Each quote is from The Myth of the Framework by Karl Popper, which is an excellent book.

If the many, the specialists, gain the day, it will be the end of science as we know it - of great science. It will be a spiritual catastrophe comparable in its consequences to nuclear armament. (pg 72)

Popper wrote this around 1970, long after it was known that nuclear weapons did great good at the end of World War II. Presumably he means to say the Cold War is a comparable catastrophe to the end of science. In hindsight it is easy to see how false that is; the Cold War was expensive, but it did not ruin us; the world is still improving dramatically despite the presence of nuclear weapons. In large part it is improving due to the progress of science. Losing science would be a truly massive setback. Science is behind everything from farm equipment to cars to household appliances to lightbulbs to modern medicine to computers and the internet.

It is a crime to exaggerate the ugliness and the baseness of the world: it is ugly, but it is also very human. And it is threatened by great dangers. The greatest is world war. Almost as great is the population explosion. (pg 80)

Under free markets, people who produce less than they consume are no danger to the world. Either they receive voluntary aid from people with extra or they starve. That does not put me in danger. By contrast, a world war puts everyone in danger, not just the incompetent.

It is only under a system of redistribution of wealth at gunpoint that additional people can be a burden, but even then it is a smaller burden. Feeding one inept person costs less than feeding and arming one soldier.

Further, it is considerably easier to achieve free markets than world peace. Free markets are freedom applied to property. A free market means we tolerate each person to use his own property as he chooses. Peace requires that we tolerate each person to live his life as he chooses, which includes tolerating his decisions about his property, his religion, and more. Because peace requires a superset of what a free market requires, it is more difficult to attain.

I certainly agree with this idea, the idea of a society of free men (and also with the idea of loyalty to it). It is an idea that inspired the American and the French revolutions. (pg 80)

In contradiction to Popper, I assert that the French and American revolutions were drastically different in motive and inspiration, and that only the American revolution had liberty as its reason.

The reason for the American Revolution was that Britain was not granting its traditional and reasonable liberties to the American colonies. Britain understood liberty well but refused to apply it to America. America needed a revolution so it could have the same liberty that British citizens had.

The French Revolution was not a matter of reason at all. If they had used reason they would not have had a revolution. Reforms were taking place, but the revolutionaries irrationally decided a bloodbath would speed things along. They were utopian idealists who thought if their enemies were dead then the world would soon become the world they envisioned. Of course that didn't work; it made matters much worse.

One issue which Popper's view does not account for, and mine does, is that the American Revolution gloriously triumphed whereas the French Revolution met with miserable disaster.

The Machinery of Freedom by David Friedman pg 4-5

Under property institutions, private or public, a person who wishes to use property that is not his own must induce the individual or group controlling that property to let him do so; he must persuade that individual or gorup that its ends will be served by letting him use the property for his ends. (my emphasis)

This quote illustrates a primary way libertarians conceive of 'persuasion'. It means, roughly, to get someone to do something voluntarily. Many people think the word 'persuasion' has hidden undertones of controlling people; it's not meant to.

Friedman explains the three ways you can get the use of someone's property: love, trade, and force.

He means love broadly to include anything where you want to give me something for nothing because you love, value, appreciate, or approve of the goals I'm working towards, or otherwise want to see the resource used in the way I will use it.

Trade includes any scenario where I give something in return for the property.

And force, like love, is something for nothing, but in this case it's not voluntary.

Logically these three categories cover all cases, but it's awkward where to put getting something via psychological manipulation because it's not obvious whether it counts as voluntary or not. So perhaps we should add a fourth category for it.

With that category in place, then persuasion means love or trade, but not force or manipulation. You can persuade someone to give you a car by trading him some money, or by explaining that you're going to use it to do something he approves of, such as use it in a well publicized race (so he'll enjoy having his car featured in the race). But if you use force or manipulation that is not something we would refer to as persuasion.

The Machinery of Freedom by David Friedman page 13

Naturally, the socialist or the bluenose always assumes that if the state decides what people 'should' want, it will, since his values are 'right', decide his way.

page 11, quoting George Bernard Shaw who is "an unusually lucid socialist"

But Weary Willie may say that he hates work, and is quite willing to take less, and be poor and dirty and ragged or even naked for the sake of getting off with less work. But that, as we have seen, cannot be allowed: voluntary poverty is just as mischievous socially as involuntary poverty: decent nations must insist on their citizens leading decent lives, doing their full share of the nation's work, and taking their full share of its income. . . . Poverty and social irresponsibility will be forbidden luxuries.

Compulsory social service is so unanswerably right that the very first duty of a government is to see that everyone works enough to pay her way and leave something over for the profit of the country and the improvement of the world.

It is interesting to wonder how someone could see those consequences of socialism so clearly and still advocate it.

The Great Melody by Conor Cruise O'Brien page 42 quoting Burke on why more Catholics didn't convert to Protestantism due to the Irish Penal Laws:

Now as to the other point, that the objects of these Laws suffer voluntarily ... it supposes, what is false in fact, that it is in a man's moral power to change his religion whenever his convenience requires it. If he be beforehand satisfied that your opinion is better than his, he will voluntarily come over to you, and without compulsion; and then your Law would be unnecessary; but if he is not so convinced, he must know that it is his duty in this point to sacrifice his interest here to his opinion of his eternal happiness, else he could have in reality no religion at all. In the former case, therefore, as your Law would be unnecessary; in the latter, it would be persecuting; that is, it would put your penalty and his ideas of duty in the opposite scales; which is, or I know not what is, the precise idea of persecution.

Reminds me of Godwin. It has the same concept of persuasion. Either I, in my own judgment, come to see your idea as best, and so compulsion is unnecessary, or I don't, in which case you can't reasonably expect me to change my mind. Godwin would say in the second case you should rethink whether you are correct if you can't be persuasive; Burke here says in the second case you can't say people are volunteering to suffer, because they'd suffer either way they chose.

I started reading The Great Melody by Conor Cruise O'Brien. comments and summary of notable bits follow.

Churchill had a very good interpretation of burke! ^_^

man, you hear about Churchill in school of course for his role in WWII, but no one tells you he was a skillful historian and epistemologist. and the commie WWII hater types who bash Churchill certainly are ignorant of it!

so the good interpretation of burke is roughly: Burke is a classical liberal. a very important one who revived that way of thinking. he was consistent in this throughout his entire political career. he hated tyranny and abuse of power. Conor calls this the Whig interpretation, and it was dominant until ~1930.

some very harsh and false attacks were made on Burke by James Mill (John Stuart Mill's father).

a bastard named Namier trashed Burke's reputation and held major sway from 1930-1970 and beyond. he didn't ever refute the good interpretation. he just pretended it had already been refuted and referred to it that way and implied only a simpleton would think otherwise. he also focussed his writing mostly on second and third rate people. seems like something out of Atlas Shrugged. "give the little guy a chance; the important people already got to be important in their own time, just ignore them now to even things up"

one of the bastard's books trashing burke only mentions burke 8 times. he's subtle. one could read the book and not realize burke was the primary target. he acts like burke doesn't matter to history, and is only worth mentioning in passing. he talks about issues where burke was very influential and fails to mention burke's famous speech and sort of takes it for granted that it's too ridiculous to bother examining. in the few passing remarks, and with no evidence to support it, and ignoring that these interpretations were refuted at length in existing books, Namier says Burke is a lackey without special skill who spreads myths. then Namier went back to talking at length about people he admitted weren't very important, but were evidently more important to discuss than Burke. Namier tries to get reader's to accept his statements about Burke on authority; he supplies no evidence for them. it's true that Namier did a lot of research, but he didn't spend that time researching Burke, he instead focussed on the second-raters.

Namier's next book is worse. this stuff is really wicked. but conor is dignified and objective and unemotional. i guess that's more effective. he just points out the facts and lets the reader use his own judgment, without ever suggesting what is the appropriate feeling.

it's pretty frustrating how such a bastard with such anti-truth-seeking and immoral tactics -- which are despicable even by mainstream standards -- can be so influential. Besides the obvious, Conor should never have had to waste his time reading that filth, let alone commenting on it; it'd be nicer if his book was about good things. but i don't disagree with his judgment that including the Namier stuff was for the best. Namier did exist and does need discrediting. sigh.

Confessions of a Philosopher, by Bryan Magee, pg 193:

[Popper's epistemology] is worked out on such a scale, and yet in such detail, that it constitutes an intellectual achievement of the front rank. It is the most highly developed philosophy yet to have appeared that incorporates within itself a belief in an independently existing material world subsisting in independently existing space and time. It constitutes a huge advance beyond Russell, and embodies a depth of originality and imagination altogether outside Russell's scope. Anyone who is determined to cling to the empiricist tradition will find in Popper's philosophy the richest and most powerful instantiation of it that the ongoing development of Western philosophy has made available to us so far. At the point we have reached around the year 2000, to be a self-aware and sophisticated empiricist has to mean either being a Popperian or being a critical and reconstructed Popperian. And to be any sort of transcendental idealist ought to involve embracing something like a Popperian account of empirical reality. On either presupposition, he is the foremost philosopher of the age.

Bryan Magee, in Confessions of a Philosopher, says that witt's 2nd major book (of 2), Philosophical Investigations, is written so most readers won't see (on first reading, i guess) what one paragraph has to do with the next. and though individual sentences are clear, it's often hard to tell why they are there.

eww.

he then mentions that Popper considers none of witt's ideas to be any good. (for some reason, Magee himself likes some of them). please note that in general Popper was very forgiving and lenient with bad philosophers (e.g. Kant, Hume, and Berkeley), so when he says Witt was worthless that is *very strong* condemnation.

oh wow, here is a strong quote p118

Since the later philosophy of Wittgenstein not only is not about philosophical problems in any traditional sense but denies their authentic existence, it is capable of appealing powerfully only to people who do not have philosophical problems. This explains two things about it that might otherwise be difficult to account for simultaneously: its great appeal to academic philosophers and its attractions for people outside philosophy.

(Magee has talked earlier in the book about how many academic philosophers do not have philosophical problems)

After I mailed in my 23" cinema display and Apple received it at their repair center, they decided to cancel my repair and give me a bunch of grief about it not being in warranty. This is the third time they gave me grief about the same issue. I'm still right, and they still owe me warranty repairs. And they still acknowledged this the previous times, and promised me warranty coverage. (They advertised that you could buy macbook + cinema display + macbook applecare and the applecare would cover the display too. They say this was a mistake and it's only supposed to work with other computers but not macbooks. Too bad. They must honor the terms on their website at time of sale. It's only an $80 value, so I don't see why they keep bothering me about it.)

This time they are refusing to admit that they are obligated to give me warranty coverage as advertised. And the contact info I have for the people I spoke with previously no longer works. However, they made some excuse about "it's only one month out of the three month coverage you are entitled to after the last repair" and repaired it anyway, so I stopped trying to reason with them.

On the upside, it works now. It had stopped turning on. Now it does. Yay!

Oh and the same day I got my display back (today), I also received a second box for mailing it in. Silly Apple is a bit disorganized I guess. For my previous repair they also managed to send me two shipping boxes.

Despite this hassle, I will continue to buy Apple products, which are wonderful.