She can't feel anything
By R Mutt (Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 02:13:44 AM EST) MLP (all tags)
Synthetic meat could be available in 5 years [:(]

USB air-conditioned shirt [:o S2MM]

World's politest cities New York top, Bombay bottom, London and Paris equal. [:(]

List of fictional expletives [:o BB]

Key:
[MeFi] = Stolen from Metafilter
[/.] = Stolen from Slashdot
[M] = Stolen from Memepool
[BX] = Stolen from Blogdex
[X.] = Stolen from Christdot
[)] = Stolen from Monkeyfilter
[B] = Stolen from B3ta
[GG] = Stolen from Green Gabbro
[BFB] = Stolen from Big Fat Blog
[BB] = Stolen from Boing Boing
[PU] = Stolen from PopURLs
[S2MM] = Stolen from Stuff I Send To My mates
[[:)] = Needs sound
[:(] = Serious
[:)] = Amusing
[;)] = Ironic
[:o] = Strange
[*] = Flash
[#] = Free registration required
[NSFW] = Not Safe For Work
[NSFWFUP] = Not Safe For Work For Ultra-Prudish
[(UK)] = UK-centric
[LL] = Late or repeated link
She can't feel anything | 35 comments (35 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback
Liberalism by jump the ladder (4.00 / 2) #1 Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 02:40:42 AM EST
Don't think the governing parties here or in Usia actually practice liberalism as I understand it.

Here's it's worrying blend of nanny statism, tabloid led populism  combined with free market economics. Not liberalism at all.

And GWB is hardly a liberal even in economic terms.

hardly free market economics by tps12 (4.00 / 1) #3 Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 03:09:34 AM EST
The dominant economic entity being the corporation, a creation of the state.

[ Parent ]
OK by jump the ladder (2.00 / 0) #4 Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 03:14:14 AM EST
Regulated corporate capitilism then.

[ Parent ]
? by DesiredUsername (4.00 / 1) #5 Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 03:14:49 AM EST
A corporation as a legal entity with rights is a creation of the state, but as an aggregation of workers economically competing against other workers it seems pretty fundamental (as in "fundamentalist freemarketarian").

---
Now accepting suggestions for a new sigline
[ Parent ]
karl marx would only approve of one of those (nt) by tps12 (2.00 / 0) #9 Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 03:37:56 AM EST

[ Parent ]
not if they had a CEO by DesiredUsername (2.00 / 0) #11 Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 03:56:33 AM EST
And I don't see how that's a creation of the state.

---
Now accepting suggestions for a new sigline
[ Parent ]
The creation of the state part is the charter by lm (2.00 / 0) #13 Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 04:14:59 AM EST
The state granted corporate charter that both grants personhood, and hence legal rights, to a corporation and absolves shareholders from all libability is a creation of the state.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
But you already said that, right? [nt] by lm (2.00 / 0) #15 Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 04:16:28 AM EST

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
But surely by Cloaked User (2.00 / 0) #16 Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 04:20:59 AM EST
What the charter says to the shareholders and board is, in effect, "do what you want, we won't hold it against you". If that's not free, I don't know what is...

--
This is not a psychotic episode. It is a cleansing moment of clarity.
[ Parent ]
Depends on what you mean by freedom by lm (2.00 / 0) #18 Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 04:31:17 AM EST
I'm not certain that the state preventing an individual from experiencing the direct consequences of his or her actions counts as freedom. Especially when this prevention is done by inhibiting the freedom of others. All the creditors of Enron, as but one example, are not free to sue Enron's shareholders to recover their losses as they ought to be.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
Well, we were talking about the free market by Cloaked User (2.00 / 0) #19 Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 04:49:23 AM EST
Seems to me that the corporate charter makes those protected by it free(r) to act in ways to increase their market value.

Note that I'm not arguing that this is a good thing.

--
This is not a psychotic episode. It is a cleansing moment of clarity.

[ Parent ]
I won't argue that it doesn't make some more free by lm (2.00 / 0) #25 Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 05:37:04 AM EST
But the question is whether it makes society as a whole more free. Granting freedom to the few by removing freedom from the many runs contrary to liberalism.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
plus, spock would disaprove. by garlic (2.00 / 0) #35 Thu Jun 22, 2006 at 05:28:39 AM EST

[ Parent ]
but by tps12 (2.00 / 0) #22 Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 05:04:49 AM EST
The amount of freedom enjoyed by any limited group of individuals in an economy isn't a reasonable measure of the extent to which the economy consists of free markets. A feudal lord who tells everyone exactly what to produce and consume also has a lot of freedom, but that doesn't mean that there's a free market anywhere to be found.

[ Parent ]
Pretty-much what I was thinking by Cloaked User (2.00 / 0) #10 Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 03:46:18 AM EST
Now, I'm no economist, but I was under the impression that the whole point of incorporation was to limit (eliminate?) the personal liability of the people in charge. Surely that makes them even freer than they otherwise would have been, safe in the knowledge that almost no matter how much they fuck people and Society over, they'll be ok even if the company is punished?

--
This is not a psychotic episode. It is a cleansing moment of clarity.
[ Parent ]
limited liability by aphrael (2.00 / 0) #34 Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 01:46:00 PM EST
is entirely a creation of the state, and would not exist without continuing state support.
If television is a babysitter, the internet is a drunk librarian who won't shut up.
[ Parent ]
Feudalism by any other name by Rogerborg (2.00 / 0) #8 Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 03:37:21 AM EST
The overthrow of the ruling Barons is just done by stabbing them in the back with a pen rather than a dagger, and they're allowed to loot the castle before they leave.

-
Metus amatores matrum compescit, non clementia.
[ Parent ]
Would eating synthetic people be cannibalism? by Rogerborg (4.00 / 1) #2 Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 03:04:10 AM EST
Crikey, think of the marketing potential.  I'd pay $1,000 for a pound of Alyson Hannigan, right off the bat. "Peregrine Worsthorne" is a joke name, surely. I particularly liked his gag about the Iraq adventure being about spreading secular free thought. Most jolly. I'd like to see the researchers that they used in New York, to see if they corrected for hawtness factors. What is Alyson Hannigan up to these days, anyway? - Metus amatores matrum compescit, non clementia. you mean by martingale (4.00 / 1) #6 Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 03:16:18 AM EST besides the fake naughty video? I don't know. Is it time for a scooby doo reunion movie? --$E(X_t|F_s) = X_s,\quad t > s\$
[ Parent ]
Oh by DullTrev (4.00 / 1) #7 Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 03:33:02 AM EST

She's around.

--
DFJ?
[ Parent ]
Peregrine Worsthorne's view is over simplistic by lm (4.00 / 1) #12 Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 04:01:33 AM EST
He wants to argue that there is only one true liberalism and that this liberalism is (or at least used to be) dedicated to doubt, cynical about certainty and, above all, suspicious of power.'' But liberalism has always had various factions that run from the span from Grotius to Hegal and from Locke and Hobbes to Marx. They are united only in their starting point that liberty is defining attribute of the human person. But they all differ on what liberty actually entails and which liberties are the most important. For Marx, the important thing is freedom from material want. For Hobbes, freedom from war. For Grotius, freedom to trade. In some of these thinkers, Locke for example, there was tremendous suspicion of power. But in others, Hegel and Hobbes, it is only power that enables liberty.

But Worsthorne does have an interesting observation. That liberalism starts from the assumption that, with the old dragons of despotic kingship, religious intolerance, patrician insolence and, finally, totalitarianism successfully dispatched, another window of opportunity has opened for liberalism to declare war on human, and even eventually animal, pain and suffering - regardless of the fact that this limitlessly ambitious new war must assuredly involve a vast extension of governmental power to enforce political correctness.''

First, I think Worsthorne would do better to argue that that rather than having slayed the dragons of old, liberalism has become the dragons of old. For example, the hereditary aristocracy has long been replaced by a corporate oligarchy.

But even more interesting, to me at least, is assertion that the new'' mission of liberalism can only be conducted with a vast extension of governmental power. That is, indeed, what many of the formative thinkers of liberalism argued. (Hobbes and Hegel especially stick out on this point.) But it is not clear to me that this is a necessary part of the program other than inasmuch as government is necessary for the rule of law to obtain.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
Liberalism and Conservatism by cam (2.00 / 0) #14 Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 04:15:16 AM EST
are naturally at odds. Since Fukuyama's end of history, liberalism has been on the back foot from conservatism and is the one defending itself from organized assault. I think Scrymarch commented on something to the effect when something wins, especially without knowing it, there is an inevitable anti-reformation.
[ Parent ]
Sauer Thompson makes a telling point by lm (4.00 / 1) #17 Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 04:28:33 AM EST
He observes that the right accepts the liberal case for a market order'' even if it doesn't accept other liberal ideals. Hence, he concludes (if only to a limited degree) that modern conservatism tends to be liberal. Free markets and  Democracy itself are both liberal principles and not many conservatives oppose either idea.

The problem with the page you linked to is that it, like most people are want to do, tend to lump everyone into one camp when the one camp is really a school of competing ideas. Take the quote from Moynihan that came up where the underlying principle of liberalism is seen as the rule that politics can shape culture. This stands both Marx and Hegel on their head. Marx, because he argues that both culture and politics are abstract superstructures that sit on top of a material (economic) base. Hegel, because he argues that you can't really separate culture from politics and that the end of history comes about from individuals (world-historical individuals who align their own personal interests with the end of history) rather than cultures and political realms.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
Conservatism by cam (2.00 / 0) #20 Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 04:57:13 AM EST
especially organized conservatism is selective in its battles. Though the Australian conservatives (Liberal Party) tend to be free enterprise, rather than free market, the latter being Smith's economic liberalism.

Then again Australian conservatives see the nation as the dominant political entity that actively/passively represents and integrates culture/heritage. The individual gains sustenance and meaning from the political submission to the nation.

Whereas progressives and liberterians in this area see the individual as the dominant political entity (hence human/individual rights). So it could be argued that conservatism is consistent in being liberal in areas of economy and democracy as long as the nation is the dominant discrete political entity.

[ Parent ]
Ah, but you forget what Gramsci wrote by Rogerborg (2.00 / 0) #23 Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 05:18:24 AM EST
Which was "Reading dead authorities' stale ideas regurgitated in lieu of making persuasive original arguments gets really old really fast."

At least, I think that's what he meant to say.

-
Metus amatores matrum compescit, non clementia.

[ Parent ]
Gramsci wasn't responding to an article that ... by lm (4.00 / 1) #24 Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 05:34:43 AM EST
...  invoked Mills and past liberalism in comparison to modern liberalism, now, was he?

I think you need to take your necrophobia to Worsthorne himself.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
Ah, about that by Rogerborg (2.00 / 0) #26 Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 06:49:31 AM EST
I didn't get past "Liberalism has much to its credit.", for reasons that I hope are obvious.

-
Metus amatores matrum compescit, non clementia.
[ Parent ]
Quorn, by ambrosen (4.00 / 1) #21 Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 05:02:41 AM EST
is synthetic meat.

naw by Merekat (2.00 / 0) #28 Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 07:05:00 AM EST
It is a protein that works as a tolerable meat-substitute when handled properly but I wouldn't call it meat.

[ Parent ]
Cell cultures probably won't cook like meat though by ambrosen (2.00 / 0) #29 Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 07:50:12 AM EST
Maybe like mince, but not like steak.

It's just culturing a less specialised type of cell at the moment. And obviously not one from an animal source.

[ Parent ]
Qorn is derived from a fungus by lm (2.00 / 0) #30 Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 07:55:56 AM EST
Which makes it a synthetic fungus rather than a synthetic meat. At least if by meat, you mean animal meat.

The article pointed out the same observation you made. Ground synthetic meat, they say, is about 5 years away. Steak from a petri dish will have to wait until they can grow blood vessels, fatty tissue and tone the muscle.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
I know, by ambrosen (2.00 / 0) #31 Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 08:06:41 AM EST
that's because fungi are easier to grow in culture. The making of the slop of cells into something that resembles meat is already here, it's just that those cells aren't yet animal cells.

In many ways, though, Quorn is closer to a synthetic meat than soy or pea protein meat substitutes.

[ Parent ]
Inasmuch as a fungus is closer to an animal by lm (2.00 / 0) #32 Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 08:10:46 AM EST
The way Qorn is grown in factories may be closer to the way that meat will probably be grown, but I'd hesitate to say that a fungus is closer to animal flesh than a plant derivative is to animal flesh.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
I'd hesitate to say that, too, by ambrosen (2.00 / 0) #33 Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 08:29:29 AM EST
but I was thinking the Quorn people would have more of the infrastructure to start culturing meat than the soy people would.

As far as is known, fungi and plants are equally distantly related to animals. They're all eukaryotes.

[ Parent ]
Stuff by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #27 Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 06:52:45 AM EST
All these silly little USB gadgets shows that there's a need for a good home DC power standard.

As a non-meat eater, I'd probably not eat vat-meat as it's mostly a health choice (and partly because I just never cared for the taste.)

"World's most" surveys are pretty stupid when they don't cover every city. Perhaps New York is the "politest" city from that list, but it's certainly not the politest in the US.
---