Observations About Quirks In American Culture

Part I. Observations About The Comments
Part II. Comments from Metafilter

1) Religion
European atheism is tied to the desire of the emerging middle class to sieze economic power, political power, and social status from the church. The USA never had the relationship between the aristocracy and the church, nor did the churches have political power. Puritanism is, like judaism, a personal religion that had more moral rather than institutional origins. Furthermore, the founders saw christianity as a moral teaching system for good citizenship, not a means of oppression or political influence. So the darwinian revolution in the USA was one of changing the way americans looked at religious content more than it was a necessary political and economic conflict as in Europe. The benefit of that puritanism is evident everywhere though: people obey rules, and they don’t engage in petty theft on the scale that europeans do. The violent crime in the states is a product of minority violence. “White” violence in the states is about the same as in canada and western europe. And for long standing reasons it is unlikely that the problem will be solved. Although increased jail times and policing have drastically reduced US crime over the past 20 years.

2) Patriotism
American Patriotism is simply an expression of puritanism. Weapons are a civic puritan duty. Since there is a conflict between the minorities and their political urbanite public intellectuals, against the white christians and their entrepreneurial sponsors, this is an unresolvable problem. The left becomes more radical, and the right more conservative and reactionary. Until the demographics play out I doubt this will change.

3) Scale
The consumer society, the customer service ethic, and the luxury of scale rather than quality is how americans express civic virtue with one another. The french for example behave as if they took over the roles and habits of the nobility in public. Americans see the merchant-consumer relationship as the civic virtue.

4) Class
Americans are very classist, but demonstrate it by their signals (homes and cars) and their language. What is difficult for europeans to grasp is that we have many many universities and colleges and tehy are not formally ranked in any way. So, you can get an engineering or law degree many places but without knowing the institution that granted it, you don’t know how good it is. So to some degree, your college or university tells someone your IQ and social class. Americans also view social class as highly mobile (at least from lower middle and middle to upper middle. They will often support small businesses and tradesman as demonstrations of their beneficence. Americans tend to trust people in their class and less so in other classes. In the postwar era, americans had a temporary privilege of having the only industrial economy left standing. This allowed a lot of cheap but not good quality goods to be made at high profit. THis also allowed working class people to live a lower middle class lifestyle. But as this situation has been eroded by worldwide recovery and the end of world communism, these people are experiencing a loss of status and economic power. This is creating social tension in a way that is different from the same process that is occurring in europe during this period of deleveraging.

5) Police
Police can lose their jobs pretty easily in the states, and unlike europe, they are not assumed to be in the right. They are literally ‘afraid’ a lot of the time. (The side effect is that the USA tends to invent all the investigative technology in the world.) Ticketing is a profit-making activity for many police departments so the cops prey on people rather than help them. In the USA we joke that they allow the crack heads to roam the streets committing dozens of crimes so that they don’t have to pay to house them, while at the same time ticketing the mom in a mini-van so that they can have new shiny lights on their cars. This leads to public resentment.

5) Military
So, here’s the reality. Americans pay for policing the western world’s system of finance and trade through their military. They then sell debt to the world. They then inflate the debt away. They do this rather than tax countries directly for the service. That’s how it works. In exchange, there is higher demand for the dollar, which then allows american citizens to have a much higher standard of living than everyone else, and the US gets a profitable military complex. The military is americas largest industry and it’s actually incredibly profitable.

6) Health/Fitness
American middle and upper class people signal their social status by their fitness interests.

7) The continent is very big. The concern of most american administrations during the 1800’s was that they needed to populate the west not only to profit from it, but to prevent the ‘warlike’ europeans from causing problems. The civil war was fight between the industrial north and agrarian south over the whose political power that would result from the westward expansion – anti-slavery was simply a populist excuse.

8) If America broke into regional ‘countries’ each would be quite different, and americans would act a lot more like europeans. (I suspect that’s the future of the USA. Rather than a united europe, I suspect we will have a regionalized USA, and a western-nations defense network.)

9) Crime is a highly controversial in the USA because it is so predominantly in the black community. The white community crime rate is about that of europe. The reasons for this are varied and controversial. But the idea that ‘americans’ are more violent than europeans does not survive scrutiny. In particular, a few urban centers account for a disproportionate amount of of violent crime. To some degree there are class culture and race problems in the USA that cannot be solved because the subject is simply too taboo to address it, the historical animosity to entrenched, and the political advantages of manipulating the minority are too valuable.


An aspiring author was looking for ideas on how america would be perceived by europeans. I put the following list, which is anglo-weighted, together from selected comments.

– The concrete wheel blocks in parking spaces to prevent idiots from running into each other.
– The round reflectors that mark highway lanes.
– The use of text on signs – in Europe we tend either to use graphics or not to bother with a sign at all.
– Some places you can turn right on red and others not.
– Drive-through everything. Drive-through ATMs, drive-through bank tellers, drive-through pharmacies, drive-through liquor stores in some states.
– The paucity of sidewalks/pavements in many parts of the US, especially residential streets without sidewalks. A European would receive funny looks from his american hosts if he suggested walking to a relatively nearby destination.
– The first time I tried to cross a road by myself, it took me at least 15 minutes to get the rhythm of the traffic lights and how much time I had to make it to the other side. Streets are a lot wider, so the timing is completely different. And drivers in Southern California do not give a sh__t about pedestrians. And the multi-lane intersections….
– Fewer small cars. No roundabouts. Stop signs and the awkward negotiated dance of who has the right-of-way to go next. Speed limits that feel way too slow — 35 limits would often be 45 or 50 or 60 back home. Freeway exits sometimes every quarter-mile — UK motorways have very much fewer exits.
– Writing on the road is the wrong way around: LANE BIKE not BIKE LANE.
– Cities where streets follow a grid. And almost all streets allow cars. As a European I’m accustomed to look for the city center; a place where there are no cars, where streets are meandering, where there are terraces to sit outside and have a coffee. A place that’s amenable to walking, to hanging out and enjoying the atmosphere.
– Riding a bike is dangerous and an enterprise, not a mindless means of transport.
– The buses in LA make a stop every block. During a one-hour bus trip, the bus might make 66 stops. That is more than a stop a minute.
– Walking in LA is a dangerous sport, at least in the eyes of other Angelenos.

– Power sockets/electrical plugs seem very flimsy compared to the tank-like UK ones.
– Europe/UK dishes are soaped and set out to dry whereas in the US it’s customary to rinse the detergent off before drying.
– The cell phone carriers not only use different frequencies but are different standards, and they can’t talk to each other
– That in many places it is forbidden to hang your laundry outside to dry.
– Even people of modest means may own a slew of gas-powered lawn maintenance tools. That stuff is cheap in the US. Reel mowers are still a rarity.
– The American notion of Do-It-Yourself, particularly with regards to construction and home repair/improvement. It’s fairly trivial in most parts of the US for the average person, with no special training or credentials, to rent skid-steer loaders and other heavy hydraulic equipment, order ready-mix concrete or truck loads of construction materials. Chain stores like Home Depot and Menards sell (along with a lot of crap) top-notch professional equipment. The old system of distributors that sell “to the trade only” is breaking down. My sense is that in much of Europe, this is not common and in some places illegal due to safety regulations, trade protectionism, and a greater regard for formal credentials.

– American flags are everywhere. And flags in non-civic settings. A French visitor, for instance, wouldn’t be surprised to see flags on city halls, but on car dealerships?
– The generic veneration of “freedom” as a distinctly American virtue of unknown definition.
– American exceptionalism taken as a given.
– The degree of nationalism
– I was at the Hollywood Bowl, and before the program began, everyone got up to sing the National Anthem. What?
– Guns. And not just rifles or shotguns in Easy Rider rifle racks but pistols. Knives too but the guns. A very good chance of seeing guns in cars or purses or wherever — I was blown away by it, the casual attitude toward it.
– That it’s not unusual to see soldiers travelling in full uniform in the USA
– Thanksgiving being as big as or bigger than xmas.
– The importance of team sports in American schools.
– College sport: the intensity of the following, the rivalries, the bands, the huge attendances, the tailgates. You get an inkling of it in film and television, but while the major professional sports get global broadcast coverage, and some of the accoutrements are covered in film and television, college sport largely stays under the radar. There’s nothing directly comparable in Europe.

– Every employed person rates themselves middle class.
– studied indifference towards the working class.
– “Socialist” as a dirty word — often one of the dirtiest.
– Theism, and fear of atheism.
– Social customs seem to involve euphemisms and things you’re not supposed to talk about.
– Working people are afraid of medical bills.
– The bus seems to be an activity reserved exclusively for disabled and poor people.
– Americans are obsessed with which university they attended, even if you have all been out of school for years. Americans are much more likely to ask “Which university did you go to?” as part of the usual getting to know you questions.
– Panhandlers/beggars.
– Being a stay at home parent, or just a non-working partner or spouse is frowned upon and you’re accused of being a parasite.
– Not separating what you do from who you are, as seen when someone falls into the spiral of shame when they are out of work.
– All those things you’re seen on tv or in films which you assume are overplayed for effect or are tv cliches, are actually real- like the homeless people on the streets or the underage drinking.
– Fitness! Everyone is expected to have SOME kind of regular fitness activity. It’s considered part of being a responsible adult.
– The U.S.’s high incarceration and violent crime rates.
– really big single-ethnicity ghetto neighborhoods
– America has a pervasive culture of “if you are poor, it is because you deserve to be poor,” whether that view is subtle or explicit.
– Americans are much more self-aware and self-reflexive about racism, in both good ways and bad ways. Race is a very, very, very touchy topic in America. Especially in the north, people will jump through hoops to avoid appearing racist, despite being actually quite racist.
– There’s an ingrained american optimism or feelgoodism that prevents one from criticizing anything in a social situation, eg saying a movie sucked when asked always elicits a quick change of conversation.

– People are much more likely to invoke God and religion during a conversation.
– Religion is respected.

– Advertising for prescription medication (which is against the law in basically every country in the world except the US and New Zealand)
– Giving credit cards to people with no income.
– The weirdly aspirational yet condescending tone of advertising voice-overs.
– Leaving your money in the mailbox. You drive onto a persons home property and they are selling something (small bundles of fire wood, home grown produce, or home made Adirondack chairs) and a sign tells you “If no one is home just leave the money in the mail box.”
– Starting a tab at a bar.
– The sweeteners and condiments and creamers and napkins laying around in restaurants and just about everywhere else would be gone in a heartbeat back home.
– Everyone complains bitterly about the government and is suspicious of it but they all follow the rules anyway even if nobody is watching.
– Surprisingly clean big cities.
– How supermarkets not just let you wander off with carts into the wild blue yonder but will set up displays of firewood, plants, pumpkins, etc., out front with nobody watching and trust you’ll bring it indoors to pay for it.
– Paying cash for a c. $150 total at a supermarket was seen as suspicious. The manager was called to okay it!

– That they probably have the best customer service culture in the world, but can rapidly descend into being the most aggressive if challenged.
– That you can post [send mail] from your own mail box.
– Sales tax not being included in the marked price on retail items.
– Mail is delivered on Saturdays.
– Shops barely close, only on Thanksgiving day and Christmas day does commerce really stop.
– Amazing trust of retailers when you want to exchange a product. Everywhere else you buy it, you now own it. Period. No returns there — “I’m sorry your TV doesn’t work, now buzz off.”
– There is a huge culture of self-help / self-improvement.
– Honestly friendly waitresses.
– Customer service people here are well trained. They are uniformly pleasant and helpful.
– Every person seems to take a lot of pride in their work, the US is definitely a very strongly work-centric culture. People seem to talk a lot more about slacking off, than actually slack off.
– Public-facing employees generally seeing to enjoy their jobs.
– Online shopping is deliriously easy here.
– Having and actively exercising the right to give static to salespeople, waitresses, bartenders, others in the service industry. Asking for the manager, and getting him or her – wow, almost unheard of! Demanding returns for purchases on very feeble premises, sending food back for reasons that may seem precious or fussy.
– miniscule amount of paid vacation per year
– Having groceries packed in the supermarket.
– Those little catches you have on your gas pumps. The ones that allow you to start filling up, clip the pump so it keeps filling… and you can walk away!

– Perceptions of American phoniness are off the mark in a crucial way, IMHO. America’s tradition of cheerful customer service and loud, friendly small talk is all part of a culture of making every moment seem very happy for others. It’s not so much false as it is all part of a shared show that everyone is making for everyone else. Americans are perfectly aware that they can’t be everyone’s best friend. I can think of many other cultures where there are similarly vigorous shows of forced humility or “oh, but I couldn’t possibly intrude” or whatever.
– Elaborate and structured dating rules.
– Everyone eats with one hand and keeps the other hand on their lap all through the meal. Also, sometimes they go through an elaborate switch-fork-to-left-hand-pick-up-knife-in-right-cut-up-food-then-switch-fork-back-to-right-hand dance.
– People in shops say things that in Europe would be privvy to personal conversation. To a dutchman like me that felt inappropriate and a little creepy.
– That it seems to be completely ok to share (and is often suggested) in a restaurant. You can certainly *do* it in most other countries, but is rarely suggested, and usually met with some disdain.
– That Americans are generally alot more comfortable with talking to strangers.
– People will often say “we should get together” or “you should come over sometime for dinner” but don’t actually mean it, they just say it to be polite.
– That Americans are very friendly. I’d be fumbling with my map of SF on a corner and get startled that somebody would address me with friendly advice on directions.
– “Uh huh” is an appropriate response to “thank you”
– Americans waiting in line is just preternatural! Recently, waiting for a bus from dc to Philly, there was no waiting area. It was Friday night and the buses were all booked solid. Tons of people were showing up, and yet everyone was till queueing up perfectly politely, waiting their turn, inquiring where the line started and how far it stretched back.
– People write dates using numbers. I thought people said 9-11 because it was close to 9-1-1 and a reminder of emergency. But people actually talk dates that way.
– People ask “How are you?” as a casual greeting, but no one really cares how you are.
– The volume of sound in everyday conversations. I had to train myself to shout (I felt) after a month of being talked over.
– The workplace is far more straight-laced than what I was used to in the UK. – When Americans kid one another, they will wait a few seconds and then let the kidee know that they were just kidding. Every time. This shocked me for a while.
– Under 21’s can’t drink in their own homes. Seriously? Not even a glass of wine with dinner?
– Striking up conversation with strangers, smiling at strangers, sharing stories and knowing/ empathizing looks with strangers. This also throws me for a loop, especially all the smiles and random hellos. Cheerfulness is an indefeasible social onus. On the other hand, people in the U.S. are in my experience very polite when it comes to staring (i.e. not doing it).
– The penchant Americans seem to have for talking over one another.
– Tipping as an obligation.
– Take a penny ; Give a penny for change
– People in America will stop dead in the middle of the street or shake their middle fingers at a perceived near-collision.
– You will often be on a first name basis with your boss, even though obviously you are not your boss’s “friend.”
– “Sir”, “Maam”, and “Miss” are disconcertingly formal when used in almost all customer–service situations.
– Fear of silence. Chat, chat, chat about the most inane subjects to avoid embarrassing silences. Which could explain why nobody is interesting in expressing criticism (see above) when all they want to do is fill a gap and not to have meaningful conversations.
– “Networking”. The easiness at making social connections – in a non corporate or business setting – with a blatant view to future business relationships but making it look like the people involved are befriending each other. It’s like watching a play where all the actors know the only reason they look like they care for each other is money.
– I’m not sure people in other countries calculate their or other’s “net worth” or mention it casually in social settings. Not necessarily the amounts, sometimes just the fact that they know it.

– Hypersensitivity towards hygiene, especially in food retail. Disinfectant wipes at the entrance to supermarkets, washed vegetables, meat that’s invariably wrapped on styrofoam.
– For all the recent interest in farmers’ markets and ‘active cultures’, the bulk of Americans basically like their food to be dead and hermetically sealed, like the places where they buy food to project a sense of clinical sanitation, like putting food in the fridge whether it needs it or not, and like their dishwashers to run like autoclaves.
– Seriously into ziplock bags in a way that other places don’t seem to be.
– bathroom stalls have such wide gaps between the wall and door.
-The abundance of very good teeth
– restaurant health ratings right on the window in CA (yay!)

– The tendency of the police to go absolutely nuts at the slightest provocation, and for their default setting to be extremely rude and aggressive. This is more disturbing than the guns thing, for me – plenty of European police forces walk around armed without being scary.
– There are police everywhere in the US and they are not friendly or helpful, yet they display slogans like “protect and serve” without a hint of irony on their cars. also: they drive like complete idiots.
– Cops always armed.
– In the US, cops aren’t there to help or ask directions from. They are there to ticket you or arrest you.
– American courts are stereotypically more plaintiff-friendly than anywhere else in the world.
– Lawyers have much more cultural cachet than in almost any other country. The idea that lawyers are on a par with doctors as far as people with high-class occupations. Note the perennial appeal of law school, or of lawyer shows on television. Also, a majority of elected officials have at least graduated from law school, whether or not they actually practiced as a lawyer for any significant amount of time. (Compare this to the number of engineers in power in China.)
– jaywalking – seriously – you’re going to ticket me for crossing the road?
– smog check stations.
– you can’t drink alcohol in a car. Even if you are just a passenger.
– I can’t but a bottle of wine and walk down the street without hiding it in a bag? I can’t open the wine and drink it in Central Park? What the hell is up with that? And you have to be 21 to drink? And I, as a fifty-plus-year-old guy can still occasionally get asked for ID before buying drink?

– Some food differences: the cans of coke are slightly larger. Crisps (chips) don’t often come in small bags, it’s massive ones that you’re supposed to share, or nothing – and then you end up eating them all by yourself.
– And bread tastes obnoxiously sweet. I still don’t know how anyone can eat the majority of breads available for purchase.
– The fact that so much American cheese is coloured orange.
– Candies are full of corn syrup (so a Cadbury or Kit Kat bar in the US will taste significantly worse than the original version from abroad).
– Only in America would we have a Mexican Sushi place that is actually called “Casa Sushi”.
– Ice tea is sugarless.
– The awesomeness of fresh sweet corn.
– maple syrup and icing sugar on everything at breakfast.
– Fruit as part of a savory meal – like fruit in a chicken salad, or on the side of a meat plate.
– I had never heard of food allergies until I visited the US. I had never heard of food fads until I met American people.

– Bottomless cups of coffee.
– Over the top single person serving portions in restaurants – everywhere.
– Getting leftovers boxed up to go.
– I go into an American bar and ask for a shot of scotch I get a major shot of scotch. I love the way you just put a glass down and fill it instead of measuring a miserly 1/6 or 1/4 gill shot via an optic.

– You can walk into a store at 3am and purchase a can of beer the size your head.
– Cigarettes behind the counter in drug stores.
– People use checks instead of cash.
– No direct equivalent to a newsagents shop
– Drugstores that sell groceries
– Some places you can’t buy alcohol at the supermarket???
– Money: The bills are all the same color and size!
– Shops will not give change for the parking meter, even if you buy something from them.
– You can buy mouthwash to whiten your teeth in the endless drugstores.
– There are these really complicated consumer programs that you can take part in. For instance, I ended up wandering around CVS for an hour to find something that would fulfill my CVS cash back membership.
– And oh man the surbuban parking lots! Yeah everyone’s heard of them, but nothing will prepare you for the overwhelming size and quantity.
– People pay Psychics? Really?

– The cars here are huge! I’ve stood eye-to-eye with a bumper.
– In general, the scale of things is mind boggling to Europeans for a while and continues to be boggling in small ways for a long time. Fridges are HUGE compared to upright or under-the-counter European fridges. The default size for milk is the gallon, not the pint. Endless agonizing choices in the supermarket — which of these 30 types of canned beans do I want now? Roads that feel twice as wide as they should be. Bank lobbies the size of railway stations.
– The size of engines.
– People who purchase trucks just because they like the look of them, not because they actually need the trucks for work.
– Largeness of cheap motel rooms.
– Being able to watch every episode of US TV shows whenever you want without having to download them illegally.
– Super fast unlimited internet access.
– The enormous quantity of wasted energy. Too many lamp posts even in the remotest places. Driving around at night and noticing how many people leave their living room and porch lights on.

– The ignorance of Americans about the rest of the world.
– People without passports.
– The realization that while you may be familiar with American celebrities, journalists, politicians, and geography from it’s broader worldwide audience, no one in America has a clue about equivalent elsewhere.
– The most shocking lack of geographical knowledge I’ve ever encountered was from a university-educated Californian couple in their 50s who didn’t quite know where Montana was. I was speechless when they asked me [Canadian] for assistance in the matter.
– People only know one language
– Americans to refer to ‘Europe’ as if it is a single fairly culturally and socially homogeneous area which its inhabitants identify with.

– You don’t need to drive far from a major city like SF to reach endless expanse of nature. Amazing.

– The sheer size of the country. One of them rented a car one time and was planning a road trip of something like Savannah-New Orleans-San Antonio-Phoenix-LA, but he really wanted to stop in all those cities and see the sights and have a good time, you know. He’d planned to do that in five days. I had to break it to him gently that he’d spend most of that time driving.

– It’s an incredibly BIG country and so things that many Europeans take for granted like using bikes and trains for transportation or having easily walkable city centers are less viable/harder to implement. Many people think nothing of driving 45 minutes to a mall or an hour to work, or would consider two relatively distant suburbs of the same city to be “the same place”.

– Everything is new. I’d never experienced a physical craving for old buildings before visiting the US! Possibly related: I got the impression that ‘the past’ is more recent in the US, events in living memory are seen as ‘historic’.

– That it’s real hard to find a decent cafe or terrace once one gets about 10 miles outside the city centers. Like one where you can take your kids to and just chill out at for a bit before getting some dinner.

– The fact that you have defibrillators in your malls?

– The mediative-state or torpor inducing languor of driving on U.S. interstates where there only seem to be vast expanses of road and nature in all directions, with hardly a worry at all that you will be smashed from behind by some German-fabricated auto.

– Parking is AMAZING – even in San Francisco / Chicago / New York, there is so much parking at a reasonable cost. But outside the major cities, everywhere you go there are acres of carparks. The supermarket – any supermarket – is a tourist destination. Anywhere you can see 95 different kinds of frozen pancakes stacked up next to each other.

The NYT: A New Name For Philosophy? Branding Wont Solve The Problem. Propertarianism Might.

via Philosophy by Another Name – NYTimes.com.

I would like to launch the Campaign for Renaming Philosophy (C.R.P.) — or perhaps more accurately, the Campaign for Renaming Academic Philosophy (which has a less attractive abbreviation). I suggest meeting with other philosophers informally to discuss the question and forming small groups of people dedicated to the cause. If you are on board, start using the new terminology among yourselves, just to get accustomed to it. It might then be brought up in a department meeting, and a vote taken as to the merits of the case.

Leif Parsons

It won’t be easy to change our name. We have more than 2000 years of linguistic usage bearing down on us. There will be resistance. But keep in mind that scientists changed their “philosophy” name too, no doubt against entrenched opposition; even today the heads of some physics departments are still described as chairs of “natural philosophy.” But that was a necessary and sound decision.

Perhaps in 100 years’ time the process will be complete and our universities will all have a “department of ontics.” Don’t you want to be part of this historical movement? I believe that once the matter is seen clearly the eventual renaming will be well nigh inevitable.

Are the humanities a set of tools for the analysis and perpetuation of norms? I think so. Answering that question will provide an answer to the future of philosophy.

The problem the discipline faces is that it has failed to produce an internally consistent framework for the discussion of norms for the post agrarian era.

The economists have failed, the political philosophers have failed. Philosophers m@sturb@ted for more than half a century on the metaphysical and linguistic programs. Incorporating the clarity of the sciences, and sometimes the data, but clinging with every fiber of their conscious minds, to the concept of community inherent in christian and jewish theology.

Humanity needs a series of norms that are a solution to modernity. It needs institutions that they can understand as assisting the the production of those norms. THey need a way of rationalizing those norms so that they can act. But philosophy is at its heart, mystical and antique.

And humanity has suffered for it.

And I suspect, as someone who tries to solve this problem myself, that it is because the antique norms within us — the very civic virtues that made philosophy exist as a discipline, — must be deconstructed and replaced with something new.

Rorty and his like use the word ‘post-philosophy’. But I don’t think the name matters. Either the field solves a material problem, and it incorporates the physical sciences, and adopts a teleological framework that allows it to fully abandon its agrarian normative past, or it will continue to be irrelevant.

And the norms that exist within the humanities, unless they are given a framework for the new era, are just as irrelevant. The western humanities are appeals for power by the middle class. Now that they have power, what will they do with it? There are no answers in that tradition.

We need something new.

Of course, I think it’s Propertarianism. But then, I’m shooting in the dark like everyone else.

Why Doesn’t Philosophy Get Respect?

Science consists of a network of externally testable hypotheses.Scientific statements are testable because the physical universe is internally consistent, and because of that consistency, subject to fixed categories that are reducible to numbers which can be manipulated by the process of ratios we call mathematics.

As such, the physical universe is extremely simple compared to the conceptual universe. In the conceptual universe, the entire purpose of philosophy is to construct, reconstruct, and deconstruct plastic categories for the purpose of determining actions, so that we may establish cooperative norms, for human beings existing within that material universe consisting of pervasive but reducible material scarcity caused by the permanent scarcity of time. The purpose of thought its action, and the purpose of action is to outwit and therefore alter, the current course of events so that we may consume the difference within the time frames necessary to perpetuate our survival.

Philosophy consists of a series of traditions which attempt to solve the conflict of our desire for perpetuating our norms — no matter how ludicrous they may be — while allowing us to adapt to changes in our material world. It took until Aristototle to develop reason as we understand it. We were infected by Persian and Abrahamic Mysticism, and only began to crawl out of it during the reformation and enlightenment. Philosophy undermined theology as the middle class undermined the landed aristocracy. Darwin cut both the magian tradition as well as the rules that our norms were based upon.

Most philosophy is not testable. Much of it is terribly bad. Too much of it ignores the data from the physical sciences. Most remains introspective as a means of avoiding the data from the physical sciences. Although, the analytic program has in some reductio way, attempted to solve the problem of making testable statements, and incorporating data from the physical sciences, the discipilne was infected by pervasive religious derivatives and attempted to solve the metaphyisical problem as a way of regaining its prestige lost to the hard sciences.

Philosophy struggled to remain relevant.

The post analytics finally abandoned mysticism altogether. Some post analytical philosophers call their discipline “Post Philosophy” to openly and finally fully abandon philosophy’s magian ancestry. Meanwhile the sociologists and the economists tried to solve most of the problems of the social sciences through positivism but failed. And both the philosophers and the mystics have continued to fail — because we still hold our desperately to our agrarian norms and categories.

Philosophy today is a form of fitness that allows one to not fall prey to the limited methodology of another technical discipline. As a discipline itself it has failed to solve the material problems of creating an internally consistent set of categories and relations that will assist us in the development of new norms without at the same time perishing because of our hubris.

One cannot study economics, history, sociology, politics and philosophy as an integrated program. One must either choose an empirical course of study, or choose a narrative course of study. Until philosophy unites these fields, it will remain irrelevant. And synthesis is what we need of it.

There is still room for philosophy precisely because all the disciplines have failed to produce a conceptual framework for adapting to modernity. But philosophy is as much a prisoner of its traditions as it benefits from them. And academic philosophy, mired in the error of the analytic program’s pursuit of the metaphysical problem has been, and simply perpetuates an error that renders the discipline ineffective and deprives society of answers to pressing problems of anonymity and insensitivity created by a division of knowledge and labor that yields an inverse relationship between material comforts and psychological comforts.

Mankind suffers for their folly.

Why Can’t Progressives Learn? They Don’t Learn From “Fables”. And They Think Numbers Convey Objective Meaning.

via This is Really Why the Economy Is Looking Up(Snarky) « Modeled Behavior.

I remember some folks telling me that the Lehman bankruptcy would be no biggie. [Whaaaat? “That’s how capitalism works!”], they said.

Seems they are right. You declare bankruptcy and badabing-badaboom a little over three years later everything is cleared up. Easy peasy.


One-time financial powerhouse Lehman Brothers emerged from bankruptcy on Tuesday and is now a liquidating company whose main business in the coming years will be paying back its creditors and investors.

Lehman, whose September 2008 collapse is often regarded as the height of the financial crisis, will start distributing what it expects to be a total of about $65 billion to creditors on April 17, it said in a statement.

That first group of payments to creditors, many of whom lost money in its collapse 3-1/2 years ago, will be at least $10 billion, Lehman has said previously.

The move is a legal milestone, but does not indicate the immediate end of Lehman Brothers.

We always said that after the storm had passed the seas would be calm, and here you go.

A CONCEPTUAL GEM: …the knowledge necessary to estimate the risk in any investment is not reducible to numbers that are semantically portable between individuals and therefore not convertible to commodities.

But this *IS* how capitalism works. That organization will be gutted and torn apart and investors who supported their behavior will be punished. That we have created an institutional framework for the distribution of liquidity that cannot tolerate human failure is a comment about our foolhardiness in governance.

The solution to banking is the Swiss method: if you invest in it you own it, since the knowledge necessary to estimate the risk in any investment is not reducible to numbers that are semantically portable between individuals and therefore not convertible to commodities. That strategy would lead to lower interests rates and near zero consumer interest rates.

Of course, this would throw havoc into your innovations on the ISMP curve, but it would require we spend and provide liquidity differently than we recommend now.

It’s the answer you know. Not MMT.

Numbers are a knowledge problem.

And yes, the purpose of the system is to teach us fables. You’re just a prisoner of your method, and the inherent assumption that smart people can solve complex problems. And that’s a convenient illusion.

(This last bit is a reflection of one of his earlier posts that openly states that economic failure is not informative nor do we learn from it. Really. That’s his position. Really. I know. It’s crazy.)

Well, Yes The Left Hates The Constitution. But Scalia Is Just Using Absurdity for Illustrative Purposes.

via Yes, They DO Hate the Constitution! « ACGR's "News with Attitude".

I hate to stomp on bunnies, but nonsense like this doesn’t do our movement any good:

However, her  fellow Justice, the supposedly ultra-conservative and strict constructionist Antonin Scalia is quoted as saying “The bill of rights of the former evil empire, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, was much better than ours…we guarantee freedom of speech and of the press, big deal. They guaranteed freedom of speech, of the press, of street demonstrations and protest, and anyone who is caught trying to suppress criticism of the government will be called to account. Whoa, that is wonderful stuff!”

All I can think of saying is, Holy C&@p!

It is very frightening that these “reputable” scholars and Justices do not understand the meaning and intent of the Constitution they have sworn to honor and uphold.  The drafters and ratifiers would be appalled at how the Supreme Court has “interpreted” a document meant to secure the rights of the people, not grant rights.

In that quote, Scalia is being sarcastic. He’s saying that the constitution is insufficient a safeguard. A polity requires the people obey their own restraints. While property rights, and a constitution that protects them, and a judiciary bound to administer disputes according to them, are the necessary institutions for the defense of freedom, the institution that protects them is comprised entirely of the moral habits of the people and the people who administer those institutions in particular. We take for granted, that our suite of norms are natural to man. But they are special, and unique in the world, specifically because they are unnatural to man. Scalia is illustrating this point using absurdity.

The left hates the constitution because on the one hand it gives them control of the government by semi-democratic means, but which does so on the premise of property rights. So they have their power, but are limited in the use of it. This internal conflict is traumatic for them.

Conservatives are self obligated to remember their position as the group that acknowledges ever present scarcity.

Libertarians are self obligated, as the intellectual wing of politics, to avoid making fools of themselves.

(Not that we all haven’t done it in our careers.)

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.

A Propertarian Definition of Tolerance

Every society contains a population which together, as shareholders, possess a portfolio of norms, a portfolio of opportunities, and a portfolio of capital.

When we tolerate something, it means that we are willing to bear the knowing theft, involuntary transfer, or privatization of some small part of those portfolios that we would expect other members of the society to avoid.

We can bear these costs for both positive and negative reasons:

Positive: as an investment in the future, in the hope that these people will learn the norms, increase the portfolio of opportunities, or increase the portfolio of assets.

Negative: as a matter of convenience, resulting in our privatization of public assets ourselves, we can refrain from paying the cost of policing the portfolios by forgoing opportunities with the individual, or bearing the costs of protecting those assets from involuntary transfer.

The only way to know the difference between the positive and negative use of Tolerance, is to know whether the actions of the individual or group in question will result in the accumulation of assets or not.

But it should be clear that it is impossible to perform neutral tolerance. All tolerance is either good or bad. Claiming ignorance is just convenience: privatization. Theft of public assets for one’s personal consumption.

The complexity arises when multiple portfolios are involve and outcomes are speculative.

Unless ‘Tolerance’ is an economic strategy whose impact is fully understood by the population, it is not investment but convenience.

The example in the western countries is that they pay for their social programs by a) letting the USA pay for their international trade and defense costs, and b) using immigrants to create consumption not possible for the people to create by productivity. In canada, we add c) which is that we export resources. So the cost to canada is one of a pair of risk propositions: that immigrants can be assimilated sufficiently that a ‘canada’ and its portfolio can be maintained, OR that the future is irrelevant, and there is no responsibility we hold toward the future.

In the States, one population holds to its heritage – attempting to retain its portfolio in the belief that it is something unique in human history. Another seeks to consume that portfolio in an attempt to build a more utopian society. And that is the source of conflict.

The American Conservative: A Phony Case On Iran?

via The American Conservative » Netanyahu Calls the Shots.

We are seeing something awful unfolding before our very eyes – an essentially phony case for going to war being driven by a foreign country and its domestic lobby with the political class too terrified to say no and a complicit media beating the drum.


You’ve well argued the standard criticism. However, the practical reality is that the risk to Israel is simply too high that after an election that Obama may win, the next four year window is too tempting for Iran, and too threatening to israel. It’s a practical decision for them. There is nothing irrational about their actions.

That the intelligence agencies argue that no decision has been made is an argument that I have trouble comprehending as rational. That they have conducted a multi-decade program of enablement is evidence enough. That the elimination of israel is a stated objective, and the laurels that will christen Islam’s leading state is enough of an objective for any political leadership.

Iran has long desired to become the core state of post-ottoman islam, and has the population, military and economy to do it. A syrian, iraqi, irania, afghani, pakistani islamic block cum-civilization with two nuclear armed states given their internal fragility is strategically irrational for the USA to tolerate without total energy independence, and some evidence of a developing middle class that will engage in and have an interest in, the international system of specialization and trade.

Moral arguments are nonsense in the face of strategic threats.

Jeremy Kolassa At United Liberty Doesn’t Understand The Libertarian Movement.

via Everything Wrong With The Libertarian Movement, Part 1 on United Liberty by Jeremy Kolassa

Jeremy criticizes the Mises Institute (as I sometimes do as well) for its supposedly anti-collective rhetoric:

a) Unable to accept intellectual property rights
b) Unable to accept that anarcho-capitalism does not work in the real world
c) A penchant for attracting racists, homophobes, and Neo-Confederates
d) A trend towards social conformity and some variant of social conservatism
e) Rejection of science (only in some limited cases)
f) Being too quick to support interventionism (only in some limited cases)

One at a time:

    a) Intellectual property rights are separate from trademarks and they have a strong argument that patent trolling is against the consumer interest that is pretty hard to argue with.
    b) Anarcho capitalism is a research program and it contributed to political thought by showwing that the corporeal state is unnecessary. Hoppe’s private government would absolutely work in the real world – it did for the better part of a thousand years. Monarchies have a better incentive than do republics. It’s simply true.
    c) Yes, it’s a fringe movement that attracts fringe characters. But yes, the neo-confederates are right. And no they’re nationalists not racists.
    e) Rejection of science? I don’t see that. So I can’t comment on it.
    f) Too quick to support intervention? I don’t see that either. So I don’t know where tohose points are comign from.

The legitimate point is d) because libertarians are social conservatives. But you don’t know WHY they are, or even if their idea is good or bad. And that’s the rub. Because the underlying difference between conservatives and progressives is whether we should constrain the fertility of the lower classes or enable it. Despite the fact that it’s impolitic to address the issue openly.

He goes on to say:

The vast majority of these [anti-social] positions come back to the Mises Institute (except for the last one, which I find scattered among libertarians of nearly all stripes.) Now, don’t get me wrong, the Mises Institute has a lot of good resources and proposals, and they are certainly not the only resovoir of nuttery within the movement, but they have seemed to attract a disproportionate number of “fringe” types which tarnish libertarianism’s image and confuses the public.

I mean, racists? In the libertarian movement? They don’t exactly go like bread and butter—yet this was exactly the strategy that Murray Rothbard and Lew Rockwell pursued in the late 80s and early 90s, as David Weigel and Julian Sanchez of reason and Steve Horwitz of Bleeding Heart Libertarians have pointed out.

There is also the social conservatism among many of this crowd that I just do not understand, and which I don’t think truly belongs in this movement. Case in point: David Gordon’s review of Nick Gillespie’s and Matt Welch’s Declaration of Independents over at LewRockwell.com, which is within the LvMI Rothbardian sphere. It is practically dripping with condescension at cultural liberalism and the wide expanse of options and freedom we have in today’s society, from gender to sexual orientation to religion to clothing choices to what-have-you. Yes, Gordon does couch his criticism with “Well, this is just not what libertarianism is about, that’s all,”

Well I’d have to agree that MI attracts malcontents. On the other hand, the increase in libertarian affinity, particularly in technology, over the past decade in particular, is almost entirely the result of the MI work at prosthelytizing . Much like a church, they do not turn away anyone who will carry the gospel of anti-statism. They view the whackos as a tolerable cost. So Lew’s method is working. It’s pragmatic. It has funding. and the BHL’s do not.

The problem for MI is that the intellectual base has moved away from the organization. And they’re not attracting new theorists — precisely because they are adamantly Rothbardian and will not accomodate less extreme opinions (like myself, like you.). Even Hoppe has started his own group ‘to be even more radical’. So I suspect that the MI will have a ‘reformation’ at some point in order to attract intellectual talent, or it will stagnate as a Rothbardian education group. I have been hoping that it would happen before Lew left, but now I don’t think so. And the current admin that’s set up to follow him doesn’t look intellectually capable enough to do other than maintain the Rothbardian memoirs.

As for racism —I don’t think is relevant. And I think you do us all an injustice by using the pejorative term. Nationalism is what people desire. It’s not that they are against anyone. it’s that they’re in favor of a certain set of norms.. The german wing is nationalist. The anglo wing is nationalist. The jewish wing is anti-statist but as a diasporic people, that’s the equivalent of being nationalist. These groups are nationalist in that they want to preserve their identities, and those identities are in conflict with the redistributive state, when that redistribution goes to those who would undermine their ‘sacred’ norms.

These nationalist groups have social visions that are dependent upon norms that are high costs to the individuals that bear them. The germanic europeans (the germans, anglos, and anglo-americans) still sentimentally attach themselves to the manorial social system and its extensions in corporate commerce, and the corporate state — all of which are voluntary, meritocratic, and suppress the fertility of the underclass as a means of self-defense. They just fail to understand their own systems because it is traditionally propagated by oral tradition and myth rather than embodied in tome or fully articulated as a rational philosophy. And that network of aristocratic, manorial, corporate values, unarticulated or not, is incompatible with the compromise multicultural redistributive state.

Religion was the only language available to their ancestors for expressing their ideals. So the germanicized christianity of the puritans was the tool they used for propagating their social system. But with the body of arguments used for the usurpation of the landed aristocracy by the merchant class, and the defeat of the church by darwin, the language and reasoning used by the manorial corporate culture lacked a rational form of articulation that could be used to promote their ideas.

The west is different from the rest because of the manorial system. The manorial system is the result of the need of individual warriors to fund and equip their own retinues.

But it will be very hard to change the sentiments of the descendants north of the Hajnal Line to transfer hard earned gains to the undisciplined — they instinctually view it as anti-social. This conflict is impossible to resolve. There is no compromise.

The libertarian movement is a collection of extreme groups that rally against the status quo. And for good reasons, I’m not sure that we will ever encounter a post-tribal, post-nationalist state except under american military hegemony or its Roman equivalent. Empires are tribe-blind but ideologically myopic. The USA is an empire. And it cannot afford its overextension, so it cannot endure in this capacity indefinitely.

The BHL movement (which is closer to my sentiments even if institutionally I think Hoppe has the solution to bureaucracy) is an immature but necessary occupant of the emerging void. The question is whether that void would exist without the Rothbardians — and I’m not sure. The soft libertarians from Hayek forward failed — including Popper and Parsons. The conservatives have failed to produce anything more than the sentimental Kirk. The BHL’s are a sentimental group as well without a rational program. (Something I’d like to help them fix. If you see how poorly they can even articulate their own taxonomy you’ll see their intellectual poverty on this problem.) But if the BHL movement is just a more conservative and slow moving means of achieving socialism — which is what it looks like to me so far — then it too will fail.

I’ve covered too many concepts in this short space. And if you want to promote the BHL’s I’m with you on that. But you should look at libertarianism as a set of niche ideologies each of which is conducting a research program in order to provide an alternative to the totalitarian state that’s the natural consequence of proletarian democracy. And that we need as many of these research programs as possible because the status quo that trends toward the european nanny state is looking like a bad bet. And domestically, it’s looking like a means of long term unresolvable conflict.