Maverick Philosopher

Ataraxia and the Tobacco Wacko

Near the end of the 1980's I read a paper at a multi-day philosophy conference in Ancient Olympia, Greece. After one of the sessions, we repaired to a beautiful seaside spot for lunch. We sat in the open air at long tables under a canopy. Directly across from me sat a Greek woman who had read a paper on ataraxia. A concept central to the Greek Sceptics, Stoics, and Epicureans, ataraxia (from the Greek a (not) and taraktos (disturbed)) refers to unperturbedness, tranquillitas animi, tranquillity of soul. Thus Sextus Empiricus (circa 200 A.D.) tells us in his Outlines of Pyrrhonism, Book One, Chapter Six, that “Scepticism has its arche, its inception and cause, in the hope of attaining ataraxia, mental tranquility. (Hallie, p. 35) The goal is not truth, but eudaimonia (happiness, well-being) by way of ataraxia (tranquility of mind). A key method is the suspension (epoché , ἐποχή ) of all doxastic commitments.

Peter Lupu on My Gun Rights Argument

A guest post by Peter Lupu.  Editing by BV.   BV will respond to PL in the ComBox.  Here in his own words is the argument that BV presented:

1. Every human person possesses a natural right to life.

2. If every human person has a natural right to life, then he has a right to defend his life against those who would seek to violate this right.

3. If every human person has a right to defend his life, then he has a right to an effective means of defending his life.

Therefore

4. Every human person has a right to an effective means of defending his life. (From 1, 2, 3 by Modus Ponens and Hypothetical Syllogism.)

5. In many circumstances, a gun is the only effective means of defending one's life.

Therefore

6. In many circumstances, human persons have a right to possess guns, a right that is not conferred by constitutions but ought to be respected by them.

In “Deriving Gun Rights from the Right to Life” Bill presented a powerful argument on behalf of gun rights that is grounded on the right to life. The argument is based on the assumption that the right to life is a natural right and, hence, is logically prior to positive law, where by positive law we mean a law that is enacted by society. In addition to the principle that natural rights are logically prior to positive law, Bill’s argument features two additional very important principles.

Is Smoking a Moral Obligation?

Readers of this weblog know that I am no friend of those benighted purveyors of misplaced moral enthusiasm, the 'tobacco wackos.' But the best way to oppose fanaticism is not by an equal and opposite fanaticism, but by moderation and good sense, qualities usually absent in cults. In The Sociology of the Ayn Rand Cult, a very good essay, Murray Rothbard relates the Randian party line on smoking:

Deriving Gun Rights From the Right to Life

I take the view that some rights are logically antecedent to anything of a conventional nature such as a group decision or a constitution. Thus the right to life is not conferred by any constitution, but recognized and protected by well-crafted ones. In simple terms, you don't have the right to life because some people say you do; they correctly say you do because you have this right quite apart from anything they say. The right to life is a natural right. It is logically antecedent to anything of a conventional nature such as the positive law.

Topical Insanity

There is temporary insanity as when a middle-aged man buys a Harley on which to ride though his midlife crisis, wisely selling the bike after the crisis subsides. But my theme is topical insanity, that species of temporary insanity that can occur when certain topics are brought to one’s attention. Someone so afflicted loses the ability to think clearly about the topic in question for the period of time that the topic is before his mind.

Try this. The next time you are at a liberal gathering, a faculty party, say, calmly state that you agree with the National Rifle Association’s position on gun control. Now observe the idiocies to flow freely from liberal mouths. Enjoy as they splutter and fulminate unto apoplexy.

Some will say that the NRA is opposed to gun control. False, everyone is for gun control, i.e., gun control legislation; the only question being its nature and scope. Nobody worth mentioning wants no laws relating to the acquisition and use of firearms. Everyone worth mentioning wants reasonable laws that are enforceable and enforced.

Others will say that guns have only one purpose, to kill people. A liberal favorite, but spectacularly false for all that, and quickly counterexampled: (i) Guns can be used to save lives both by police and by ordinary citizens; (ii) Guns can be used to hunt and defend against nonhuman critters; (iii) Guns can be used for sporting purposes to shoot at nonsentient targets; (iv) Guns can be collected without ever being fired; (v) Guns can be used to deter crime without being fired; merely ‘showing steel’ is a marvellous deterrent. Indeed, display of a weapon is not even necessary: a miscreant who merely suspects that his target is armed, or that others in the vicinity are, may be deterred. Despite liberal mythology, criminals are not for the most part irrational and their crimes are not for the most part senseless. In terms of short-term means-ends rationality, it is quite reasonable and sensible to rob places where money is to be found -- Willy Sutton recommends banks -- and kill witnesses to the crime.

Still others will maintain that gun ownership has no effect on crime rates. False, see the work of John Lott.

Here then we have an example of topical insanity, an example of a topic that completely unhinges otherwise sane people.  There are plenty of other examples.  Capital punishment is one, religion is another.  A. C. "Gasbag" Grayling, for example, sometimes comes across as extremely intelligent and judicious.  But when it comes to religion he degenerates into the worst form of barroom bullshitter.  See my earlier post. 

State and Local Gun Laws and the Fourteenth Amendment

SCOTUS is set to decide whether or not state and local gun laws violate Second Amendment rights. Suppose your city disallows the possession of handguns.  Then the local law would be in at least apparent conflict with the Second Amendment which has recently been recognized by SCOTUS as granting an individual (as opposed to collective) right to keep and bear arms.  Now it strikes me that the Fourteenth Amendment resolves the matter.  In Section One we read, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property , without due process of law . . . ." 

If we interpret 'privileges' to cover rights, then the right to keep and bear arms falls under the first clause.  Accordingly, the citizen's constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms cannot be nullified by any state or local law.  And if we interpret 'liberty' in the second clause to cover the liberty to defend oneself with appropriate means against a deadly attack, then the second clause too rules out any state or local abridgement of the right to keep and bear arms. 

So what's to discuss? [He said with a grin.]

Leftists and Guns

Leftists who fear a 'fascist theocracy' in the USA ought to consider joining with their conservative brethren in support of Second Amendment rights. That way, when the 'fascist theocrats' kick down their doors at 3 AM to haul them off to church services, the leftists will be well equipped to defend their liberty. Was it not their own Chairman Mao who said that "Power comes out of the barrel of a gun"?

There is a serious point here. ACLU extremists will torture the First Amendment to mean anything they want it to mean while nary a peep will you hear from them in defense of the Second Amendment -- when it is the Second that backs up the First and all the rest.

There is an old saying: "If liberals interpreted the Second Amendment the way they interpret the First, gun ownership would be mandatory."

Companion post: The ACLU on the Second Amendment

The ACLU on the Second Amendment

The following is verbatim from the ACLU website:

The Second Amendment provides: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

ACLU POSITION
Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right. For seven decades, the Supreme Court's 1939 decision in United States v. Miller was widely understood to have endorsed that view.

The Supreme Court has now ruled otherwise. In striking down Washington D.C.'s handgun ban by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court's 2008 decision in D.C. v. Heller held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, whether or not associated with a state militia.

The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment. We do not, however, take a position on gun control itself. In our view, neither the possession of guns nor the regulation of guns raises a civil liberties issue.

Two main points. First, the concluding sentence of the quotation, which I have bolded, is so preposterous as to take the breath away. Whether or not there is a right to keep and bear arms is plainly a civil liberties issue.  I would have thought that this would require no argument. Apparently I was wrong: liberals of the ACLU stripe are so preternaturally stupid as to be blind to the obvious.  You will see this if you understand what a civil liberty is.  Here are some definitions:

one's freedom to exercise one's rights as guaranteed under the laws of the country

fundamental individual right protected by law and expressed as immunity from unwarranted governmental interference
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Civil liberties are freedoms that protect an individual from the government of the nation in which they reside. Civil liberties set limits for government so that it cannot abuse its power and interfere unduly with the lives of its citizens.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_liberty

Even if you think of the right to keep and bear arms as a collective right -- a right an individual has in virtue of belonging to a militia-- it is still a civil liberty by the first and third definitions.

But, and here is my second point, one cannot correctly infer that the right in question is a collective right from the wording of the Second Amendment.  Carefully read the Second Amendment, quoted above, and note that the subordinate clause provides a reason, which is not the same as the only reason, for the right in question not to be infringed.  One cannot therefore validly infer from the formulation of the Second Amendment that it refers only to a collective right.  ""A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" gives one reason for the protection of gun rights.  This is consistent with there being other reasons.  Three other reasons come readily to mind.  There  is the need for the means of self-defense of oneself and one's family from the criminal element.  There is the need for the means of defense against wild animals. (Would you backpack in grizzly country without any protection?  You might end up bear scat like the benighted Timothy Treadwell.)   And there is the need for the means of defense against a usurpatious government.

The Superiority of the Pipe

If the cigarette is a one-night stand, the cigar is a brief affair. The typical cigarette smoker is out for a quick fix, not for love. The cigar aficionado is out for love, but without long-term commitment. The pipe, however, is a long and satisfying marriage. But rare is the pipester who is not a polygamist. The practice of the pipe, then, is a long and satisfying marriage to many partners among whom no jealousy reigns.

This completes the first proof of the superiority of the pipe.

Oregon Liberals Impose Regressive Tax on Joe Sixpack

Yet another example of the misuse of government's coercive power by liberals is documented by the WSJ in This Tax Is for You.   And you voted for these irresponsible scum?  Then you will get what you deserve for being stupid. 

Seneca on Drinking

In this festive season it is perhaps appropriate that we should relax a little the bonds that tether us to the straight and narrow.  A fitting apologia for a bit of indulgence and even overindulgence  is found in Seneca, On Tranquility of Mind, XVII, 8-9, tr. Basore:

At times we ought to reach even the point of intoxication, not drowning ourselves in drink, yet succumbing to it; for it washes away troubles, and stirs the mind from its very depths and heals its sorrow just as it does certain ills of the body; and the inventor of wine is not called the Releaser [Liber, Bacchus] on account of the license it gives to the tongue, but because it frees the mind from bondage to cares and emancipates it and gives it new life and makes it bolder in all that it attempts. But, as in freedom, so in wine there is a wholesome moderation.

Sed ut libertatis ita vini salubris moderatio est.

. . .

Yet we ought not to do this often, for fear that the mind may contract an evil habit; nevertheless there are times when it must be drawn into rejoicing and freedom, and gloomy sobriety must be banished for a while.

The Manhattan Shot

Time was when I imbibed two ounces of alcohol per day. But abstemiousness has set in, and now I save the sauce for special occasions. But a favorite delivery form remains what I call the Manhattan shot.

Slam a respectably sized shot glass onto the counter. Fill it two thirds to three quarters with your bourbon of choice. Top it off with sweet vermouth, and finish it with two or three drops of Angosturo(anguish) bitters. Now, without engaging in any such tomfoolery as mixing, knock it back in one fluid gesture. Straight: no chaser, no cherry.

Repeat as necessary.