House of Eratosthenes

In the past several years, they have gradually become “conservative” observations/understandings/axioms, or even worse, “extreme right wing.” We should not be thinking of them in that way. In fact, I would not object to their being recited at the beginning of each session of Congress, right after the opening prayer. We’d probably all be a lot better off. This is stuff you need to know, or admit, before deciding on any matter of significant complexity (the first 9), on any matter in a group environment (the next 4 after those), or any matter of public policy (the last 7).

1. My values are [blank].
2. My vision is in harmony with my values, and it is [blank].
3. My objective is consistent with my vision, and it is that [blank].
4. My objective depends on [blank] being accomplished (or prevented from happening).
5. If I must learn something new to meet my objective, I will have to admit that I don’t know it, in order to learn it.
6. A possibility is not necessarily a likelihood.
7. A likelihood is not necessarily a fact.
8. [blank] and [blank] are meaningfully different; what works for one does not necessarily work for the other.
9. [blank] and [blank] are functionally equivalent; they are not different in any meaningful way.
10. A bad idea is a bad idea, it doesn’t matter what respectable person or authority figure is offering it.
11. A good idea is a good idea, it doesn’t matter how much righteous loathing is felt against the individual offering it.
12. Past performance of an idea is not a guarantee of future results involving the same idea.
13. However, it is a good indicator of success or failure, unless there is significant change in the implementation, or the situation.
14. Equality of opportunity among the several classes, is not the same as guaranteed equality of outcome.
15. Some things shouldn’t be decided by majority rule.
16. But other things should be.
17. We should expect an occupation to be filled by the types of people who meet that occupation’s demand.
18. We should expect people to respond to incentives, both positive and negative.
19. Diminishing the strong and capable does not do anything, by itself, to help the weak and incapable.
20. Some are indigent by their own choice, and some are indigent by circumstance. Recalling #8: These are meaningfully different.

Very well said.

The problem, though, is that all 20 of your things require looking at things severally, not collectively, which is not something leftists are good at. For instance, Marx (yep, him again) wrote:

“It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness.”

The South Park guys wrote:

1. Collect Underpants
2. ?
3. Profit!

Citing your rule 9, I can’t see any real difference between Marx and the Underpants Gnomes. It requires some unknowable something that by their own definition doesn’t, and can’t, exist — changing consciousness requires a change in social being, but that requires a change in consciousness, which requires a change in social being…

Leftists don’t, though. They’re 100% invested that they, or more correctly their anointed representatives here on earth, not only know what the (?) is, but can actually make it happen. Whatever else it may be morally or philosophically, as a matter of practical politics, leftism has always boiled down to an attempt to change men’s social being by means of that (?). Which means that their vision is always collective. Their approach centers on what should (or must) happen to large collective groups, and always in the service of some future state of being.

To put it more simply: Your rules and approach are analog. They focus on achieving defined objective X, which is just one discrete event in the stream of causes and consequences and outcomes that make up our lives. Leftists are digital. They believe that by rejiggering a few things about humanity as a whole — step (?) — they will achieve utopia. Social justice, whatever. It’s a state, not an event. Both consciousness and social being are transformed, and we all blissfully chew our lotus leaves forevermore.
- Severian | 01/19/2013 @ 14:42
Yeah, all these years later I’m still trying to figure out if Parker and Stone did us a service or a disservice when they put out that episode: It is now impossible to discuss leftists in any great detail without mentioning those damn gnomes.

“They really got my balls in a salad shooter, son…”
- mkfreeberg | 01/19/2013 @ 14:48
[…] From the twenty truths that are absolutely non-partisan, or damn well ought to be… […]
- House of Eratosthenes | 02/05/2013 @ 06:59
[…] Recalling, once again, the two most important and elusive items from my list of twenty things that are absolutely non-partisan or damn well ought to be: […]
- House of Eratosthenes | 02/09/2013 @ 17:54
[…] Dignifying it with a response — and I’m conflicted about that, but I’ll go with it — Takei makes the mistake of neglecting thing-that-is-non-partisan-or-darn-well-should-be Number Eight: […]
- House of Eratosthenes | 03/02/2013 @ 08:02
[…] Dignifying it with a response — and I’m conflicted about that, but I’ll go with it — Takei makes the mistake of neglecting thing-that-is-non-partisan-or-darn-well-should-be Number Eight: […]
- About the President’s Presser Yesterday | Rotten Chestnuts | 03/02/2013 @ 08:31
[…] argument must fail, I would say, if it transgresses against any of the twenty things that are non-partisan, or darn well ought to be, that I wrote […]
- House of Eratosthenes | 05/01/2013 @ 05:33
[…] to be effective if I ever have to use it.” This is merely paying due respect to Item #8 from the twenty things that are non-partisan, or darn well ought to be. And isn’t that just common sense? Hey, maybe that’s the way to explain it, to people […]
- House of Eratosthenes | 05/04/2013 @ 17:50
[…] they’re going to do whatever is necessary to make that happen — have to follow the twenty. Those items of truth that are completely non-ideological and non-partisan…or…darn well […]
- House of Eratosthenes | 03/18/2014 @ 07:12
[…] with the “twenty non-partisan things,” to which I sometimes refer as “twenty things that are non-partisan, or darn well ought to be.” Our concern here is with the first four of the […]
- House of Eratosthenes | 10/23/2014 @ 23:19
[…] on both the left and the right, are correct to criticize him for this. They are recalling from the Twenty things that are non-partisan, or darn well ought to be what could arguably be the most important one, Number […]
- House of Eratosthenes | 03/18/2016 @ 04:20

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Twenty Non-Partisan ThingsSaturday, January 19th, 2013

Twenty Non-Partisan Things
Saturday, January 19th, 2013