L'homme de batte de Berlin

I’ve expressed something less than love for Les Fran�ais before, but between Far� (here, here, and here) and now Herv� de Quengo (and of course, the beautiful, patient, and thoroughly loveable Professor Marcus herself), I might just become a Francophile.

M. de Quengo has some of The Berlin Batman online:

(Thanks to the Mises Scholars community for tracking this down.)

L’homme de batte de Berlin

I’ve expressed something less than love for Les Fran�ais before, but between Far� (here, here, and here) and now Herv� de Quengo (and of course, the beautiful, patient, and thoroughly loveable Professor Marcus herself), I might just become a Francophile.

M. de Quengo has some of The Berlin Batman online:

(Thanks to the Mises Scholars community for tracking this down.)

sacraliser c'est immoraliser

Here’s my attempt to translate the French blog entry I quoted earlier:

To declare something sacred is to hold it above comparison. It is to refuse to make a rational choice on the subject. It is to call for the automatic and irrational acceptance of certain behaviors by banishing the alternatives under the imposing yoke of moral authority. It is, in short, intimidation.

The refusal to choose rationally does not prevent the dilemma — it prevents only the rational decision-making to best solve the dilemma, and substitutes instead the superstitious faith in arbitrarily accepted codes of conduct, which are themselves subject to the manipulations of sentimentalists, blackmailers, and other swindlers.

To make something sacred is to remove it from the realm of morality: it is to deny the moral dignity of man, his freedom and his responsibility, when faced with the choice of exactly those things most precious to his existence.

The next time you hear someone use as an argument The Sacredness Of Life (or of anything else) or ask indignantly, But how can you make such a comparison? — don’t fall for it! It is precisely because the comparison is possible — and offers a crushingly obvious conclusion — that there is a moral choice on your part. Your fate depends on your ability to escape the fiends who would take your conscience hostage.

(With help from babelfish and Professor Marcus.)

Actually, just for kicks, I’ll include babelfish’s somewhat less coherent version:

To declare a thing crowned, it is to prohibit to compare it with other things. It is thus to refuse to make rational choices since this thing is concerned. It is to call with the irrational acceptance of a certain behavior posed a priori by evacuating the alternatives under the imposing yoke of the moral authority. In short, it is intimidation. The refusal to choose rationally does not prevent the emergence of dilemmas concerning the sacrilized thing, it prevents just the rational decision-making to solve these dilemmas as well as possible, and the superstitious faith in certain arbitrarily accepted codes of conduct substitutes to him, and which are then the subject of handling of traffickers in finer feelingss, main singers, and other swindlers. To sacrilize it is immoraliser: it is to deny the moral dignity of the man, his freedom and its responsibility, vis-a-vis with the choices which precisely relate to the most invaluable things of its existence. The next time that you will intend somebody to use the crowned character of the life (or other) like argument, or to be indignant but how can you make this comparison? — you do not let take with the trap. It is precisely because the comparison is possible, and offers a conclusion of a crushing obviousness, that there is moral choice of your share. Your fate depends on your capacity to escape to the torturers who take your conscience as an hostage.

sacraliser c’est immoraliser

Here’s my attempt to translate the French blog entry I quoted earlier:

To declare something sacred is to hold it above comparison. It is to refuse to make a rational choice on the subject. It is to call for the automatic and irrational acceptance of certain behaviors by banishing the alternatives under the imposing yoke of moral authority. It is, in short, intimidation.

The refusal to choose rationally does not prevent the dilemma — it prevents only the rational decision-making to best solve the dilemma, and substitutes instead the superstitious faith in arbitrarily accepted codes of conduct, which are themselves subject to the manipulations of sentimentalists, blackmailers, and other swindlers.

To make something sacred is to remove it from the realm of morality: it is to deny the moral dignity of man, his freedom and his responsibility, when faced with the choice of exactly those things most precious to his existence.

The next time you hear someone use as an argument The Sacredness Of Life (or of anything else) or ask indignantly, But how can you make such a comparison? — don’t fall for it! It is precisely because the comparison is possible — and offers a crushingly obvious conclusion — that there is a moral choice on your part. Your fate depends on your ability to escape the fiends who would take your conscience hostage.

(With help from babelfish and Professor Marcus.)

Actually, just for kicks, I’ll include babelfish’s somewhat less coherent version:

To declare a thing crowned, it is to prohibit to compare it with other things. It is thus to refuse to make rational choices since this thing is concerned. It is to call with the irrational acceptance of a certain behavior posed a priori by evacuating the alternatives under the imposing yoke of the moral authority. In short, it is intimidation. The refusal to choose rationally does not prevent the emergence of dilemmas concerning the sacrilized thing, it prevents just the rational decision-making to solve these dilemmas as well as possible, and the superstitious faith in certain arbitrarily accepted codes of conduct substitutes to him, and which are then the subject of handling of traffickers in finer feelingss, main singers, and other swindlers. To sacrilize it is immoraliser: it is to deny the moral dignity of the man, his freedom and its responsibility, vis-a-vis with the choices which precisely relate to the most invaluable things of its existence. The next time that you will intend somebody to use the crowned character of the life (or other) like argument, or to be indignant but how can you make this comparison? — you do not let take with the trap. It is precisely because the comparison is possible, and offers a conclusion of a crushing obviousness, that there is moral choice of your share. Your fate depends on your capacity to escape to the torturers who take your conscience as an hostage.

mugging anarchists

black eye small gene callahan dot orgGene Callahan, author of Economics for Real People, which I’ve previously recommended as a good place to begin developing economic literacy, was mugged in London two days ago.

He begins his blog post about it, “The old quip was that a neoconservative was a liberal who had been mugged.”

Now I first heard that joke in either the late 1980s or the early 1990s, when very few quippers knew what a “neoconservative” was.

I only knew because my highschool girlfriend explained it to me. Her mother, who was such a creature, worked for Norman Podhoretz, one of the founders of that now famous movement. (Which label too many leftists use as if it were synonymous with “conservative” or “right-wing”. Morons.) In fact, I interviewed my mother as a typical so-called liberal and my girlfriend’s mother as a typical so-called conservative (when they were actually a social democrat, and a neocon, respectively) for a high school history project on the different perspectives of different political persuasions. The topic was the Cuban Missile Crisis. One thing I remember from the neocon mom was that she rejected the “Old Right” (which I’d never heard of) and considered herself a JFK Democrat, a trade-unionist, etc., but the establishment Left had moved away from what she saw as the correct positions on the Cold War and culture. (She had a big blue campaign button that said “Reagan!” in Hebrew. I didn’t like that one very much.)

The way I heard the joke was this: A social conservative is a social liberal who has been mugged.

Another version: A social conservative is a social liberal with a teenaged daughter.

Anyway, I’ll write about neoconservatism some other time; I’ll write about my own experiences with muggings another time; right now I just wanted to point you to Callahan’s blog.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 323 other followers