24 definitions by Tex in Tex
According to the dictionary, one set of definitions of 'license' is
"1. Lack of due restraint; excessive freedom: “When liberty becomes license, dictatorship is near” (Will Durant).
2. Heedlessness for the precepts of proper behavior; licentiousness."
The definition of 'license' that is synonymous with 'licentious' evolved from a very different definition:
"1. a. Official or legal permission to do or own a specified thing. See synonyms at permission.
b. A document, plate, or tag that is issued as proof of official or legal permission: a driver's license.
2. Deviation from normal rules, practices, or methods in order to achieve a certain end or effect."
These meanings are derived from "Middle English licence, from Old French, from Medieval Latin licentia, authorization, from Latin, freedom, from licens, licent-, present participle of licere, to be permitted."
License in the context that I want to focus on in related definitions such as libertarian and libertine is the lack of proper restraint or licentiousness.
Defenders of liberty have traditionally gone to great lengths to distance liberty from license. Tragically, modern leftist liberals and modal libertarians have conflated the the two. License is a perversion of liberty that has morphed into its opposite.
"1. Lack of due restraint; excessive freedom: “When liberty becomes license, dictatorship is near” (Will Durant).
2. Heedlessness for the precepts of proper behavior; licentiousness."
The definition of 'license' that is synonymous with 'licentious' evolved from a very different definition:
"1. a. Official or legal permission to do or own a specified thing. See synonyms at permission.
b. A document, plate, or tag that is issued as proof of official or legal permission: a driver's license.
2. Deviation from normal rules, practices, or methods in order to achieve a certain end or effect."
These meanings are derived from "Middle English licence, from Old French, from Medieval Latin licentia, authorization, from Latin, freedom, from licens, licent-, present participle of licere, to be permitted."
License in the context that I want to focus on in related definitions such as libertarian and libertine is the lack of proper restraint or licentiousness.
Defenders of liberty have traditionally gone to great lengths to distance liberty from license. Tragically, modern leftist liberals and modal libertarians have conflated the the two. License is a perversion of liberty that has morphed into its opposite.
Modal libertarian: I love to exercise my liberty by watching some porn while I smoke pot.
Paleo-libertarian: You are confusing liberty and license.
Paleo-libertarian: You are confusing liberty and license.
by Tex in Tex July 11, 2008
United States nineteenth century general most well-known for his leadership of the Federal "Western" army in 1864-1865 during the American Civil War. He also fought against Indians in the American West after the war.
General Sherman is the originator of the modern concept of "total war." In moving through Georgia and then into the Carolinas, Sherman devised a strategy of deliberately targeting civilians for attack. He also targeted the homes and personal property of the civilians of the South who posed no military threat to Union forces. Such targeting of civilians for attack had been considered immoral at the time. The goal of such a strategy was purely utilitarian. It did not matter who morally deserved attack on this view, but instead the only question became the total number of lives saved versus lives lost as well as aggregate gains and losses in supplies and property.
During the siege of Atlanta in the summer of 1864, Sherman decided to order the bombardment of distinctly civilian areas of Atlanta with the express purpose of terrorizing the civilian population into pressuring the Confederate military and political leadership to surrender. Civilians, including slaves, were killed as intended by General Sherman and his subordinates. Confederate General John Bell Hood protested the targeted killings of non-combatants as uncivilized and inhuman. Sherman ignored the appeals by Hood to target only Confederate military positions and personnel. His infamous comment in response to such appeals was "War is Hell."
After the fall of Atlanta to Federal forces in early September 1864, the city was occupied for two months. General Sherman ordered the civilian population evacuated by force. After the evacuation of the city by civilians, General Sherman ordered the city to be burned to the ground. The civilians who were forced to leave Atlanta had to live in the woods for months with no provisions or shelter. He then proceeded through Georgia on his way to Savannah burning and destroying towns, farms, and plantations. His men looted the private property and destroyed civilians' homes leaving them destitute and without provision. After the capture of Savannah, which he spared, he continued into South Carolina where his tactics of "total war" accelerated in their savage ruthlessness culminating in the Federal army burning Columbia, South Carolina to the ground.
Such vicious tactics established the mind-set and military precedent for using civilians as pawns in a military conflict. Such tactics had previously been deemed morally unacceptable. The deliberate targeting of civilians for attack was taken up in World War II ending in the deaths of millions. The bombing of European cities by both sides of the war and Japanese cities by the U.S. as well as attacks on civilians in China, the Philippines, and Korea by Japan were consistent with and encouraged by Sherman's precedent. The logic of saving lives in the long-run by these tactics seems to have been refuted by history.
Modern terrorism also follows the same basic strategy of targeting helpless non-combatants for attack in order to terrorize the remaining citizens into capitulation.
The contemporary American practice of only targeting military personnel for deliberate attack reverses the policy of the American government instituted by General Sherman in Atlanta in 1864. The policy of killing sufficient numbers of civilians and destroying their homes to force surrender has been recognized as the mark of only the most barbarous kind of terrorist, such as those who perpetrated the September 11 attacks.
General Sherman is the originator of the modern concept of "total war." In moving through Georgia and then into the Carolinas, Sherman devised a strategy of deliberately targeting civilians for attack. He also targeted the homes and personal property of the civilians of the South who posed no military threat to Union forces. Such targeting of civilians for attack had been considered immoral at the time. The goal of such a strategy was purely utilitarian. It did not matter who morally deserved attack on this view, but instead the only question became the total number of lives saved versus lives lost as well as aggregate gains and losses in supplies and property.
During the siege of Atlanta in the summer of 1864, Sherman decided to order the bombardment of distinctly civilian areas of Atlanta with the express purpose of terrorizing the civilian population into pressuring the Confederate military and political leadership to surrender. Civilians, including slaves, were killed as intended by General Sherman and his subordinates. Confederate General John Bell Hood protested the targeted killings of non-combatants as uncivilized and inhuman. Sherman ignored the appeals by Hood to target only Confederate military positions and personnel. His infamous comment in response to such appeals was "War is Hell."
After the fall of Atlanta to Federal forces in early September 1864, the city was occupied for two months. General Sherman ordered the civilian population evacuated by force. After the evacuation of the city by civilians, General Sherman ordered the city to be burned to the ground. The civilians who were forced to leave Atlanta had to live in the woods for months with no provisions or shelter. He then proceeded through Georgia on his way to Savannah burning and destroying towns, farms, and plantations. His men looted the private property and destroyed civilians' homes leaving them destitute and without provision. After the capture of Savannah, which he spared, he continued into South Carolina where his tactics of "total war" accelerated in their savage ruthlessness culminating in the Federal army burning Columbia, South Carolina to the ground.
Such vicious tactics established the mind-set and military precedent for using civilians as pawns in a military conflict. Such tactics had previously been deemed morally unacceptable. The deliberate targeting of civilians for attack was taken up in World War II ending in the deaths of millions. The bombing of European cities by both sides of the war and Japanese cities by the U.S. as well as attacks on civilians in China, the Philippines, and Korea by Japan were consistent with and encouraged by Sherman's precedent. The logic of saving lives in the long-run by these tactics seems to have been refuted by history.
Modern terrorism also follows the same basic strategy of targeting helpless non-combatants for attack in order to terrorize the remaining citizens into capitulation.
The contemporary American practice of only targeting military personnel for deliberate attack reverses the policy of the American government instituted by General Sherman in Atlanta in 1864. The policy of killing sufficient numbers of civilians and destroying their homes to force surrender has been recognized as the mark of only the most barbarous kind of terrorist, such as those who perpetrated the September 11 attacks.
General William T. Sherman meeting Yasser Arafat in Hell: "Good job killing those innocent people...You got what you wanted from the killings...I did the same in Atlanta in 1864."
by Tex in Tex February 3, 2008
In purely logical terms, this phrase is irrational since it is redundant. I am assuming that 'liberal' in this context means social democrat or socialist, not classical liberal.
"Those liberal scum are at it again trying to force us to live in the patterns they prefer--equality with everyone except the liberals who lord it over us all."
by Tex in Tex February 5, 2008
People who feel sorry for certain people, and find pleasure and a sense of significance in taking care of them. Some humanitarians use private, voluntary means to help others while other humanitarians prefer to use the State to force the general public to fund their efforts.
Humanitarians tend to view humans as innately good and kind. They want to facilitate whatever each person wants to do, no matter what it may be. They enjoy a sense of paternalism as they provide for and protect their wards. This tendency might be appropriate at times but can easily drift into a subtle form of control and dominance.
Humanitarians cannot believe that people are naturally selfish and sadistic. They tend to hold a pollyannish view of criminals and attempt to mitigate their punishment. They hate to see anyone suffer pain under any circumstances.
Humanitarians have a hard time concentrating their affection on a limited set of people, such as their family or their community. They seem emotionally restless and transient. They continually seek out new people to befriend and help without ever settling into a committed, intimate relationship with any one person or group in particular.
Utilitarians, followers of the Social Gospel, collectivists, and the political left each find their roots in humanitarianism. The origin of humanitarianism is likely to be found in a certain reading of the Bible and understanding of Christianity that emphasizes unilateral forgiveness, charity, and the brotherhood of all humans. Such a view tends not to be balanced by a clear understanding of human depravity, and the fact that Eden will not be restored on the Earth until Jesus returns and creates a new Earth with spiritually regenerated people.
Humanitarians tend to view humans as innately good and kind. They want to facilitate whatever each person wants to do, no matter what it may be. They enjoy a sense of paternalism as they provide for and protect their wards. This tendency might be appropriate at times but can easily drift into a subtle form of control and dominance.
Humanitarians cannot believe that people are naturally selfish and sadistic. They tend to hold a pollyannish view of criminals and attempt to mitigate their punishment. They hate to see anyone suffer pain under any circumstances.
Humanitarians have a hard time concentrating their affection on a limited set of people, such as their family or their community. They seem emotionally restless and transient. They continually seek out new people to befriend and help without ever settling into a committed, intimate relationship with any one person or group in particular.
Utilitarians, followers of the Social Gospel, collectivists, and the political left each find their roots in humanitarianism. The origin of humanitarianism is likely to be found in a certain reading of the Bible and understanding of Christianity that emphasizes unilateral forgiveness, charity, and the brotherhood of all humans. Such a view tends not to be balanced by a clear understanding of human depravity, and the fact that Eden will not be restored on the Earth until Jesus returns and creates a new Earth with spiritually regenerated people.
"Someone is at the door asking for money to help the poor."
"Oh, it's that humanitarian who is trying to save the world, one person at a time."
Months later...."It is the IRS knocking without a warrant. They are threatening to seize our home because we underpaid our taxes by 22 cents. They need the money for their government give-away programs run by some humanitarian who prefers to steal other people's money rather than donate the money himself."
"Oh, it's that humanitarian who is trying to save the world, one person at a time."
Months later...."It is the IRS knocking without a warrant. They are threatening to seize our home because we underpaid our taxes by 22 cents. They need the money for their government give-away programs run by some humanitarian who prefers to steal other people's money rather than donate the money himself."
by Tex in Tex January 28, 2008
Plural of those who subscribe to a humanitarian philosophy. Humanitarians feel sorry for certain people, and find pleasure and a sense of significance in taking care of them. Some humanitarians use private, voluntary means to help others while other humanitarians prefer to use the State to force the general public to fund their efforts.
Humanitarians tend to view humans as innately good and kind. They want to facilitate whatever each person wants to do, no matter what it may be. They enjoy a sense of paternalism as they provide for and protect their wards. This tendency might be appropriate at times but can easily drift into a subtle form of control and dominance.
Humanitarians cannot believe that people are naturally selfish and sadistic. They tend to hold a pollyannish view of criminals and attempt to mitigate their punishment. They hate to see anyone suffer pain under any circumstances.
Humanitarians have a hard time concentrating their affection on a limited set of people, such as their family or their community. They seem emotionally restless and transient. They continually seek out new people to befriend and help without ever settling into a committed, intimate relationship with any one person or group in particular.
Utilitarians, followers of the Social Gospel, collectivists, and the political left each find their roots in humanitarianism. The origin of humanitarianism is likely to be found in a certain reading of the Bible and understanding of Christianity that emphasizes unilateral forgiveness, charity, and the brotherhood of all humans. Such a view tends not to be balanced by a clear understanding of human depravity, and the fact that Eden will not be restored on the Earth until Jesus returns and creates a new Earth with spiritually regenerated people.
Humanitarians tend to view humans as innately good and kind. They want to facilitate whatever each person wants to do, no matter what it may be. They enjoy a sense of paternalism as they provide for and protect their wards. This tendency might be appropriate at times but can easily drift into a subtle form of control and dominance.
Humanitarians cannot believe that people are naturally selfish and sadistic. They tend to hold a pollyannish view of criminals and attempt to mitigate their punishment. They hate to see anyone suffer pain under any circumstances.
Humanitarians have a hard time concentrating their affection on a limited set of people, such as their family or their community. They seem emotionally restless and transient. They continually seek out new people to befriend and help without ever settling into a committed, intimate relationship with any one person or group in particular.
Utilitarians, followers of the Social Gospel, collectivists, and the political left each find their roots in humanitarianism. The origin of humanitarianism is likely to be found in a certain reading of the Bible and understanding of Christianity that emphasizes unilateral forgiveness, charity, and the brotherhood of all humans. Such a view tends not to be balanced by a clear understanding of human depravity, and the fact that Eden will not be restored on the Earth until Jesus returns and creates a new Earth with spiritually regenerated people.
"Someone is at the door asking for money to help the poor."
"Oh, it's one of those humanitarians who is trying to save the world, one person at a time."
Months later...."It is the IRS knocking without a warrant. They are threatening to seize our home because we underpaid our taxes by 22 cents. They need the money for their government give-away programs run by some humanitarian who prefers to steal other people's money rather than donate the money himself."
"Oh, it's one of those humanitarians who is trying to save the world, one person at a time."
Months later...."It is the IRS knocking without a warrant. They are threatening to seize our home because we underpaid our taxes by 22 cents. They need the money for their government give-away programs run by some humanitarian who prefers to steal other people's money rather than donate the money himself."
by Tex in Tex June 20, 2008
Aunt Pittypat Hamilton was a character in the novel and movie, *Gone with the Wind.* She was the older maiden aunt of Scarlett's first husband, Charles. She was also the aunt of Melanie Hamilton, Scarlett's friend and romantic competitor for the affections of Ashley.
After the death of Charles during the war, Scarlett moved from her home at Tara in Jonesboro to live with Aunt Pittypat in Atlanta. When General William T. Sherman and the Federal army attacked Atlanta in the summer of 1864, he deliberated shelled the civilian population of Atlanta. In the story, Aunt Pittypat flees the city to escape the bombardment shrieking "Yankees in Georgia!" just after a shell explodes as she boards a carriage.
During the Battle of Atlanta, Melanie who is "with child" gives birth. Scarlett's slave, Miss Prissy, promises to help deliver the child if needed. Scarlett goes to the doctor for help only to find him overwhelmed with the wounded from the battle. Scarlett reluctantly returns home to Aunt Pittpat's house. She turns to Miss Prissy for the promised help when Miss Prissy famously begs out saying, "Oh, Miss Scarlett, I don't know nothing about birthing no babies." Scarlett slaps her and then proceeds to deliver the baby herself.
After Melanie gives birth, a stray Yankee soldier enters the house looking for loot. Scarlett confronts him on the stairs and he attacks her. Unknown to the soldier, Scarlett is packing a pistol and shoots him in the face as Melanie comes up from behind Scarlett brandishing a sword.
A restaurant in contemporary downtown Atlanta is named "Aunt Pittypat's Porch" in honor of Aunt Pittypat and the culture that she represented.
After the death of Charles during the war, Scarlett moved from her home at Tara in Jonesboro to live with Aunt Pittypat in Atlanta. When General William T. Sherman and the Federal army attacked Atlanta in the summer of 1864, he deliberated shelled the civilian population of Atlanta. In the story, Aunt Pittypat flees the city to escape the bombardment shrieking "Yankees in Georgia!" just after a shell explodes as she boards a carriage.
During the Battle of Atlanta, Melanie who is "with child" gives birth. Scarlett's slave, Miss Prissy, promises to help deliver the child if needed. Scarlett goes to the doctor for help only to find him overwhelmed with the wounded from the battle. Scarlett reluctantly returns home to Aunt Pittpat's house. She turns to Miss Prissy for the promised help when Miss Prissy famously begs out saying, "Oh, Miss Scarlett, I don't know nothing about birthing no babies." Scarlett slaps her and then proceeds to deliver the baby herself.
After Melanie gives birth, a stray Yankee soldier enters the house looking for loot. Scarlett confronts him on the stairs and he attacks her. Unknown to the soldier, Scarlett is packing a pistol and shoots him in the face as Melanie comes up from behind Scarlett brandishing a sword.
A restaurant in contemporary downtown Atlanta is named "Aunt Pittypat's Porch" in honor of Aunt Pittypat and the culture that she represented.
by Tex in Tex February 15, 2008
Cognitive rationality is matching one's beliefs with reality. Instrumental rationality is choosing effective means to achieve one's goals. Achieving one's goals in the real world necessarily demands that one's beliefs be consistent with the independent reality that stands over against us. Teleological rationality is choosing the right goals as established by the objective moral order ordained by God.
Logic can be rational in some cases and not others. Science can be rational in some cases and not others. The same with emotions, intuitions, art, and religious faith. Let's consider logic in this regard. Logic can clearly spell out the assumptions and the argument structure that lead people to the conclusions they are propounding. The clarity of these arguments can verify the truth of the claim one is making so that one has a clear and distinct idea of it. If there is an error in the reasoning, then the clarity of articulating the argument allows one to identify and correct the mistake. On the other hand, there are cases where the knowledge that is necessary to draw a conclusion is implicit, so that the premisses cannot be clearly spelled out. For example, as Michael Polanyi has observed, it is impossible to fully describe how to ride a bicycle. Much of what distinguishes expert from advanced novice levels of knowledge of a skill is unarticulable knowledge. In these cases, habit and intuition get at the truth more effectively than more explicit approaches to understanding. The reductionist approach in science runs into similar shortcomings. For example, if a scientifically knowledgeable young man tries to woo a young lady he is in love with by explaining very clearly how she affects his hormones and neurotransmitters, he is likely to be unsuccessful as well as failing to accurately describe the experience of falling in love.
It is not always rational to gain every extra bit of information before making a decision. Economists recognize this principle and term it "rational ignorance." The time and energy of gaining additional information past a certain point may not be rewarded with greater effectiveness in making the decision. In most cases, it is more effective to specialize in a few areas and then trust others to gain the necessary information to meet a range of needs that one is not meeting oneself. For example, it is more efficient to specialize in whatever one is interested in and talented in and then trade with others for what one needs. This principle is called "comparative advantage." The same principle is at work in faith in God. We have faith in our mechanic or doctor who is more able than we are, so it is with God. Faith is only as good as the object of one's faith. Faith is not some mysterious power radiating out from the person, but rather simply trusting someone who is more able for a particular task.
Artistic expression can be rational since it possesses a systematic structure that can be delineated formally. More importantly, artistic expression can touch the viewers or hearers in a more immediate, intuitive way that more effectively communicates the intended message than more analytic expressions of the same truths.
Emotions themselves can be rational since we can judge people's emotional reactions as appropriate or inappropriate, e.g. if someone cries uncontrollably upon tasting a carrot, then we can immediately see that something is amiss in the person's emotional life. As Aristotle observed, the key to a balanced life is to feel the appropriate emotion, to the appropriate degree, and directed toward the appropriate person or object. Emotions motivate people to act, identify what is salient in their surroundings, and coordinates human actions. The last point is made by philosopher Allan Gibbard who argues that if each person acts on the apt emotion as they interact with one another, conflicts will be minimized. For example, if one person acts so that he violates another's rights, the victim will feel and express anger. As the aggressor senses the victim's anger, he will be motivated to remedy the wrong, otherwise there will be more severe actions taken by the victim to redress the wrong. The guilt and shame that the aggressor feels will restore harmony to the relationship.
Choosing the appropriate goals in life will make the person's life more fruitful and more satisfying. Choosing goals that are inconsistent with the objective moral order of the universe will lead to frustration and personal injury. Again, rationality is a matter of harmony between the individual, his social and natural environment, and God.
Logic can be rational in some cases and not others. Science can be rational in some cases and not others. The same with emotions, intuitions, art, and religious faith. Let's consider logic in this regard. Logic can clearly spell out the assumptions and the argument structure that lead people to the conclusions they are propounding. The clarity of these arguments can verify the truth of the claim one is making so that one has a clear and distinct idea of it. If there is an error in the reasoning, then the clarity of articulating the argument allows one to identify and correct the mistake. On the other hand, there are cases where the knowledge that is necessary to draw a conclusion is implicit, so that the premisses cannot be clearly spelled out. For example, as Michael Polanyi has observed, it is impossible to fully describe how to ride a bicycle. Much of what distinguishes expert from advanced novice levels of knowledge of a skill is unarticulable knowledge. In these cases, habit and intuition get at the truth more effectively than more explicit approaches to understanding. The reductionist approach in science runs into similar shortcomings. For example, if a scientifically knowledgeable young man tries to woo a young lady he is in love with by explaining very clearly how she affects his hormones and neurotransmitters, he is likely to be unsuccessful as well as failing to accurately describe the experience of falling in love.
It is not always rational to gain every extra bit of information before making a decision. Economists recognize this principle and term it "rational ignorance." The time and energy of gaining additional information past a certain point may not be rewarded with greater effectiveness in making the decision. In most cases, it is more effective to specialize in a few areas and then trust others to gain the necessary information to meet a range of needs that one is not meeting oneself. For example, it is more efficient to specialize in whatever one is interested in and talented in and then trade with others for what one needs. This principle is called "comparative advantage." The same principle is at work in faith in God. We have faith in our mechanic or doctor who is more able than we are, so it is with God. Faith is only as good as the object of one's faith. Faith is not some mysterious power radiating out from the person, but rather simply trusting someone who is more able for a particular task.
Artistic expression can be rational since it possesses a systematic structure that can be delineated formally. More importantly, artistic expression can touch the viewers or hearers in a more immediate, intuitive way that more effectively communicates the intended message than more analytic expressions of the same truths.
Emotions themselves can be rational since we can judge people's emotional reactions as appropriate or inappropriate, e.g. if someone cries uncontrollably upon tasting a carrot, then we can immediately see that something is amiss in the person's emotional life. As Aristotle observed, the key to a balanced life is to feel the appropriate emotion, to the appropriate degree, and directed toward the appropriate person or object. Emotions motivate people to act, identify what is salient in their surroundings, and coordinates human actions. The last point is made by philosopher Allan Gibbard who argues that if each person acts on the apt emotion as they interact with one another, conflicts will be minimized. For example, if one person acts so that he violates another's rights, the victim will feel and express anger. As the aggressor senses the victim's anger, he will be motivated to remedy the wrong, otherwise there will be more severe actions taken by the victim to redress the wrong. The guilt and shame that the aggressor feels will restore harmony to the relationship.
Choosing the appropriate goals in life will make the person's life more fruitful and more satisfying. Choosing goals that are inconsistent with the objective moral order of the universe will lead to frustration and personal injury. Again, rationality is a matter of harmony between the individual, his social and natural environment, and God.
Listen to the voice of reason...it might be calling to you where you least expect it...Rationality is simply listening to reality.
by Tex in Tex February 6, 2008