I attended a LPC convention in Toronto in the mid 80s and I was thoroughly impressed by the caliber of the delegates from across the country. I was impressed that these were intelligent and principled individuals pursuing the highest political ideal in the way they believed best.
I worked for the LPC (I even ran in the 1988 election as a Libertarian) until 1990 when I met Preston Manning. After hearing him speak I asked Mr. Manning if there was room in his party for a libertarian. He answered that he believed the economic principles upon which the Reform Party was based were essentially libertarian. He said he thought of the Reform Party as a broad political coalition of libertarians, conservatives and political reformers with sufficient common ground to allow us to work together effectively.
I was, and remain, persuaded by the argument that it is better to accomplish some of our objectives in alliance with others than to remain isolated and accomplish little or nothing. I joined the Reform Party and continue to actively support its successor, the Conservative Party. I will do so as long as it appears that implementing its platform will make Canada more libertarian than it is.
So, I believe the LPC is a great bunch of people doing what they believe is best. But I wish they would add their considerable talents and intellects to the CPC.
I do not believe there is any utility in the term “libertarian conservative”. If you mean “libertarian Conservative”, to refer to a libertarian who is a member of the CPC then I can see it, but not without the upper case “C”. If it means a social conservative who supports libertarian economics I think the label “conservative” is adequate. I believe the unmodified label “libertarian” implies support for the general application of the libertarian principle which would exclude the coercive social policies usually supported by social conservatives.
Luddites and liberals look up at the night sky and say, “I am but an insignificant speck in the midst of an enormous, indifferent universe.” I look up and say, “Wow, all this is for me?”
I endorse this opinion of the Dalai Lama.
I like this article and the blog generally. I don’t agree with it all but it is interesting.
Often you hear it said that to stand in awe of nature is to realize the comparative insignificance of man. There are many references to this in popular culture. I have always held the opposite view suggested by Einstein when he quipped: “The most incomprehensible thing about our universe is that it can be comprehended.” But a better quote is this one by English mathematician and philosopher Frank Ramsey:
“Where I seem to differ from some of my friends is in attaching little importance to physical size. I don’t feel the least humble before the vastness of the heavens. The stars may be large, but they cannot think or love; and these are qualities which impress me far more than size does. I take no credit for weighing nearly seventeen stone. My picture of the world is drawn in perspective, and not like a model drawn to scale. The foreground is occupied by human beings, and the stars are all as small as threepenny bits.”
Another quote which I like for its accurate portrayal of our relationship and significance to nature is this one (I can’t track down the authorship): “We are the universe’s way of comprehending itself.”
Pretty significant if you ask me.
We are on the verge of being able to simulate every person, thing and activity on the planet, play it, replay it, run it at ultra high speed so that years speed by in seconds, and intervene, God-like, to see how the simulation is effected. A small step from that will be to endow these simulated beings, individually with sentience. We will then run hundreds, no, millions of these simulations for every imaginable reason from war games to marketing research to sheer entertainment.
One might wonder how we could think of running experiments or games with beings, albeit virtual beings, who were experiencing their reality just as we experience ours. As interesting as that question is there’s another, even more interesting one. How do we know we ourselves are not sentient virtual beings in someone else’s simulation?
If considered with dispassionate objectivity I believe the answer to that question is that we almost certainly ARE living in a a virtual simulation. Here’s the argument: if we can do it (almost) then surely other civilizations elsewhere/elsewhen in the multiverse have/had/will have the same ability, probably countless gazillions of them each running gazillions of simulations. That makes it extremely more likely that we are in a simulation than not. Especially when you factor in that simulated beings ought to be able to run their own simulations.
So, we are either all alone in the multiverse (come on, get over yourself) or we are the most technologically advanced (sure we are) or nobody ever runs these simulations (we are about to, why wouldn’t others?). Or, we are overwhelmingly probably a simulation ourselves. Neat.
This argument originates with Nick Bostrum.
I just read the preface and introduction of The Physics of Immortality, by Frank Tipler. This is going to be an interesting book. He points out that where the Bible quotes God as referring to himself as “I am that I am” it is really a mistranslation of the Hebrew which actually uses the future tense and should be “I will be that I will be”. Interesting in light of LDS doctrine of that eternal life = eternal progression. Even God is in the process of becoming.
Interesting to compare this with a literal and absolute characterization of God as “unchanging” and all that implies for his ability to experience, perceive and feel. It requires that every instance ascribing emotion to God be taken figuratively or that any temporal context be disposed of. The latter is not hard to accept. But God told Moses that it his work and his glory to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. Does his glory not then increase as he accomplishes his work?
Maybe he doesn’t change but his power increases. That’s an interesting thought. Being omnipotent he can do as he will. But he chooses to restrict his power to allow us our freedom. We thus become a means by which his will/work is accomplished. As our efficacy increases so does his - albeit only due to this self-imposed limitation. So again, he remains unchanged though important characteristics/attributes such as his glory/power do change.
