Notes of an Otiose Reactionary

Thought on homesteading

2011-06-28T12:06:00.001+02:00

A problem with the homesteading idea is, intuition tells us, that we should not have the right to ruin the land we use, even if it is ours by homesteading. The libertarian solution is as far as I can tell is, that people will not do this, because they can ultimately profit more, if they don't, but obviously people don't tend to think in such terms, in terms of generations, even if they’ve been brought up to. The theoretical solution seems to me to lie in the idea, that we have an outside obligation with inherited goods and that with un-homesteaded land we have an obligation towards mankind, as everyone potentially has the right to use the land. So by homesteading I am taking away someones possibility to hunt on this land or homestead it himself, so I thereby owe him something for depriving him of the possibility. So land I homestead is like inherited land bound by this obligation as integral part, so it cannot be sold and therefore bought without it. All inherited goods come with this obligation to look after them to ones best abilities.

Notes

2010-10-27T23:23:00.001+02:00

Logic is a metaphor for those lacking imagination.

Notes

2010-04-03T17:39:00.003+02:00

There's no equality, except among slaves.

Notes

2010-01-24T14:43:00.009+01:00

Just as every person has any ability to a different degree, every person has a differing ability for liberty. So, when we curtail peoples liberties, we impose on them to different degrees.

If somebody less capable of liberty can impose restrictions on somebody more capable of liberty, he will usually curtail liberty down to his level.

Russell was right, envy is the driving force of democracy.

A person to admire, unfortunately I can't remember who it was, is he, of whom it said as the dedication to a Festschrift for him: 'A gentleman in an ungentlemanly world'.

Afterthought on Bullfighting

2009-10-21T10:50:00.008+02:00

The goal of the torero in the bullfight is to take possession of the force of nature, which is the bull. The only way to truly take possession of another being is by killing it, therefore the drama of the bullfight is how does the torero manage this inevitable end. Alas, the end is only nearly inevitable on account of the indulto, which can be awarded in an especially outstanding bullfight. This means that the bull's life is spared, so the end of killing can be avoided, but an exception made, if the torero is so close to taking possession of the bull alive, that it is no longer necessary to kill the bull.

Notes

2009-10-21T10:22:00.005+02:00

Nothing is irrelevant.

It’s only our mental limitations that force us to disregard things which our pride then calls irrelevant.

Liberty without responsibility is an impossibility, we delude ourselves about.

Responsibility without liberty is a perversion, we get deluded about.

Being a reactionary is not about thinking the past was better, but about remembering the good and bad in the past to make the future better.

On Envy

2009-04-16T13:15:00.004+02:00

King Rudradeva of Kumaon talking about addictions in his Śyainikaśāstra says: ,Envy means intolerance of others’ prosperity’ – I would replace prosperity with happiness. To be tolerant, is only possible if my beliefs are strong enough for what I tolerate to be a burden. Where envy is concerned, these are beliefs about justice and entitlement. These beliefs can have a variety of very unequal roots. First, the childish, unreflected belief which every child seems to be instilled with and many adults never let go. Second, belief based on personal reflections, which should be part of growing up. Third, philosophical beliefs, thought through by specialists and usually embedded in a greater system of beliefs – this is a somewhat optimistic view of philosophy. Fourth, religious beliefs, based on divine revelations – these too can be reflected and unreflected.

So, envy is the intolerance of others’ happiness, the inability to bare the others’ happiness, based on my belief that the others’ happiness is in some way unjust, that the others are not entitled to their happiness. In Christianity envy is one of the seven deadly sins, but with the growing independence of philosophy, the positive side of envy is discovered – mostly by pointing out the incentive it gives. King Rudradeva’s quote continues: ‘It [Envy] is praiseworthy when it incites to action against rivals or enemies, because inspired by envy, people try to destroy them’. Against that I would hold that the incentive is given by the hope to achieve what the others have. If the incentive is all that envy gives me, then I am able to bear the others’ happiness, therefore I am not envious.

Envy can manifest itself economically, socially and politically, so as result of others’ prosperity, social class, capability and power. Being intolerant of these, the only thing that can be done is to take them away or destroy them. In his The Conquest of Happiness Bertrand Russell says that envy is the basis of democracy – this makes sense, as bringing my betters down to my level ensures equality so important to democracy. That said, how it is possible believe in a Christian democracy, I do not know. Mind you, Pope Leo XIII in Gravis de Communi Re did forbid the expression ‘Christian democracy’ to be used with political significance.

Book on Envy: Helmut Schoeck: Der Neid. Eine Theorie der Gesellschaft, 1966

On Bullfighting

2009-04-15T18:50:00.010+02:00

Bullfighting is not really fighting, as it is not reciprocal, but hierarchical - in that it is like hunting. Also, death is essential to both of them, it is the natural end of the hunt and the corrida. Whereas the hunt is an epic, which could lead anywhere as the end is not known, the bullfight is a drama, where the end is inevitable, the suspense lies in the grasp of the end, without knowing the way there. By killing the bull, the torero takes possession of another being inferior to him. In a time obsessed with equality and ignoring death, it is clear that such a strong manifestation of both disturbs.

Books on Bullfighting: Ernest Hemingway: Death in the Afternoon, 1932, A. L. Kennedy: On Bullfighting, 1999, Domingo Ortega: El arte del toreo, 1950,which contains an epilogue by José Ortega y Gasset, which is re-printed in: La Caza y los Toros, 1960, much of what Ortega says about the ethics of hunting holds for bullfighting as well.