Category Archives: Transhuman News

Following the cancellation of Fox Business Networks The Independents, its libertarian host Kennedy re-emerged Monday with an eponymous nightly show on the same network. The show promises a quirky blend of politics, sports, music (Kennedys a former MTV VJ), and allusions to hilarious nights of binge-drinking with other political pundits.

Kennedy sat down with Mediaite for a quick Q&A on what she learned from her first political show experience, what she hopes Kennedy will accomplish, and why libertarianism is growing considerably, especially on cable news.

Enjoy below:

Since Mediaites readership is full of people who religiously watch cable news, explain to them why your new show is awesome and they should watch it.

Its awesome because its got a lot of lively interesting conversation, and its liberty-minded. Its whatever your favorite things were about the 90s we concentrate them all in one place.

So basically its a big melting pot of Gen-X sentiment and libertarianism is awesome? So its not just a bunch of people who are gold hoarders [a popular libertarian stereotype]?

Uh, I love gold hoarders. I love survivalists. But you dont have to hoard gold to love the show. Thats the nice thing about it. If you hoard gold, youll be delighted. And if youre a fan of other precious metals or paper currency, youll be equally happy. If your moms best friends love shiny things, theyll be right at home.

The new show has a similar vibe to E!s The Soup, mostly because you riff on all these things happening in the news, with a deadpan sort of mockery. Is that intentional?

Well, there was no Soup discussion when we were putting the show together, but I do love Joel McHale. Ive been a fan of his for a long time. I love his delivery, I adore his acting. I think hes really good. But what weve been trying to do is be true to ourselves and let the rest follow.

Go here to see the original:
Yelling at People Is Kinda Boring: Kennedy on Her New Show and the State of Cable News

Libertarianism is one of the main philosophical positions related to the problems of free will and determinism, which are part of the larger domain of metaphysics.[1] In particular, libertarianism, which is an incompatibilist position,[2][3] argues that free will is logically incompatible with a deterministic universe and that agents have free will, and that, therefore, determinism is false.[4] Although compatibilism, the view that determinism and free will are, in fact compatible, is the most popular position on free will amongst professional philosophers,[5] metaphysical libertarianism is discussed, though not necessarily endorsed, by several philosophers, such as Peter van Inwagen, Robert Kane, Robert Nozick,[6]Carl Ginet, Hugh McCann, Harry Frankfurt, E.J. Lowe, Alfred Mele, Roderick Chisholm, Daniel Dennett,[7]Timothy O'Connor, Derk Pereboom, and Galen Strawson.[8]

The term "libertarianism" in a metaphysical or philosophical sense was first used by late Enlightenment free-thinkers to refer to those who believed in free will, as opposed to determinism.[9] The first recorded use was in 1789 by William Belsham in a discussion of free will and in opposition to "necessitarian" (or determinist) views.[10][11] Metaphysical and philosophical contrasts between philosophies of necessity and libertarianism continued in the early 19th century.[12]

Metaphysical libertarianism is one philosophical view point under that of incompatibilism. Libertarianism holds onto a concept of free will that requires the agent to be able to take more than one possible course of action under a given set of circumstances.

Accounts of libertarianism subdivide into non-physical theories and physical or naturalistic theories. Non-physical theories hold that the events in the brain that lead to the performance of actions do not have an entirely physical explanation, and consequently the world is not closed under physics. Such interactionist dualists believe that some non-physical mind, will, or soul overrides physical causality.

Explanations of libertarianism that do not involve dispensing with physicalism require physical indeterminism, such as probabilistic subatomic particle behavior a theory unknown to many of the early writers on free will. Physical determinism, under the assumption of physicalism, implies there is only one possible future and is therefore not compatible with libertarian free will. Some libertarian explanations involve invoking panpsychism, the theory that a quality of mind is associated with all particles, and pervades the entire universe, in both animate and inanimate entities. Other approaches do not require free will to be a fundamental constituent of the universe; ordinary randomness is appealed to as supplying the "elbow room" believed to be necessary by libertarians.

Free volition is regarded as a particular kind of complex, high-level process with an element of indeterminism. An example of this kind of approach has been developed by Robert Kane,[13] where he hypothesises that,

In each case, the indeterminism is functioning as a hindrance or obstacle to her realizing one of her purposesa hindrance or obstacle in the form of resistance within her will which has to be overcome by effort.

At the time C. S. Lewis wrote Miracles,[14]quantum mechanics (and physical indeterminism) was only in the initial stages of acceptance, but still Lewis stated the logical possibility that, if the physical world was proved to be indeterministic, this would provide an entry (interaction) point into the traditionally viewed closed system, where a scientifically described physically probable/improbable event could be philosophically described as an action of a non-physical entity on physical reality. He states, however, that none of the arguments in his book will rely on this.

Nozick puts forward an indeterministic theory of free will in Philosophical Explanations.[6]

When human beings become agents through reflexive self-awareness, they express their agency by having reasons for acting, to which they assign weights. Choosing the dimensions of one's identity is a special case, in which the assigning of weight to a dimension is partly self-constitutive. But all acting for reasons is constitutive of the self in a broader sense, namely, by its shaping one's character and personality in a manner analogous to the shaping that law undergoes through the precedent set by earlier court decisions. Just as a judge does not merely apply the law but to some degree makes it through judicial discretion, so too a person does not merely discover weights but assigns them; one not only weighs reasons but also weights them. Set in train is a process of building a framework for future decisions that we are tentatively committed to.

Continue reading here:
Libertarianism (metaphysics) - Wikipedia, the free ...

SAN FRANCISCO (CBS SF) The transcript of a recent speech Salon.com founder David Talbot made at Stanford University has spurred some lengthy and heated comment threads.

In it, Talbots paints a grim picture of the future of the City of Love. He chronicles the rise of Silicon Valley, from its birth as the incubator for the technology that helped fight the Cold War, to its present day form a breeding ground for the selfish libertarianism of todays baby tech moguls.

Talbot decries the triumph of techno-capitalism, the machine mentality that all social problems can be engineered away.

He describes his own neighborhood Bernal Heights once home to filmmakers, cartoonists, counterculture artists and community organizers who lived side-by-side with blue-collar workers and Latina grandmothers. Now, he says it is overrun by Teslas and Beamers transformed into what one real estate website crowned the hottest zip code in town.

Talbots rant is not new. Complaints about the changing face of San Francisco and the gentrification of working-class neighborhoods are almost mundane, so common is the practice of urban reclamation and redevelopment. The difference, perhaps, is to hear it from the mouth of someone who admits to having benefited enormously from the wonders of the digital revolution. Sadly, Talbot feels that revolution has grown old and corrupt.

In the end, Talbot challenges his Stanford audience, Are you interested in going public, or in serving the public youre either part of the problem or part of the solution which one are you, a Stanford dick? Or are you different.

Judging from the comments, articles, and reactions to Talbots speech, no one is indifferent. They run the gamut. One commenter wrote, Grow a pair and move on already. The person who wrote that, said it right after another who claims he was reading Talbot as, my wife and I are being evicted from our home of twenty years by a young tech couple. Theres finger pointing at the finger pointers, and they all point back.

Perhaps the ensuing conversations about Talbots speech are the best part of his rant. Check it out:

READ: Talbots Speech Don't Be a Stanford Asshole.

See original here:
Salon.com Founders Speech Blasts His New Bernal Heights Techie Neighbors For Ruining The Vibe

[This article is adapted from a talk presented at the Houston Mises Circle, January 24, 2015.]

Presumably everyone in this room, or virtually everyone, is here today because you have some interest in the topic of secession. You may be interested in it as an abstract concept or as a viable possibility for escaping a federal government that Americans now fear and distrust in unprecedented numbers.

As Mises wrote in 1927:

The situation of having to belong to a state to which one does not wish to belong is no less onerous if it is the result of an election than if one must endure it as the consequence of a military conquest.

Im sure this sentiment is shared by many of you. Mises understood that mass democracy was no substitute for liberal society, but rather the enemy of it. Of course he was right: nearly 100 years later, we have been conquered and occupied by the state and its phony veneer of democratic elections. The federal government is now the putative ruler of nearly every aspect of life in America.

Thats why were here today entertaining the audacious idea of secession an idea Mises elevated to a defining principle of classical liberalism.

Its tempting, and entirely human, to close our eyes tight and resist radical change to live in Americas past.

But to borrow a line from the novelist L.P. Hartley, The past is a foreign country, they do things differently there. The America we thought we knew is a mirage; a memory, a foreign country.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is precisely why we should take secession seriously, both conceptually as consistent with libertarianism and as a real alternative for the future.

Does anyone really believe that a physically vast, multicultural, social democratic welfare state of 330 million people, with hugely diverse economic, social, and cultural interests, can be commanded from DC indefinitely without intense conflict and economic strife?

Read the original:
Secession Begins at Home