Aren’t Biden and, to a lesser extent, Obama more recent examples of dictatorial impulse at the head of the executive branch? The orders emanating from both administrations were arguably unprecedented, undemocratic, unpopular and, at times, unconstitutional or otherwise illegal.
And explain how they are different from any of the orders from any other President. I guarantee each one, going back to Washington, has issued orders that would fit that criteria.
Thanks, Steve. I had previously barely heard of Yarvin. Now, I've listened to that whole NYT interview, and thought about your reaction. He provides much to think about. I'm wondering if he & Adrien Vermule intersect in places. But I'm not at all confident I can even say why I wonder that. It's just that V seems to prefer a mandated first-principle of social morality... sort of top- down moral management. I'm probably way off base. I struggled when I read a V essay!
The temptation to see and applaud the explosion of an NYT head is powerful and compelling. But the seduction should not persuade us to bend our knee to the absolute rule of aristocratic or elitist expert “betters”.
What little you shared of Yarvin’s thoughts betray the sense that he embraces rule by the administrative state and perhaps would encourage its growth and penetration into all walks of society and life.
Yarvin’s message suggests that he would prefer a Justin Trudeau style of leader, one who expresses a preference for the style of governance exercised by CCP’s Xi, than a constitutional government that imposes checks and balances on the usurpation of absolute power by a single person or class.
In a world where malevolence is absent—a world that does not exist—a society, a nation, might benefit from and thrive under the yoke of a truly benevolent dictator. God knows that most aspects of life would be more efficient.
But in this very real world where good and evil grapple every day, there is no guaranty that the ruler you get will be good or evil. Would Yarvin really want to risk the ascension of a despot to throne?
At best, Yarvin may be described as a Hamiltonian, thoroughly distrustful of the people and their uneducated, base instincts. That he would rather place our collective future in the hands of elites who, potentially, lack ultimate wisdom or a moral compass, renders his views suspect.
I like Yarvin, however I find his meandering chatterbox schtick a bit aggravating. If he could just get to the point. I’ll also just say that any government “system” can conceivably work well for most people, as long as the people running the show are reasonably moral and responsible, or if not, there are mechanisms to hold them accountable. If not, no system can “work”.
He part of the huuuge change in vocal, rhetorical, & articulative speech making and conversation. Thank God Yarvin not employ creaky voice or up- tone endings. It's almost as though whole English speaking world chose a basically feminine style of showing embarrassment about one's ideas & words and thus require hiding or deflecting them.
Marchese's experience is just further proof that our journalists are not among our best and brightest. Not even close. They may be smarter than career politicians, but probably not. Their recent failures indicate that they lack the cockroach-like survival powers of the average career politician.
The first two sentences of the paragraph from the unpublished article each have an example of the same grammatical error: making the verbs agree with whatever noun comes immediately before them instead of following the rule of subject-verb agreement. So, in the first sentence the verb should be Have, not Has, because the subject is the plural noun Achievements, not the singular noun Personality. And in the second sentence the verb should be Think, not Thinks, because the subject is the plural noun Observers.
You seriously think anything Yarvin says is interesting or insightful? He comes off as a 3rd rate bullshit artist. All of his “historical” facts are shallow or flat out wrong.
Off-topic question: Where might I find out more about alleged wrongdoing by Judge Sirica and committee staff on the Watergate committee? You mentioned this during a recent Three Whiskey podcast.
Aren’t Biden and, to a lesser extent, Obama more recent examples of dictatorial impulse at the head of the executive branch? The orders emanating from both administrations were arguably unprecedented, undemocratic, unpopular and, at times, unconstitutional or otherwise illegal.
Which orders? Be specific.
And explain how they are different from any of the orders from any other President. I guarantee each one, going back to Washington, has issued orders that would fit that criteria.
Thanks, Steve. I had previously barely heard of Yarvin. Now, I've listened to that whole NYT interview, and thought about your reaction. He provides much to think about. I'm wondering if he & Adrien Vermule intersect in places. But I'm not at all confident I can even say why I wonder that. It's just that V seems to prefer a mandated first-principle of social morality... sort of top- down moral management. I'm probably way off base. I struggled when I read a V essay!
The temptation to see and applaud the explosion of an NYT head is powerful and compelling. But the seduction should not persuade us to bend our knee to the absolute rule of aristocratic or elitist expert “betters”.
What little you shared of Yarvin’s thoughts betray the sense that he embraces rule by the administrative state and perhaps would encourage its growth and penetration into all walks of society and life.
Yarvin’s message suggests that he would prefer a Justin Trudeau style of leader, one who expresses a preference for the style of governance exercised by CCP’s Xi, than a constitutional government that imposes checks and balances on the usurpation of absolute power by a single person or class.
In a world where malevolence is absent—a world that does not exist—a society, a nation, might benefit from and thrive under the yoke of a truly benevolent dictator. God knows that most aspects of life would be more efficient.
But in this very real world where good and evil grapple every day, there is no guaranty that the ruler you get will be good or evil. Would Yarvin really want to risk the ascension of a despot to throne?
At best, Yarvin may be described as a Hamiltonian, thoroughly distrustful of the people and their uneducated, base instincts. That he would rather place our collective future in the hands of elites who, potentially, lack ultimate wisdom or a moral compass, renders his views suspect.
Hound dog--you need to get back to work!
I like Yarvin, however I find his meandering chatterbox schtick a bit aggravating. If he could just get to the point. I’ll also just say that any government “system” can conceivably work well for most people, as long as the people running the show are reasonably moral and responsible, or if not, there are mechanisms to hold them accountable. If not, no system can “work”.
He part of the huuuge change in vocal, rhetorical, & articulative speech making and conversation. Thank God Yarvin not employ creaky voice or up- tone endings. It's almost as though whole English speaking world chose a basically feminine style of showing embarrassment about one's ideas & words and thus require hiding or deflecting them.
Marchese's experience is just further proof that our journalists are not among our best and brightest. Not even close. They may be smarter than career politicians, but probably not. Their recent failures indicate that they lack the cockroach-like survival powers of the average career politician.
Some of us hated FDR when AND before it was just a tact to *tu quoque* the American left by conservatives.
The first two sentences of the paragraph from the unpublished article each have an example of the same grammatical error: making the verbs agree with whatever noun comes immediately before them instead of following the rule of subject-verb agreement. So, in the first sentence the verb should be Have, not Has, because the subject is the plural noun Achievements, not the singular noun Personality. And in the second sentence the verb should be Think, not Thinks, because the subject is the plural noun Observers.
You seriously think anything Yarvin says is interesting or insightful? He comes off as a 3rd rate bullshit artist. All of his “historical” facts are shallow or flat out wrong.
This is what passes for intellectual rigor?
Off-topic question: Where might I find out more about alleged wrongdoing by Judge Sirica and committee staff on the Watergate committee? You mentioned this during a recent Three Whiskey podcast.
Look up any of the various recent books by Geoff Shepard.
I was stuck in a nine hour mediation, 98% of which was down time coupled with a need for immediate readiness without advance notice!