the trials real lessons, for the burgeoning online drug trade that now dwarfs the Silk Road, will be how not to get caught. For a new generation of online drug lords inspired by Ulbrichts creation, the transcript of his trial will be required reading. For everyone else, its a fascinating tale of dark web intrigue.

Heres WIREDs gavel-to-gavel coverage, starting with the pre-trial hearings after Ulbrichts arrest:

November 21, 2013 Alleged Silk Road Owner Denied Bail; Prosecutors Say He Ordered 6 Murders Despite Ulbrichts family raising hundreds of thousands of dollars for bail, a judge cites his potential for violence to keep him in a Brooklyn jail.

July 9, 2014 Judge Shoots Down Bitcoin Isnt Money Argument in Silk Road Case Ulbrichts first defense was that he couldnt have been guilty of money laundering if bitcoin isnt money. The judge doesnt buy it.

August 2, 2014 Feds Silk Road Investigation Broke Privacy Laws, Defendant Tells Court Ulbrichts defense team attacks the murky surveillance techniques that tracked down the Silk Roads server in Iceland.

September 5, 2014 The FBI Finally Says How It Legally Pinpointed Silk Roads Server The prosecution responds to Ulbrichts defense with an explanation from the FBI: The Silk Roads security was unraveled by a leaky captcha.

September 8, 2014 FBIs Story of Finding Silk Roads Server Sounds a Lot Like Hacking Security experts weigh in, pointing out that the FBIs leaky captcha story doesnt hold water. Ulbricht defense will take the same argument to court.

Visit link:

The Silk Road Trial: WIREDs Gavel-to-Gavel Coverage

Editorial: Mr. Pauls and Mr. Christies irresponsible comments about measles vaccinations

By Editorial Board February 3

TWO POTENTIAL Republican presidential candidates, Sen.Rand Paul (Ky.) and New Jersey Gov.Chris Christie, have made irresponsible comments about vaccines at a time when measles has reappeared in the United States. Their remarks call into question their judgment and their fitness for higher office.

Mr.Paul, an ophthalmologist, said in a television interview, Ive heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines. He added that he vaccinated his own children: Im not arguing vaccines are a bad idea. I think theyre a good thing. But I think parents should have some input. Mr.Christie, visiting a medical research laboratory in Cambridge, England, said that he, too, had vaccinated his children, but I also understand that parents need to have some measure of choice in things as well. So thats the balance that the government has to decide.

Both comments reflect a streak of libertarianism, a political philosophy that champions the individual and freedom to choose. In principle, this isnt irrational. The United States has often stood as a beacon of individual liberty over tyranny. But it becomes destructive when people resist government because of irrational fears and suspicions. To protect people from threats, government has a legitimate role. In the case of measles, the threat is a highly contagious virus that can bring serious consequences. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Measles is so contagious that if one person has it, 90% of the people close to that person who are not immune will also become infected. This is why states have passed laws mandating vaccination for children attending public schools (although 17 states, including California, scene of the outbreak at Disneyland, have waivers for personal beliefs, and 48 have waivers for religious beliefs).

Both the governor and senator seem to be suggesting that it is fine for parents to avoid vaccinations for their children. But is this really a matter of individual rights? Liberty does not confer the right to endanger others whether at a school or Disneyland or anywhere else.

More broadly, a president must make decisions every day about science, and it is not always easy; consider the struggle over climate change, the hard-fought debate over the impact of the Keystone XL pipeline, the promise of genetically modified foods, the intensifying threat of cyberattacks and the growing danger of antimicrobial resistance. Every one of these requires decision-makers to be rational and clear-eyed, the president most of all.

In the case of measles, proven science is well in hand. The vaccine has a half-century record of safety and effectiveness. The study linking it to autism has been discredited and retracted. Mr.Pauls reporting of anecdotes that he has heard is particularly insidious. Measles was eliminated in the United States by 2000 with widespread use of the vaccine. No presidential candidate should endorse parental choice that could reopen the door to an ugly and preventable disease.

Read this article:

Editorial: Mr. Pauls and Mr. Christies irresponsible comments about measles vaccinations

Once A Vaccine Skeptic, This Mom Changed Her Mind

Juniper Russo walks her dogs with her daughter Vivian (left). Courtesy of Juniper Russo hide caption

Juniper Russo walks her dogs with her daughter Vivian (left).

The ongoing measles outbreak linked to Disneyland has led to some harsh comments about parents who don't vaccinate their kids. But Juniper Russo, a writer in Chattanooga, Tenn., says she understands those parents because she used to be one of them.

"I know what it's like to be scared and just want to protect your children, and make the wrong decisions," Russo says.

Juniper Russo with her daughter Vivian. Courtesy of Juniper Russo hide caption

Juniper Russo with her daughter Vivian.

When her daughter Vivian was born, "I was really adamant that she not get vaccines," Russo says. "I thought that she was going to be safe without them and they would unnecessarily introduce chemicals into her body that could hurt her."

That's a view shared by many parents who choose not to vaccinate. And in Russo's case, it was reinforced by parents she met online.

"I had a lot of online acquaintances who claimed that their kids had become autistic because of vaccines," Russo says. "I got kind of swept up in that."

But fear of autism was only part of the reason Russo didn't want vaccines for her daughter. She says at that point in her life she identified strongly with what she calls "crunchy moms" who question mainstream medicine and things that aren't natural.

Read more here:

Once A Vaccine Skeptic, This Mom Changed Her Mind

Volokh Conspiracy: Not vaccinating = failure to reasonably avoid polluting

A lawyer friend of mine passed along this idea,

New cause of action: Tortious Non-Vaccination.

This is when a person who could be vaccinated but chooses not to (or his parents choose not to) becomes infected and then infects someone else who could not be vaccinated such as a someone with leukemia or some other immune deficiency or sensitivity to vaccinations. What victims of Tortious Non-Vaccination should do is file a complaint seeking to certify a defendant class action and bring a claim against all Tortious Non-Vaccinators [who had gotten the disease].

I think the kind of burden of proof shifting along the lines of Summers v. Tice would be appropriate. Thus, here, a member of the defendant class would have the opportunity to, say, prove that he could not have infected anyone.

[A]nd since its a negligence claim, you target the homeowners insurance policy. Anti-vaxers insurance rates will rise to internalize the cost of non-vaccination.

Summers v. Tice is a famous tort case in which plaintiff was allowed to recover from his two fellow hunters, when he was injured by one of them but it wasnt clear which one. Usually, a plaintiff has to show that theres a greater than 50% chance that the particular defendant he is suing caused his injury; but in this instance the court relaxed the requirement. (I include an edited version of Summers below.)

Im skeptical about my friends theory. Summers, I think, is a limited exception to the general tort law rule that the plaintiff must show that his injury was likely caused by the defendant. And I doubt that Summers would be extended to a situation such as communicable disease, given how unrelated and variegated the potential tortfeasors are, how many there are, and how unlikely each one is to have injured this particular plaintiff.

I agree that if you know that D has infected P, and D failed to take reasonable precautions to prevent this (e.g., getting vaccinated), this would be tortious under normal negligence principles. (This is often litigated in sexually transmitted disease cases, but historically that came out of other communicable disease cases, where the source of the infection was known; the principle dates back to the late 1800s and early 1900s.) But if a plaintiff is suing everyone who hasnt been vaccinated and has contracted the disease some of whom had more serious forms of the disease and some of whom had less serious forms, some of whom spent a lot of time during their illness around other people and some of whom spent less, and nearly of all whom are likely not to have caused plaintiffs illness, directly or indirectly I dont think the Summers theory would or should apply to defendants.

Indeed, this pretty closely tracks the way the law deals with pollution. In some situations, particular polluters can indeed be sued under general tort law principles for harm to particular plaintiffs. But in large part because of the difficulty proving causation, the tort route is often unavailable. The law has (generally) dealt with this not by relaxing the causation requirement, but by setting up a regulatory scheme requiring polluters to take various steps to diminish pollution.

And I think pollution in general is a good metaphor for non-vaccination. Factories sometimes emit chemical pollutants. Factory owners have a legal duty to take various reasonable steps to reduce the risk and magnitude of such emissions.

Read more from the original source:

Volokh Conspiracy: Not vaccinating = failure to reasonably avoid polluting

The latest news… right to your inbox. Sign up for NCR email alerts .

I do not recall, when I was growing up or as a young adult, ever thinking that the issue of vaccinations was a political issue. Now, thanks to the infusion of libertarian sensibilities into the body politic, and a culture in which choice is always the ace of trumps, vaccinations are a political football. It is to weep.

First, there was Gov. Chris Christie on a trip to the United Kingdom. He was trying to demonstrate his foreign policy bona fides I suppose, and certainly the issue of vaccines was not on the top of his list of things to be prepared to discuss while taking questions in the streets of London. But, the sudden outburst of measles stateside, which unlike Ebola is highly contagious, led to the question and, in his answer, Christie gave an unnecessary nod to parental choice. Somewhere, deep in the recesses of his intellect, there was a default switch that clicked on: When discussing family issues, do not forget to mention parental choice. And so he did. And so he looked very foolish.

Gov. Christie is not a libertarian in any meaningful sense of the word. But, Sen. Rand Paul swims in those waters, indeed we could say he was baptized politically in those waters. As if on cue, and ignoring the fact that for vaccines to achieve their medical benefit, we all have to take them, Sen. Paul turned to his binary view of the world in which the state is Leviathan, eager to devour first your rights and then, apparently, your children. The state doesnt own your children, he said eagerly. Parents own the children. And it is an issue of freedom and public health. The choice of the verb own to describe the relationship between children and parents is a little frightening. And, he does not square freedom and public health, which may make separate conclusions, on this issue, just leaves them out there like exclamation marks in search of a sentence.

The episode shows everything that is deplorable about libertarianism. First, and I invite my conservative Catholic friends to take special note of this, in Sen. Pauls binary vision of the state versus individual freedom there is as little room for civil society, and the Church, as there is in your worst collectivist nightmare. If it is all one or the other, there is no role for mediating institutions or, at least, they will quickly be relegated to the sidelines of political and intellectual discourse. Before the god freedom, all libertarians bow and grovel.

Second, as was pointed out by E.J. Dionne on one of the talk shows last night, the episode highlights another problem with libertarianism. While it can provide a certain cast of mind with a neat, tidy intellectual framework for explaining the world, once libertarianism gets applied to reality, it tends not to bear up very well. The real world exhibits nuance and conflicting values that must be weighed, it has exceptions to be sure, but more than exceptions it has an uncanny knack for requiring similar ideals to be applied differently in different situations. As an ideological construct, I am not much of a fan of libertarianism, but even if you are, you need to recognize, as Sen. Paul never really does, that in the application of those ideas, libertarianism tends to become either too rigid or too brittle to work.

When Pope Francis says that reality is superior to ideas, he is telling us Catholics something very important about the very heart of our faith. Our incarnational faith certainly recognizes the importance and value of reason, but it tethers reason to both faith on the one hand and real-lived experience on the other. Pope Benedict XVI emphasized this as well, stating in the opening sentences of his first encyclical, Deus Caritas Est: We have come to believe in God's love: in these words the Christian can express the fundamental decision of his life. Being Christian is not the result of an ethical choice or a lofty idea, but the encounter with an event, a person, which gives life a new horizon and a decisive direction. Saint John's Gospel describes that event in these words: God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should ... have eternal life (3:16). The historic vocation of the Catholic Church in civil society is to provide a bulwark against any ideology that denies the human persons transcendence. And, in our day, the principle method of denying such transcendence is choice and freedom understood as ideological constructs and political tools.

Let us be clear: This cuts against both the left and the right. It always makes me laugh when I watch MSNBC and they are discussing abortion and they warn against the dangers of having the government in the examining room and then you flip to Fox, and they are discussing the Affordable Care Act and they, too, frighten everyone with the prospect of the government in the examining room. Neither side seems to even recognize the irony because their fear of government intrusion is not principled in the least.

Libertarians, at least, get high marks for consistency. But, in a culture in which choice is the preeminent value, there are many, many things that culture cannot accomplish because they require everyone to buy in, if I may be permitted a commercial metaphor. Vaccines are ones such issue. They dont work if only half the population gets them. To work, the compliance rate has to be above 97%. Of course, in Europe, where medical care actually is socialized, very few countries require vaccinations but they have an almost 100% compliance rate nonetheless. Sen. Paul can put that sociological datum into his libertarian pipe and smoke it.

Which leads to one other aspect of libertarianism today: I do not know what they have been smoking, but they have a penchant for embracing some really bizarre ideas. In an interview yesterday, Sen. Paul did his best imitation of former Cong. Michelle Bachmann. She once said that she knew a woman whose child was vaccinated and the vaccine caused mental retardation. Yesterday, Sen. Paul noted there were many tragic cases of walking, talking, normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines. Really? This is the medical equivalent of the Gold Standard, which many libertarians also embrace, or the idea that mammoth new trees can be genetically created to deal with climate change. Libertarianism seems almost uniquely to be the part of American politics where conspiracy theories and other idiocies find fertile soil.

That said, both parties suffer from the libertarian impulse, but the danger for the Republican Party is the more imminent in part because their whole party has indulged libertarian sensibilities on economic issues which tend to dominate politics these days. The problems our nation faces will not be solved by making choice more available we have plenty of choices. The problems are nation faces can only be addressed if we delineate, carefully and with a view towards real world consequences, what obligations we owe to each other and to future generations, always defending mans freedom to be sure, but balancing that freedom with a recognition that the transcendence of the human person is evidenced not primarily in an exercise of choice, but in the exercise of love. The experience of transcendence begins with transcending the individual with the family, then the community, and latterly, the society and beyond. Invoking choice and freedom as a battering ram is only half the equation and there is no society that can long stand on one leg.

Read more:

The latest news... right to your inbox. Sign up for NCR email alerts .

Ayn Rand at 110

Interest in the bestselling novelist-philosopher Ayn Rand continues to grow, 33 years after her death and 70 years after she first hit the bestseller lists withThe Fountainhead. Rand was born February 2, 1905, in St. Petersburg, Russia.

In the dark year of 1943, in the depths of World War II and the Holocaust, when the United States was allied with one totalitarian power to defeat another, three remarkable women published books that could be said to have given birth to the modern libertarian movement. Rose Wilder Lane, the daughter of Laura Ingalls Wilder, who had writtenLittle House on the Prairieand other stories of American rugged individualism, published a passionate historical essay calledThe Discovery of Freedom.Isabel Paterson, a novelist and literary critic, producedThe God of the Machine,which defended individualism as the source of progress in the world.

The other great book of 1943 wasThe Fountainhead,a powerful novel about architecture and integrity by Ayn Rand. The books individualist theme did not fit the spirit of the age, and reviewers savaged it. But it found its intended readers. Its sales started slowly, then built and built. It was still on theNew York Times bestseller list two full years later. Hundreds of thousands of people read it in the 1940s, millions eventually, some of them because of the 1949 film starring Gary Cooper and Patricia Neal, and many of them were inspired enough to seek more information about Ayn Rands ideas. Rand went on to write an even more successful novel,Atlas Shrugged,in 1957, and to found an association of people who shared her philosophy, which she called Objectivism. Although her political philosophy was libertarian, not all libertarians shared her views on metaphysics, ethics, and religion. Others were put off by the starkness of her presentation and by her cult following.

College students, professors, businessmen, Paul Ryan, the rock group Rush, and Hollywood stars have all proclaimed themselves fans of Ayn Rand.

Like Ludwig von Mises and F. A. Hayek, Rand demonstrates the importance of immigration not just to America but to American libertarianism. Mises had fled his native Austria right before the Nazis confiscated his library, Rand fled the Communists who came to power in her native Russia. When a heckler asked her at a public speech, Why should we care what a foreigner thinks?, she replied with her usual fire, Ichoseto be an American. What did you ever do, except for having been born?

George Gilder calledAtlas Shruggedthe most important novel of ideas sinceWar and Peace. Writing in theWashington Post, he explained her impact on the world of ideas and especially the world of capitalist ideas: Rand flung her gigantic books into the teeth of an intelligentsia still intoxicated by state power, during an era when even Dwight Eisenhower maintained tax rates of 90 percent and confessed his inability to answer Nikita Khrushchevs assertion that capitalism was immoral because it was based on greed.

Rands books first appeared when no one seemed to support freedom and capitalism, and when even capitalisms greatest defenders seemed to emphasize its utility, not its morality. It was often said at the time that socialism is a good idea in theory, but human beings just arent good enough for socialism. It was Ayn Rand who said that socialism is not good enough for human beings.

Her books garnered millions of readers because they presented a passionate philosophical case for individual rights and capitalism, and did so through the medium of vivid, cant-put-it-down novels. The people who read Ayn Rand and got the point didnt just become aware of costs and benefits, incentives and trade-offs. They became passionate advocates of liberty.

Rand was an anomaly in the 1940s and 1950s, an advocate of reason and individualism in time of irrationality and conformity. But she was a shaper of the 1960s, the age of do your own thing and youth rebellion; the 1970s, pejoratively described as the Me Decade but perhaps better understood as an age of skepticism about institutions and a turn toward self-improvement and personal happiness; and the 1980s, the decade of tax cuts and entrepreneurship.

Throughout those decades her books continued to sell 30 million copies over the years, and they still move off the shelves. The financial crisis and Wall Street bailouts gaveAtlas Shruggeda huge push. A Facebook group titled Read the news today? Its like Atlas Shrugged is happening in real life was formed. More than 50 years after publication, the book had its best sales year ever. And sales have remained high more than a million copies of Rands books were sold in 2012.

More here:

Ayn Rand at 110

Iowa poll: Scott Walker leads GOP field

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker is the top choice for Iowa GOP voters ahead of the 2016 caucuses in the state according to a new poll. But Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.) is right behind.

Walker leads the field with 15 percent of voters, according to the poll from the Des Moines Register. His stock has been rising in conservative circles, especially in the Hawkeye State, after a strong showing at the Iowa Freedom Summit last week.

Paul is nipping at Walkers heels with 14 percent support. Iowa Republicans received the Paul family brand of libertarianism well in 2012, when Rand Pauls father, former Rep. Ron Paul (Texas), ran for president. The elder Paul initially came in third, and his campaign went on to secure the majority of the states delegates unbound by those results.

After that, support falls off. Sen. Ted Cruz (Texas) and former Sen. Rick Santorum (Pa.) come next at five and four percent respectively. And a mass of Republican contenders, including Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.), former Texas Gov. Rick Perry (Texas), Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and real estate magnate Donald Trump round out the group, with the lowest amount of support measured.

The Iowa caucuses are vital because they are the first contest in the presidential nominating process. But theres still a year left to go, and anything can happen.

Just months before the 2012 Iowa caucuses, former Rep. Michele Bachmann (Minn.) won among Republicans in the Ames straw poll, a popular pre-caucus poll. She won five percent of the popular vote and zero delegates in the actual caucuses, prompting her to drop out of the race.

Follow this link:

Iowa poll: Scott Walker leads GOP field

Libertarianism (metaphysics) – Wikipedia, the free …

Libertarianism is one of the main philosophical positions related to the problems of free will and determinism, which are part of the larger domain of metaphysics.[1] In particular, libertarianism, which is an incompatibilist position,[2][3] argues that free will is logically incompatible with a deterministic universe and that agents have free will, and that, therefore, determinism is false.[4] Although compatibilism, the view that determinism and free will are, in fact compatible, is the most popular position on free will amongst professional philosophers,[5] metaphysical libertarianism is discussed, though not necessarily endorsed, by several philosophers, such as Peter van Inwagen, Robert Kane, Robert Nozick,[6]Carl Ginet, Hugh McCann, Harry Frankfurt, E.J. Lowe, Alfred Mele, Roderick Chisholm, Daniel Dennett,[7]Timothy O'Connor, Derk Pereboom, and Galen Strawson.[8]

The term "libertarianism" in a metaphysical or philosophical sense was first used by late Enlightenment free-thinkers to refer to those who believed in free will, as opposed to determinism.[9] The first recorded use was in 1789 by William Belsham in a discussion of free will and in opposition to "necessitarian" (or determinist) views.[10][11] Metaphysical and philosophical contrasts between philosophies of necessity and libertarianism continued in the early 19th century.[12]

Metaphysical libertarianism is one philosophical view point under that of incompatibilism. Libertarianism holds onto a concept of free will that requires the agent to be able to take more than one possible course of action under a given set of circumstances.

Accounts of libertarianism subdivide into non-physical theories and physical or naturalistic theories. Non-physical theories hold that the events in the brain that lead to the performance of actions do not have an entirely physical explanation, and consequently the world is not closed under physics. Such interactionist dualists believe that some non-physical mind, will, or soul overrides physical causality.

Explanations of libertarianism that do not involve dispensing with physicalism require physical indeterminism, such as probabilistic subatomic particle behavior a theory unknown to many of the early writers on free will. Physical determinism, under the assumption of physicalism, implies there is only one possible future and is therefore not compatible with libertarian free will. Some libertarian explanations involve invoking panpsychism, the theory that a quality of mind is associated with all particles, and pervades the entire universe, in both animate and inanimate entities. Other approaches do not require free will to be a fundamental constituent of the universe; ordinary randomness is appealed to as supplying the "elbow room" believed to be necessary by libertarians.

Free volition is regarded as a particular kind of complex, high-level process with an element of indeterminism. An example of this kind of approach has been developed by Robert Kane,[13] where he hypothesises that,

In each case, the indeterminism is functioning as a hindrance or obstacle to her realizing one of her purposesa hindrance or obstacle in the form of resistance within her will which has to be overcome by effort.

At the time C. S. Lewis wrote Miracles,[14]quantum mechanics (and physical indeterminism) was only in the initial stages of acceptance, but still Lewis stated the logical possibility that, if the physical world was proved to be indeterministic, this would provide an entry (interaction) point into the traditionally viewed closed system, where a scientifically described physically probable/improbable event could be philosophically described as an action of a non-physical entity on physical reality. He states, however, that none of the arguments in his book will rely on this.

Nozick puts forward an indeterministic theory of free will in Philosophical Explanations.[6]

When human beings become agents through reflexive self-awareness, they express their agency by having reasons for acting, to which they assign weights. Choosing the dimensions of one's identity is a special case, in which the assigning of weight to a dimension is partly self-constitutive. But all acting for reasons is constitutive of the self in a broader sense, namely, by its shaping one's character and personality in a manner analogous to the shaping that law undergoes through the precedent set by earlier court decisions. Just as a judge does not merely apply the law but to some degree makes it through judicial discretion, so too a person does not merely discover weights but assigns them; one not only weighs reasons but also weights them. Set in train is a process of building a framework for future decisions that we are tentatively committed to.

See the rest here:

Libertarianism (metaphysics) - Wikipedia, the free ...

Salon.com Founders Speech Blasts His New Bernal Heights Techie Neighbors For Ruining The Vibe

SAN FRANCISCO (CBS SF) The transcript of a recent speech Salon.com founder David Talbot made at Stanford University has spurred some lengthy and heated comment threads.

In it, Talbots paints a grim picture of the future of the City of Love. He chronicles the rise of Silicon Valley, from its birth as the incubator for the technology that helped fight the Cold War, to its present day form a breeding ground for the selfish libertarianism of todays baby tech moguls.

Talbot decries the triumph of techno-capitalism, the machine mentality that all social problems can be engineered away.

He describes his own neighborhood Bernal Heights once home to filmmakers, cartoonists, counterculture artists and community organizers who lived side-by-side with blue-collar workers and Latina grandmothers. Now, he says it is overrun by Teslas and Beamers transformed into what one real estate website crowned the hottest zip code in town.

Talbots rant is not new. Complaints about the changing face of San Francisco and the gentrification of working-class neighborhoods are almost mundane, so common is the practice of urban reclamation and redevelopment. The difference, perhaps, is to hear it from the mouth of someone who admits to having benefited enormously from the wonders of the digital revolution. Sadly, Talbot feels that revolution has grown old and corrupt.

In the end, Talbot challenges his Stanford audience, Are you interested in going public, or in serving the public youre either part of the problem or part of the solution which one are you, a Stanford dick? Or are you different.

Judging from the comments, articles, and reactions to Talbots speech, no one is indifferent. They run the gamut. One commenter wrote, Grow a pair and move on already. The person who wrote that, said it right after another who claims he was reading Talbot as, my wife and I are being evicted from our home of twenty years by a young tech couple. Theres finger pointing at the finger pointers, and they all point back.

Perhaps the ensuing conversations about Talbots speech has spurred are the best part of his rant. Check it out:

READ: Talbots Speech Don't Be a Stanford Asshole.

The rest is here:

Salon.com Founders Speech Blasts His New Bernal Heights Techie Neighbors For Ruining The Vibe

Secession Begins at Home

[This article is adapted from a talk presented at the Houston Mises Circle, January 24, 2015.]

Presumably everyone in this room, or virtually everyone, is here today because you have some interest in the topic of secession. You may be interested in it as an abstract concept or as a viable possibility for escaping a federal government that Americans now fear and distrust in unprecedented numbers.

As Mises wrote in 1927:

The situation of having to belong to a state to which one does not wish to belong is no less onerous if it is the result of an election than if one must endure it as the consequence of a military conquest.

Im sure this sentiment is shared by many of you. Mises understood that mass democracy was no substitute for liberal society, but rather the enemy of it. Of course he was right: nearly 100 years later, we have been conquered and occupied by the state and its phony veneer of democratic elections. The federal government is now the putative ruler of nearly every aspect of life in America.

Thats why were here today entertaining the audacious idea of secession an idea Mises elevated to a defining principle of classical liberalism.

Its tempting, and entirely human, to close our eyes tight and resist radical change to live in Americas past.

But to borrow a line from the novelist L.P. Hartley, The past is a foreign country, they do things differently there. The America we thought we knew is a mirage; a memory, a foreign country.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is precisely why we should take secession seriously, both conceptually as consistent with libertarianism and as a real alternative for the future.

Does anyone really believe that a physically vast, multicultural, social democratic welfare state of 330 million people, with hugely diverse economic, social, and cultural interests, can be commanded from DC indefinitely without intense conflict and economic strife?

Read more:

Secession Begins at Home

Scott Walker Steps Out

Jan 28, 2015 8:28am

By MICHAEL FALCONE (@michaelpfalcone)

NOTABLES

THE ROUNDTABLE

ABCs RICK KLEIN: Indiana Gov. Mike Pence drew headlines this week for his odd if not just plain ill-conceived state news service, sparking enough Pravda and Kim Jong Un Tweets to power a Seth Rogen movie. But the most consequential thing Pence may have done this week, at least when it comes to 2016, is the deal he cut to expand Medicaid using funds available under Obamacare. If Pence winds up running, his move will become a major point of contention; if he doesnt, hes given some other key candidates a strong talking point, maybe even precious cover. This is shaping up as one of the biggest fault lines inside the Republican presidential race. Possible candidates will run the range of outright rejection of Obamacare funds (Jindal, Perry), through special state-specific deals for some expansion (Walker, and now Pence), right up to accepting the money and the coverage expansion that was designed as a key piece of President Obamas healthcare overhaul (Christie, Kasich). And, of course, well have the senators in the field, who can and almost surely will take the clean stance that any acceptance of Obamacare funds is abetting a fatally flawed program.

ABCs SHUSHANNAH WALSHE: Scott Walkers launch of his Our American Revival political committee Tuesday could not have happened at a better time, fresh off his well-received speech last weekend at the Iowa Freedom Summit. Whether the roll-out was long planned or not, using the momentum from his star turn is a perfect way to keep the 2016 story on him over his potential opponents. Its a 527 not a leadership PAC, like possible rivals Jeb Bush and Chris Christie have recently set up, but he will still be able to use the funds to travel to early states or donor meetings. And speaking of donors, like a PAC, it gives a spot for early supporters to place funds ahead of a full-fledged campaign.

ON THE ROAD WITH POTUS

FIRST LADYS VISIT TO SAUDI ARABIA SENDS STRONG MESSAGE ABOUT WOMEN. In a country where women have few rights, First Lady Michelle Obama yesterday seemed to lead by example. There she was, standing side-by-side with her husband as he stepped off Air Force One in Riyadh Tuesday, where, during a brief visit, the president offered condolences for the recent death of King Abdullah and met with his successor, King Salman. According to ABCs MARY BRUCE, the first lady accompanied the president throughout the stay, embodying some of the reforms that her husband is pushing the country to adopt. Wearing pants and her head uncovered, Mrs. Obama stood dutifully beside her husband as he shook hands with the Saudi delegation on the airport tarmac Tuesday morning and again at Erga Palace on the outskirts of Riyadh. Due to the cultural constraints, the first lady purposely stood slightly behind her husband and waited for a gesture to be made to her by the men in the receiving line. If one of the men initiated a handshake she returned, if not then she simply smiled or nodded politely. http://abcn.ws/1JC1iqO

See the article here:

Scott Walker Steps Out

Daddy issues: Are Ron Pauls hard-core stands a problem for sons presidential bid?

HOUSTON Rand Paul wants to lead the United States. On Saturday in Texas, his father was speaking at a conference about how to leave it.

A lot of times people think secession, they paint it as an absolute negative, said former representative Ron Paul (R-Tex.). After all, Paul said, the American Revolution was a kind of secession. You mean we should have been obedient to the king forever? So its all in the way you look at it.

This weekend was a crucial one for Rand Paul, the Republican senator from Kentucky and undeclared candidate for the presidency. He was in California, trying to line up donors at an opulent retreat organized by the billionaire Koch brothers.

At the same time, his father retired after 12 terms in Congress and three presidential runs was in the ballroom of an airport hotel here, the final speaker at a one-day seminar in breaking away from the central state. He followed a series of speakers who said that the U.S. economy and political establishment were tottering and that the best response might be for states, counties or even individuals to break away.

The America we thought we knew, ladies and gentlemen, is a mirage. Its a memory. Its a foreign country, Jeff Deist, Ron Pauls former press secretary and chief of staff, told the group. And thats precisely why we should take secession seriously.

Republican Sens. Ted Cruz (Tex.), Rand Paul (Ky.) and Marco Rubio (Fla.) discussed what they see to be the current U.S. economys weak spots at a forum Sunday night. All are thought to be potential 2016 presidential hopefuls.

The contrasting scenes this weekend illuminate the odd situation of the Pauls as the 2016 campaign season begins. They are a father and son tied together but running in opposite directions.

Rand, 52, is contemplating a presidential run at its heart, an act of optimism. He is moderating some hard-line positions and introducing himself to donors and voters. At the same time, Ron, 79, has embraced a role as libertarianisms prophet of doom, telling his supporters that the United States is headed for catastrophes and might actually need catastrophes to get on the right track

Which puts Rand Paul in the unusual position of trying to win over the country while his father says it is going down the tubes.

Asked by a reporter whether he was worried about making trouble for his sons presidential campaign by talking about secession here, Ron Paul deflected the blame to the press: If we had decent reporters, there would never be any problems. You think you could ever meet one? Have a heart, buddy.

Read more:

Daddy issues: Are Ron Pauls hard-core stands a problem for sons presidential bid?

Are Ron Paul's hard-core stands a problem for son's presidential bid?

HOUSTON Rand Paul wants to lead the United States. On Saturday in Texas, his father was speaking at a conference about how to leave it.

"A lot of times people think secession, they paint it as an absolute negative," said former representative Ron Paul (R-Tex.). After all, Paul said, the American Revolution was a kind of secession. "You mean we should have been obedient to the king forever? So it's all in the way you look at it."

This weekend was a crucial one for Rand Paul, the Republican senator from Kentucky and undeclared candidate for the presidency. He was in California, trying to line up donors at an opulent retreat organized by the billionaire Koch brothers.

At the same time, his father retired after 12 terms in Congress and three presidential runs was in the ballroom of an airport hotel here, the final speaker at "a one-day seminar in breaking away from the central state." He followed a series of speakers who said that the U.S. economy and political establishment were tottering and that the best response might be for states, counties and even individuals to break away.

"The America we thought we knew, ladies and gentlemen, is a mirage. It's a memory. It's a foreign country," Jeff Deist, Ron Paul's former press secretary and chief of staff, told the group. "And that's precisely why we should take secession seriously."

The contrasting scenes this weekend illuminate the odd situation of the Pauls as the 2016 campaign season begins. They are a father and son tied together but running in opposite directions.

Rand, 52, is contemplating a presidential run at its heart, an act of optimism. He is moderating some hard-line positions and introducing himself to donors and voters. At the same time, Ron, 79, has embraced a role as libertarianism's prophet of doom, telling his supporters that the United States is headed for catastrophes and might actually need catastrophes to get on the right track

Which puts Rand Paul in the unusual position of trying to win over the country while his father says it is going down the tubes.

Asked by a reporter whether he was worried about making trouble for his son's presidential campaign by talking about secession here, Ron Paul deflected the blame to the press: "If we had decent reporters, there would never be any problems. You think you could ever meet one? Have a heart, buddy."

A spokesman for Rand Paul said he was not available to comment for this story. Both Pauls have said that if Rand Paul runs for president, his father will not campaign with him.

Read the original post:

Are Ron Paul's hard-core stands a problem for son's presidential bid?

GOPs Top 10: Introducing the Fox News First 2016 Power Index

FOX News First: Jan. 26 By Chris Stirewalt

GOPS TOP 10: INTRODUCING THE FOX NEWS FIRST 2016 POWER INDEX Yes, yes. We know. It is 53 weeks until the start of the first 2016 nominating contest and more than six months until the first Republican presidential debate. But despite a lot of big talk about contenders waiting until later to jump in, two big-name candidate forums and a spate of buzz-generating announcements over the past weekend proved that there would be no delay in the start of this cycle. And so the time has come for the making of lists and the inaugural Fox News First 2016 Power Index.

[Watch Fox: Its go time. Special Report with Bret Baier is live from Des Moines, Iowa at 6 p.m. ET.]

Short list, indeed - The Power Index for Democrats is a lot simpler because there is only one spot. In deference to her enormity within the party, Hillary Clinton, possessed of a pre-fab campaign designed to be scaled out to a $2 billion crusher of Obama-like underdog dreams, has no serious rivals. She may draw a palooka or two to help her tune up for the title match, but Democrats are so far mostly unwilling to do anything that might endanger her undisputed frontrunner status though she and President Obama still have some issues to sort out. And while the empty field is a testament to the partys shallow bench and Clintons power, its also evidence of real concerns about her general election viability. Her ham-fisted performance in the rollout of her campaign book last year sent chills down many Democratic spines. If things change, well start ranking Democrats. But for now, its a party of one.

[You know I sit back there and I listen and I help write the ideas in the [State of the Union address] and I know it all... and I got to pay attention. And [wife Jill Biden] said, Welcome to the club. And I said What do you mean? She said, Welcome to the Good Wives Club. Vice President Joe Biden in an interview on Ellen set to air today.]

Fine print - The following list of 10 candidates could easily stretch to two dozen, so it does not pretend to be comprehensive. Nor does it pretend to be predictive of who the nominee will be, instead it is focused on who is the frontrunner at this writing. Factors including poll performance, fundraising prowess, campaign organization and an individuals political skills all go into this (very subjective) ranking. Todays list gives us a starting place. In the weeks to come, we will update rankings on Mondays, pointing out major moves up, down or out. You likely disagree with some or all of it. Thats good! You should let us know what you think at FOXNEWSFIRST@FOXNEWS.COM We will share some of the best responses here. Now lets get to listing.

1) MITT ROMNEYRomney opens the season as the frontrunner for his place in the polls, his organization, his fundraising network and, most importantly, his name recognition. But the weeks to come pose a challenging question for the man considering a third White House run: There is no question that Republicans like Romney a lot more than they like President Obama, but do they like him more than anyone in the crowded field of those seeking their partys nomination? Romney has made a strong argument for why he should be president now but is still sketching out why he, and not one of the others, should be president two years hence. Romneys recent remarks about global warming suggest he is taking a different approach than his 2012 run when he was accused of pandering to conservative voters. A more direct pitch may earn him points for candor or it may just be Huntsmaning, in which a candidate seeks a partys nomination by publicly disputing the partys positions.

[Livin on the edge - WaPo: Mitts favorite snack is a peanut butter and jelly sandwich with a glass of chocolate milk.]

Holy man - NYT: Three years ago, Mr. Romneys tortured approach to his religion a strategy of awkward reluctance and studied avoidance that all but walled off a free-flowing discussion of his biography helped doom his campaign. (The subject is still so sensitive that many, including the prominent Republican, would only discuss it on condition that they not be identified.) But now as Mr. Romney mulls a new run for the White House, friends and allies said, his abiding Mormon faith is inextricably tied to his sense of service and patriotism, and a facet of his life that he is determined to embrace more openly in a possible third campaign.

2) JEB BUSHIt is a testament to the clout of the Republican establishment (and the power of famous names) that the first and second spots on the list go to members of the same tribe. But Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush certainly earns his high ranking. Its also partly a reflection of the fact that the cream has yet to rise from among the more conservative members of the party. Bush has already demonstrated his clout by being the one who fired the starting pistol to begin the race with a Facebook post before Christmas. The big issue for Bush, however, remains whether he, 13 years after his last campaign, has the agility and endurance to face down what will be a very bruising process. Bush, who said that a winning Republican presidential candidate might have to lose the primary to win in November, hasnt yet done much outreach to the GOP base, something at which his establishmentarian brother excelled.

Go here to read the rest:

GOPs Top 10: Introducing the Fox News First 2016 Power Index

First Read's Morning Clips

OBAMA AGENDA: Drone lands inside White House grounds

This morning's alert: "A drone landed inside the White House grounds early Monday, a federal law enforcement official told NBC News. The official gave no further details about the unmanned aerial vehicle, other than to say it landed in a tree at 3 a.m. ET. The Secret Service responded and determined the drone did not pose a threat, the official said."

From the AP in New Delhi: "President Barack Obama and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Sunday declared an era of 'new trust' in the often fraught relationship between their nations as the U.S. leader opened a three-day visit to New Delhi. Standing side by side at the stately Hyderabad House, Obama and Modi cited progress toward putting in place a landmark civil nuclear agreement, as well as advances on climate change and defense ties. But from the start, the day was more about putting their personal bond on display. Modi broke with protocol and wrapped Obama in an enthusiastic hug after Obama got off Air Force One."

Analysis from the Wall Street Journal: "U.S. President Barack Obama joined Indian leaders on the reviewing stand at a military parade here Monday in a display of strengthened ties between the world's largest democracies as an increasingly assertive China shifts Asia's power balance."

Eye on the environment -- in Alaska. "The Obama administration is moving this week to designate areas of Alaska off limits to oil and natural gas drilling in its latest effort to bolster its environmental legacy," writes the Wall Street Journal. "The Interior Department announced on Sunday that it was proposing to preserve as wilderness nearly 13 million acres of land in the 19.8 million-acre Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, including 1.5 million acres of coastal plains that is believed to have rich oil and natural gas resources."

Eurozone Watch, from the AP: "A radical left-wing party vowing to end Greece's painful austerity program won a historic victory in Sunday's parliamentary elections, setting up a showdown with the country's international creditors that could shake the eurozone. Alexis Tsipras, leader of the communist-rooted Syriza party, immediately promised to end the "five years of humiliation and pain" that Greece has endured since an international bailout saved it from bankruptcy in 2010."

CONGRESS: Surgery day for Reid

Roll Call reminds us: Harry Reid's eye surgery is today.

OFF TO THE RACES: Wrapping up the cattle calls in Iowa, California

A couple of takes from NBC's Perry Bacon Jr. in Iowa here and here

See the original post:

First Read's Morning Clips