December 2009

Wednesday, December 30, 2009

How Long Does Intercourse Last

Of Self-love

is not talking here about a Wikipedian pretentious but the pseudonym of a mysterious notion of economic liberalism.

We know the famous quote from Adam Smith .

Man has almost constant need for help from his fellows, and it is in vain that he would wait for their benevolence only. There will be more likely to succeed if it is for their personal interest and persuades them that if their own benefit their command to do what he wants from them. That's what makes who offers to another any market, the meaning of his proposal is this: Give me what I need, and you'll have me what you need yourself, and most of those good offices which We are so necessary, is obtained in this way. This is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their interests. We address ourselves not to their humanity but to their''self-love'', and it is never our needs as we talk to them, it's always to their advantage.

Smith the Wealth of Nations , Chapter II Of the Principle which gives rise to the division of labor.

This quote is very famous. Notice I left the word "self-love" untranslated. The word is usually rendered as "selfishness". Regrettable.

Selfishness is a vice exclusive property of others while self-love is more worthy, consisting in the search of his property, without excluding any of anyone else. A number of cons-sense from there ... The invisible hand also seems much problem (but it's a metaphor).

What is the self-love . This quote from Hume (another Scot) clearly shows that it is not selfishness:

I esteem the Man Whose self-love, by whatever means clustering, Is So hast directed to Give Him a Concern for Others, and render HIM serviceable to society: as I hate gold despise HIM, Who has no regard to Any Thing Beyond His Own Enjoyment and gratuities.

Hume, An Enquiry Concerning The Principles of Morals , Appendix II: Of Self-Love

And yes. The explanation from the company of men selfish, subject to the passions, except for the vice-Mandeville and it's actually not Smith. For the liberal tradition, the man seeks to realize its interest, which is a good for oneself, but without that interest is necessarily selfish. Altruism, humanity, sympathy are natural human passions. The correct action is part of self-love . The realization of seemingly selfless actions is consistent with the pursuit of personal interest.

Hayek prefers to speak of satisfaction research purposes rather than interest, including more naturally benevolent purposes. I prefer its formalization.

Tuesday, December 29, 2009

Howrse Managing The Cards

Kissinger on the art of building peace

Here is a remarkable extract A World Restored , the work of Henry Kissinger published in 1964 devoted à la reconstruction de l'ordre européen à l'issue de l'épopée napoléonienne. Ce passage très riche s'intéresse à l'art de reconstruire la paix : autolimitation, rejet du vain désir de vengeance, lucidité politique, équilibre, légitimité. (p. 138)

Although every war is fought in the name of peace, there is a tendency to define peace as the absence of war and to confuse it with military victory. To discuss conditions of peace during wartime seems almost indecent, as if the admission that the war might end could cause a relaxation of the effort. This is no accident. The logic of war is power, and power has no inherent limit. The logic of peace is proportion and proportion implies limitation. The success of war is victory; the success of peace is stability. The conditions of victory are commitment, the condition of stability is self-restraint. The motivation of war is extrinsic: the fear of an ennemy. The motivation of peace is intrinsic: the balance of forces and the acceptance of its legitimacy. A war without an ennemy is inconceivable; a peace built on the myth of an ennemy is an armistice. It is the temptation of war to punish; it is the task of policy to construct. Power can sit in judgement, but statesmanship must look to the future.

These incommensurabilities are the particular problems of peace settlements at the end of total wars. The enormity of suffering leads to a conception of war in personal terms, of the ennemy as the «cause» of the misfortune, of his defeat as the moment for retribution. The greater the suffering, the more the war will be conceived an end in itself and the rules of war applied to the peace settlement. The more total the commitment, the more «natural» unlimited claims will appear. Suffering leads to self-righteousness more often than to humility, as if it were a badge of good faith, as if only the «innocent» could suffer. Each peace settlement is thus confronted with the fate of the ennemy and with the more fundamental problem whether the experience of war has made it impossible to conceive of a world without an ennemy.

Whether the powers conclude a retrospective peace or one that considers the future depends on their social strength and on the degree to which they can generate their own motivation. A retrospective peace will crush the ennemy so that he is unable to fight again; its opposite will deal with the ennemy so that it does not wish to attack again. A retrospective peace is the expression of a rigid social order, clinging to the only certainty: the past. It will make a «legitimate» settlement impossible, because the defeated nation, unless completely dismembered will not accept its humiliation. There exist two legitimacies in such cases: the internal arrangement among the victorious powers and the claims of the defeated. Between the two, only force or the threat of force regulates relations. In its quest to achieve stability through safety, icts in myth Of The lack of intrinsic causes for war, peace Produce has a retrospective Revolutionary situation. This, in Fact, Was The situation in Europe Between the Two World Wars.

Winners of Napoleon knew restrict their claims (especially through the efforts of Metternich wp bc and Castlereagh wp bc) and build a viable order in which France was a place and put an end to his projects of conquest.

France, who defeated Germany and Austria in 14-18 was not able to demonstrate such wisdom. She tried to reduce as much as possible in Germany - even without the humiliation she actually lower. The Treaty of Versailles made the bed of an unstable Europe in which Germany was the revolutionary power. Worse still, the principle of self-determination which was based the legitimacy of the new order, allowing France to destroy the Austrian Empire, would become a weapon in the hands of Hitler to annex the regions populated by Germans without reaction powers.

Basically Prussia had not shown more wisdom in 1870 proclaiming the German Empire in the Hall of Mirrors and annexing Alsace and Moselle, demeaning and humiliating actions condemning future reconciliation with France . And the Second Reich alienated this country one hand and the possibility to ally with him on the other. Bismarck was also expressed in vain against the annexation.

Closer to home, and after the publication of the book Kissinger, note that the U.S. action in Iraq and Afghanistan, looking for full peace powers does it dissipates a revolutionary situation. But what order is possible between two forces that consider each other as absolute evil?

Note: you can find the beginning of this text in a dictionary of diplomacy - like what I'm not alone in being struck by the quality of this passage - but it seems that restitution is in default.

Monday, December 21, 2009

Linda Goodman Horoscope Books

google books in difficulty before the French courts

A word to the sentence of regret that Google will scan and put online the contents of books without permission from copyright holders (intellectual property).

It is true that the right quote is apparently it's exclusive commercial purposes in France. Hence do not criticize the correctness of the decision but the law and the relevance of the lawsuit.

because Google offers a service called Google Book that can read excerpts from books, to buy the complete books, find them in libraries, to read freely from his PC works in the public domain, to find the authors quote, and others from the POV-pushing by finding in the ocean of literary production that will serve the turn to make believe his point of view.

But now done by Americans (linguistic imperialism), it's free (it hides something) is commercial (that bad).

Gallica, the French public service provides a service more nickel, but less maneuverable, heavier, less integrated (more clicks, less intuitive), less catchy. Also, why bother to pay taxes by a service that somebody wants to do for free? The commercial side

service google displeased. This is unfortunate because that is the commercial nature of Google which implies that the company must sell and find ways to sell books. In other words, if one seeks to increase the consumption of paper is better for business. They will find ways to get people to books, google books that is very successful in combining the Internet and books, raising the prospects of the book market. Who's complaining?

Google would reserve the right it seems to appeal. Stay tuned.