Tweet
For your possible amusement and entertainment.
The following is an email I sent, only moments ago, to Rand Paul via a front group, “Campaign For Liberty” for which he is shilling.
It is a response to his specific request to cough up money, as a “personal favor”, in support of a “grassroots liberty agenda”.
I’m so excited! He even autographed it for me!
My response follows;
Mr. Paul,
Please do not misinterpret my contribution to a single issue upon which we share a modicum of agreement as a blanket endorsement of either your views of those of your father.
Because I support the basic concept of bringing the Federal Reserve to heel, I have demonstrated my limited approval with my small donation. Modest as it was, it was still money I could ill afford to part with. My financial situation, along with that of a very large and constantly growing number of The People, is perilously close to desperate.
Quite frankly, I do not feel that H.R. 459: Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2011 is adequate, but it’s better than nothing. Having a significant number of cosponsors, it may stand a better chance than H.R. 2990: National Emergency Employment Defense Act of 2011, which I feel very strongly is a much superior and more worthy bill.
I see H.R. 459 as a possible stepping stone to H.R. 2990 and that is the only reason I have taken steps to support it. As to the rest of your “libertarian” philosophy, every man for himself and the last one standing wins; no thank you.
As millennia of inquiry, study and scientific research, not to mention common sense, have proven irrevocably, Homo sapiens is a very social species. My preference is for a government that more truly represents that condition. A strongly social democracy, wherein such vital interests as money, banks, the economy, energy production, agriculture and health care are nationalised, under a government that actually is of the people, is the only form of governance that can fairly and sustainably provide for a large and diverse civil society.
It must be remembered that, first and foremost, it is the duty and obligation of any such governing body to serve the People and, before all else, Promote the General Welfare and Secure the Blessings of Liberty to Ourselves and our Posterity.
Please note there is no qualification in the above statement limiting said service to only those with enough wealth to make those chosen to govern their willing slaves.
If you choose to cling to your delusion of individual rights superseding all others, I suggest you find a functioning time machine and return to any one of a number of previous empires which followed that concept to its only logical and inevitable conclusion. The British Empire leaps immediately to mind, followed quite closely by the Roman.
In any case, if you wish to engage in any form of civil dialogue, I am not totally indisposed to the possibility. If, however, I continue to receive nothing other than generic marketing ploys, designed for the sole purpose of vacuuming money from my pocket into yours, I will simply unsubscribe from any further messages.
With only the respect which is due,
Richard William Posner
48 Comments
Rand Paul thanks you for taking him seriously.
I do not understand why the left is consumed with fear of right-libertarianism considering the it is not only the functional policy of the government, but that it also is State sanctioned.
I also don’t understand the problem with the proposition of “of individual rights superseding all others.” It seems to me that say mutualism/communitarianism requires individuals firs to arrive at an agreement to form consensus around shared interests.
Right-libertarians’ fantasy is just that, individuals will band together even to support not banding together. I would embrace that silly libertarian notion rather than reject their entire ideology including anti-fed, anti-war, anti-NDAA civil rights abuses, anti- corporatism, and so on, based on the rejection of what currently already exists under state capitalism, which if we think about it amounts to right-libertarianism on big government steroids backed by it’s monopoly on violence…
Am used to being able to fix typos after posting, will need to pay attention.
I’m impressed. Although I suspect that we’re fu@ked beyond our wildest dreams; e-mailing politicians, corporations and media people, is an excellent way to take positive action. Thanks.
He’s welcome.
I don’t belong to the club known as “the left” so I wouldn’t know about the fear you refer to.
The entire human race has very deeply “shared interests” that are very much obscured by what the libertarian mind set seems to be from my personal point of view. I think we really need to make a quantum leap out of all these isms and into the next stage of evolution or get ready to retire and join the dinos and dodos in nevermoreland.
As always, all I am offering is my opinion. I make no claim to enlightenment or ownership of the absolute truth.
I will, in fact, “embrace” any aspects of the libertarian or any other philosophy that I find agreeable. I will neither accept nor reject the whole thing out of hand. As far as I’ve been able to determine, there’s not a lot there that appeals to me but I don’t advocate for tossing out the baby with the bath water either.
For the Life of me, I cannot understand why so many people seem to feel that living in a unified,cooperative and equitable society, even a truly global society, would require surrendering their individuality.
A truly civilised culture would encourage diversity and welcome it as an asset, not fear it as a threat. Ah, but that’s just one of my Utopian pipe-dreams. I seriously doubt the human species will last long enough to actually become civilised.
There are intrinsic flaws in the essential precepts of most isms. Some are worse than others. It’s my opinion that capitalism will always lead to plutocracy and libertarianism to feudalism. Put them together and you’ll probably end up back in the dark ages.
I’d say, in my opinion, if we keep up with what we’re doing, that’s very likely where we’re headed.
I just finished posting a response to you and I still see the “edit” link at the bottom. Is it broken?
No, I just used it to do this and it’s working fine.
It does seem that things are pretty much FUBAR doesn’t it?
“For the Life of me, I cannot understand why so many people seem to feel that living in a unified,cooperative and equitable society, even a truly global society, would require surrendering their individuality.”
On the global end of it it may have to do with the NWO, or with the defilement and misidentification of Marxian communism with Statism and Stalinism/Maoism.
Occupy Without Isms-http://wp.me/p1hyep-1WO
“It’s my opinion that capitalism will always lead to plutocracy and libertarianism to feudalism. Put them together and you’ll probably end up back in the dark ages.”
Neoliberalism is both put together, which is why for the left to frothingly reject right-libertarians on the basis of their economic “nightmare,” while ignoring the vast array of issues we agree upon, always appears to me as self defeating, and verging on the inane.
Right now, it would seem, we should find all reasons that would help uniting us against the status quo. The essence of OWS/Indignados is apartisan, and anti-ism.
Many of the isms have evolved as reactions to specific conditions of the time; the times have changed the isms need to adjust, divest themselves of ideological rigidity and give open dialogue a fair chance.
I think we are mostly on the same page…
The author of a post has comment editing privileges; commenters don’t.
As to the dialogue you and aprescoup are having, and his contention that we make common cause against the Plutocratic Machine, this piece I wrote in January may be of interest to you. (Just my opinion, of course) ;o)
I completely agree. Like everyone, we’ll occasionally stumble over semantics and personal interpretations of “definitions”, which can sometimes be hard to nail down for concepts because concepts are, by nature, pretty subjective.
As you say, the isms need to adjust. As they are adjusted, their definitions morph and we sometimes end up misunderstanding if we don’t keep up with them.
We do indeed need to unite against the status quo and it doesn’t seem to me that we need to look too hard to find reasons. Nevertheless, I’m afraid that, same as it ever was, the majority won’t find solidarity until nearly all are backed into the same corner and pushed beyond the breaking point.
The amount of abuse we seem willing to tolerate is quite incredible.
We are talking about wingnut Rand Paul, the pandering son-of-a-bitch. Have you forgotten his defense of business racism?
Comrade Posner says:
You rejoin:
You fail to address the deal-breaker, feudalism. Do you accept that is where right-libertarians are willing to go? Or do you think that is a caricature of the right-libertarian followship’s desire?
On top of it, Libertarianism is the hair of the dog that bit you. Followers should be in a 12-step program. The “NWO” is a capitalist hierarchy. While Libertarians have long targeted the conspiracy (unlike boneheaded conservo-liberals) the best it can do is anarcho-capitalism, which is a-historical and imaginary. Libertarians promote capitalism’s delusion, they accuse the capitalist masters of heresy, and they decry economic counter-organisation.
Work against Mammon? With It’s abettors? Hmmm. s>Tell me more.</s
Make it hurt.
Hi wendy. I get it about the privileges. I just that when aprescoup indicated he was having some problem;
I thought the “edit” link might be broken. They just did some pretty nice upgrades on the blogging and comments modules, kudos to admin, cause they seem pretty cool, and I thought there might be a gremlin in there or something.
Anyway, just looked at the opening paragraph of your essay and it is definitely of interest. It looks fairly substantial so I’ll probably have to wait until later in the day to give it the attention it deserves. I’ve got to take my father, he’s now 89, to the senior center this morning and I’ll be there most of the day.
That first paragraph is incredibly concise and inclusive. It really says a lot in a very few words.
There really are a lot of people involved in activism and protest these days. One of the things that really bothers me today is that the mass media has been totally transformed into a Ministry of Propaganda. It completely trivialises and marginalises the activism that’s going on or, when it does cover it, goes out of the way to vilify peaceful protesters while ignoring or downplaying police brutality.
Anyway, gotta get ready to take care of my dad for the day. I’m living with him as his care-giver. It’s almost 10 AM and he gets up at just about 9 AM every day. He’ll be ready for breakfast pretty soon so I need to get that going and make sure he gets his meds. Then it’s off to the senior center so he can play bridge and I can do my Monday workout. Since I’m a “senior” myself and I have to be there with my father, why not take advantage of the facility?
Thanks for bringing the article to my attention. I will get to it ASAP!
Make it hurt?
There’s too much pain and suffering in the world already Ludwig. I choose not to add to it.
That’s very well put. I like it. Burning the candle at both ends will often end with someone getting burned.
I think you should give us a blog or two Ludwig. I think it would make for very interesting and informative reading.
“You fail to address the deal-breaker, feudalism….”
No I don’t, You may want to acquaint yourself, if you haven’t already, with the assessment of say Richard Wolff, Michael Hudson and others regarding where the current neoliberal status quo is leading. I believe to have vaguely addressed that at #2.
So if you accept their premise that the neoliberal NWO is leading us over the cliff into lawlessness for the 1%, debt and credit servitude, rent extraction, a toll booth society and in general a neo-feudal state, then there you have it…
Let’s break it down a bit, Ludwig.
1) I would describe, have described, the current status quo, as libertarianism on state capitalism’s steroids, which I see in it’s practice as far more grievous than some hair brained and inherently inconsistent wet dream of libertarian economic royalists/totalitarians.
They are about as much in the wilderness as is the left, which is to say harmless to the aspirations of the oligopoly(Amir Samin’s preferred term for the state of affairs.)
Let’s even say that on economics, all things being equal (I find the NWO far more dangerous), the libertarians and neo-liberals are equal scum. What we get bundled with the neoliberal cohort is neocons. I believe I don’t need to present you with the list of objections which the right libertarians share with the left on foreign and domestic civil rights, on the Fed, etc…
hey wendy ;)
very nice, can I steal it?
Yes, you did. You just parried that libertarianism was a lesser-evil feudalism than neoliberalism. You failed to contend with comrade Posner’s opinion.
You can do better than that, Ludwig.
Well, hell yes, dear. ;o) (Can’t pony up my usual $1.99 fee, can ya?)
I know, I know. You ain’t got no money either. It’s ‘on accountta the economeee’. (h/t: the Boss)
Hmm. Where’s the CATO equivalent for Marxists? Where’s the Communist presidential candidate? Where’s the Liberty University of Liberation Theology?
Your balancing act is worse than spurious.
“the [...] status quo [is] libertarianism on state capitalism’s steroids” is a contradiction. Libertarianism is pure capitalist ideology, sanitized of capitalist reality. The status quo is not libertarianism, it’s a libertarian mask to mesmerize the herd while conducting crimes. There’s not even a libertarian golden age to hearken back to, though that is often their implication.
I would like to know your theory on how so many leftists became neo-cons. I hope you don’t think there is some affinity or conspiracy between them.
How?
I guess the comments are closed on your “common cause” piece. There were certainly a lot of them!
Common cause is a hard place to find if you don’t have a good map because everyone you ask gives you different directions.
I could write a very long comment and get into my take on what needs to happen but that would just be me giving another set of directions to a place nobody can seem to find. Besides, it would make a pretty good blog so why fritter it away on a comment?
I’ve come to the conclusion that nothing less than sufficient pain and suffering will force enough people to forget their differences, take up arms and strike at their common antagonist, which will only result in the whole cycle beginning all over again.
I saw it somewhere, can’t remember, and it was along the lines of; people won’t do anything until the pain caused by staying the same becomes greater than the pain caused by changing.
We need, as a species, a family, to make some extremely fundamental changes in the way we perceive and interact with each other and the rest of the Life of Earth. Unless we make an evolutionary quantum leap, very soon, then I see extinction of the species as the only possible outcome.
“the [...] status quo [is] libertarianism on state capitalism’s steroids” is a contradiction.”
Exactly!
It is ideologically speaking a contradiction but a reality of political alchemy nevertheless.
It takes both descriptions Chomsky uses of totalitarianism, State and corporate and nealrly seamlessly melds them together. And the genius of it is that the right accuses the Dem’s of “socialism” (big government,) and the left accuses the right of laissez-faire corporate monopolization.
If the Obama Administration’s treatment of Wall Street is not a perfect example of the worst of both: 23Trillion “big government” bailouts (socializing the losses) of the “laissez-faire” FIRE industrial monopolies, then I don’t know what is. Hence, my “libertarianism on state steroids,” comrade.
It was a great comment stream, and the post had a far better reception than I’d imagined. Some of those folks are no longer here, sadly.
I’ve written a Tipping Points series, starting with ‘to massive resistance’ along to ‘revolution’. One or two of the tipping points were voided, when for instance, the Occupy the Dream turned out to be mainly about re-electing Obama. Social Gospel will be important to the democracy movement, imo.
Your pain threshold idea certainly is ubiquitous, and food prices can be one tipping point globally.
Anyway, of course I’m stalled for Part V; the signs are advancing as quickly as I’d begun to imagine, and that has been due to some pretty calculated bones we’ve been tossed in order to fracture massive dissent. We’re a very captured populace, and love the status quo far too well.
Don’t have much time, but imo, where you go extremely wrong here is thinking that an armed uprising can lead to victory for the populace. Even David Graeber says, ‘Yeah; they have the 101st Airborne, so there’s that.’ (or close)
Unless the movement is one of moral, ethical and practical outrage and a desire for inventing a new world, a new system, it’s doomed to failure.
So. We hope that many of the Seers are right, and that we’re on the verge of a Great Awakening. I’m banking that the Indigenous are right. I believe it, partially because I do, and partially because…I must.
Best to you.
You know, a lot more people today are turning against the status quo on both ends of the political spectrum.
The strategy that allowed our government to make incredible strides against the New Deal was the Democrat’s abandonment of the legacy reasons for the party’s existence and finding political bipartisanship(centrism) as their narcissistic power base.
We have bipartisan political class consensus, couched in vapid rhetoric, and working against the public will.
It would seem rather plain that the power of centrism resides in the shared economic and foreign policy interests of both left and right elites pitted against a public divided along partisan lines.
When elites from both camps colude against the public, one would think that a meaningful push-back could only be accomplished by the peons mimicking their master’s strategy, reaching for the National Razor, and then going about their business of eternal squabbles if they must.
We can elevate Marx all we want, but when we ignore Machiavelli and Sun-Tzu we’re going nowhere quick.
Well then, that’s why it’s so important to make change painful or seem unnecessary.
But really, comrade, I would think that, if this were the case, it would mutate. Certainly it’s not universally true, as the ruling class anticipates “the pain of staying the same”. But they also deny that anticipation to their subjects. In fact, they manage society’s pain and the perception thereof to the point that the assertion has little meaning.
This cynical principle would be rejected by most people and yet we are to believe it rules? I would rather be of the opinion, comrade, that this a symptom of mental colonization.
The right lies. There is nothing socialist in either libertarianism or neoliberalism. On the other side, Laissez-faire corporate monopolization is a mostly accurate description of America’s capitalism, except for the mis-characterization of crony capitalism/corporatism as laissez-faire. As an assessment of the status quo it tilts to the right; this “left” accusation is actually infected by the propaganda from the right.
But no surprise, since the business of Amerikka is business, an accurate assessment is excluded. One cannot be centrist in such an environment and attain anything but an imposture of accuracy.
Again, the point is that libertarianism provides a deceitful and utopian facade to capitalism. “Laissez-faire corporate monopolization” is an accurate if politic indictment of the impossible Libertarian Dream; it does not go far enough, as this letter to Rand does not, in analyzing the Dream(/nightmare).
Ludwig, any number of us can piss out a dream world, or parade their “knowledge” with noses in the clouds, but how about a path? And I don’t mean a hundered year plan, but a path that takes into account what is happening right here and now?
Yes we need global labor solidarity in a global economy run by and for the 0.01%, etc. we can take it so far that we will stand alone in our pride and unyielding idealism among the wreckage and misery.
You mentioned lesser evil, but there is a huge difference between lesser evil moving the ball to the right and one starting to gain back the ground lost.
Perhaps because I myself am partial to anarcho-syndicalism without unthinking adherence to dogma that I can see forming strategic alliances with others whose economic ideologies I do not fear because I also understand, and you should as well, that the public is far to the left of the political center, and on economics to the left of Ron Paul. And that being the case, in the battle of ideas, after the status quo has been successfully deposed by a populist effort, the left will be holding the better hand.
You appear to be frozen like a deer in the headlights of such a clean slate confrontation based on ideas. I dislike elitism and authoritarianism left and right.
By accurately diagnosing libertarianism I am elitist and authoritarian?
Your pragmatism is not what you crack it up to be. Compromise with a delusion will get you nowhere and has not mobilized “a public [...] far to the left of the political center”. Making common cause with this delusion and continuing to suppress it’s denouncement is more of the same political chicanery that put Obummer in office.
You are running out of credit, comrade.
“By accurately diagnosing libertarianism ….”
If that only were true. No authoritarian because you are increasingly coming off as “my way or the highway”, and elitist in the worst way– being full of bluster and yourself.
Libertarianism? look up wikipedia and right there, off the bat your “accurate” diagnosis falls appart.
And no, I’m not your fucking comrade, Ludwig nor do I need credit with you. That’s the narcissist(elitist) in you slithering out into the open.
Dear comrade, are we in schism so soon? You spent so much time telling me how I need to ally myself with lies and no time showing me were my diagnosis is wrong.
Your deception will not hold.
You are allied with lies, comrade.
The field of libertarians resides on the full left/right spectrum. Implying anything else makes you all hat and no cattle.
But even in wholesale rejecting American right-libertarians, you are rejecting the only coherent cohort that is anti-war, anti-corporatism, anti-debt-money, and anti-civil rights abuses of a growing security state. So you either are ok with all that, or you full of hubris in believing that you can topple the machine all by your lone self, or even merely from the left.
Why is the topic of one corrupt and moronic Rand Paul the opportunity to unite left and right libertarians?
Your project is rather incoherent, comrade. OK, maybe just youthfully indiscriminate.
We had a congressional election in VA with a ¡Ron Paul Libertarian! against a neocon. Moron thought the neocon was a socialist and vowed not to vote for him even after she lost to her main enemy.
Is that the type you suppose I can compromise with, comrade?
Give me David Graeber over the idiots you’re hawking and you’ll get somewhere, comrade.
(((hug)))
You misunderstand wendy. I apologise if I was unclear.
I didn’t say and absolutely do not think that violent revolution can lead to “victory”. As I stated, that is something; “…which will only result in the whole cycle beginning all over again.”
And what I mean by that is, as a species, we’re apparently collectively insane since we keep doing the same thing and expecting different results.
“Victory attained by violence is tantamount to a defeat, for it is momentary.”
Mahatma Gandhi
Violence produces only more violence. This is, in my opinion, indisputable.
It’s my conclusion there is only one slim chance for a somewhat less bloody transition from this chapter of human history to the next and that is the emergence of a, massive, global counterculture, which simply turns its collective back upon the entire genocidal, capitalist, for-profit paradigm and turns instead to a Life in cooperation with Life.
That could serve the dual purpose of eventually starving the monster of capitalist globalisation while, as a natural part of the process, contributing, by whatever small degree still possible, to the mitigation of global warming and the ensuing planetary state shift.
Let me repeat what is, more or less, my fundamental take on the near future;
Rand Paul is absolutely moronic, on that we can agree, and he is not even a right-libertarian. Come to think of it, neither is Ron Paul on a variety of issues. But the non conformist left is very small, so again, the status quo is, on economics, right-libertarianism on statist steroids. Add the neocon aspect embedded in neoliberalism; consider the post partisan aspects of OWS/Indignados; parse out the overarching idea behind 99%, and then convince me that the Bernaysian bamboozled working stiffs, across the entire political spectrum ,in rejecting Wall Street, War Street, the Fed, and the security state should continue pissing about economic inequality which both parties embrace with a vengeance, rather than uniting along shared ideals?
Seems that the status quo, far more than right-libertarians, should be the primary focus of your/our rejection. First things first, alliances of convenience and necessity against the greater enemy, no?
““Victory attained by violence is tantamount to a defeat, for it is momentary.”
Mahatma Gandhi”
Don’t hold me to it but I seem to recall that while Gandhi was practicing non violence, violence was being used by anti-British factions as parallel actions.
History written by western colonial powers would naturally gravitate towards a non-violent meme. Keep them believing in passive resistance as an agent of change while holding a monopoly on violence could well be little more than propaganda…
I like the idea of non violence, I am not entirely certain that it is sufficient to sway the powerful to step away from the trough.
I do agree that a massive global counterculture movement will be needed to rid us of all vestiges of the criminal capitalist enterprise. But to think that such an awareness will not involve instances of violence, as witnessed in the OWS/Indignado Arab spring, etc. is more wishful than realistic. We should aim for it, and promote it wherever we can, but not shy away from it when all else fails. Power, more than likely, will not be pried away from those who wield it by petitions.
I don’t think much about change in terms of the extant system any more aprescoup. A problem can’t be solved by applying more of the same reason and principles that caused it in the first place.
By the way, just for the record, I’ve got Marx in my reference library but, as yet, haven’t read a word of his work.
I begin by accepting that, in my opinion, there is no government in america at this time. Nor in any of the other capitalist, industrialised nations. The left / right debate is utterly sterile and we all waste our time arguing for one “side” or the other when, in fact, the governing duopoly in america is a single two headed monster, which is the pet and trained attack dog of the international banking cartel.
The fundamental tenets, the essence and intrinsic properties of capitalism, of any for-profit system, can only produce plutocracy. The less regulated such a system, the more swiftly it will reach that inevitable destination. Enlightened self-interest and noblesse obligé are myth.
This system cannot be “repaired”. In fact, it’s not broken. It’s working exactly as intended for those who control it. It must be abandoned in its entirety. A completely new social paradigm is required if Homo sapiens is to survive into the future.
I observe the exchange between you and Ludwig, both articulate, intelligent and, I think, well meaning individuals, devolving into dissonance and counterproductive argumentation and see the fruits of our master’s labour. Divide and conquer, always a fundamental and direct route to the domination of populace targeted for subjugation.
I may start pasting that at the end of every comment I post.
Comrade, I swear, I am loyal to the party!
Still, between us, we can smell a rotten potato in the vat, no? Give me the good stuff and then maybe we can make a deal.
Comrade, I am mutated already!
I didn’t say it would not involve instances of violence.
What was “going on” whilst Gandhi was practicing what he preached does not negate either his words or philosophy. Nor does it alter the fact that violence ultimately breeds only more violence.
Nonviolence may not persuade the powerful to step away from the trough. If it can be sustained as non-participation long enough however, it can disempower them.
The power they have is the power we grant them by participating in their reality play.
Your entire comment sounds true.
I think that the neoliberal experiment in capitalism is about to flame out, as it seems that the PTB is no longer in control of the monster they’ve created. The LIBOR affair may well prove fatal.
The youth, robbed of prospects, facing a burning planet, increasingly detached from the MSM propaganda, and globally interlinked on the internet may be the cohort that will start decoupling from the system.
While hope is not a strategy, I remain guardedly hopeful.
Thanks again for the diary.
Methinks thou art analyzing the subject to death!
I hold the personal opinion that things are most often much simpler than they are made to appear, for obvious reasons.
As long as a substantial portion of the population can “get by”, there won’t be enough blow-back to produce the inevitable bloody uprising. At some point, the great majority will reach a point beyond which they cannot be pushed.
I don’t know if there’s any truth to the “frog soup” theory, but it seems to be the method that has been applied to this imperial cycle. The frogs haven’t been suddenly cast into the boiling water. The flame has been turned up ever so slowly whilst the frogs have been taught that the rising temperature is an unavoidable inconvenience, which is necessary for their own good.
Nonetheless, at some point, the heat will become unbearable and all the frogs will start jumping. Then, some of the frogs that survive will start a new fire, make a new pot, fill it with water and coax their more trusting fellows to hop in.
And round and round we go.
As we’ve already concluded, we’re both mostly on the same page. That’s a good thing.
Yes, “decoupling” from the system is a good way to think of it. Not easy, not fast but effective if sustained and, while not bloodless, at least less bloody.
If you find hope a useful palliative, by all means, apply it liberally.
“things are most often much simpler than they are made to appear”.
And often not. Grant me the wisdom to know the difference, comrade.
Nobody gave me a choice on mounting this merry-go-round and I’m damn sure that negligence was not in my interest.
I will happily concede that you are, as far as I can determine, an individual of high intelligence, lucid, extremely literate, well informed and erudite. Whether these attributes automatically bestow wisdom on one who possesses them is another matter.
It is my personal opinion that for all the knowledge our species has gained, at least an equal, but probably much greater, amount of wisdom has been lost.
How simple or not something may be is oft the choice of the individual considering it. In most cases either path can be taken and, I suppose, that’s were the question of “wisdom” becomes significant; whatever wisdom actually means.
Wisdom for one is delusion for another. Like all things subjective, it’s generally a state of mind, which is itself something in constant and unpredictable transmutation.
There are some few things upon which there can be little debate; you and I each must have food and water to nourish our physical machinery, shelter to protect it from the elements and whatever other resources that are vital to basic survival.
Once we venture into the less objective realm of the mind, cognition in the abstract, there is room for little but debate. I think it would be excellent if we we were all wise enough to make sure that we are all provided with sufficiency in the first category so that we might more productively pursue the second.
I think that would make our involuntary ride on the merry-go-round more enjoyable for all.
There is no way to Peace. Peace is the way.