You are currently viewing the aggregator for the Distributed Republic reader blogs. You can surf to any author's blog by clicking on the link at the bottom of one of his/her posts. If you wish to participate, feel free to register (at the top of the right sidebar) and start blogging.

The main page of the blog can be found here.

Catallarchy\'s College Football Top 25 - Week 2

For all games up to 9/10, here are the updated rankings:

Rank Team (Previous)
1 Texas (1)
2 Colorado (6)
3 USC (2)
4 VaTech (3)
5 WVU (8)
6 Cal (10)
7 Louisville (4)
8 Wisconsin (9)
9 Tennessee (7)
10 Oklahoma St. (11)
11 Georgia (12)
12 LSU (36)
13 Texas Tech (38)
14 Utah (22)
15 Virginia (13)
16 Florida State (14)
17 U Conn (17)
18 Purdue (39)
19 Northwestern (20)
20 Oklahoma (37)
21 Clemson (19)
22 Nebraska (21)
23 Georgia Tech (23)
24 Auburn (41)
25 UCLA (27)

Dropped Out:

26 Michigan State (24)
27 Alabama (25)
33 Az. State (18)
34 Michigan (15)
35 Ohio State (16)

Other Catallarchy Teams:
85 Kentucky (94)
116 Western Michigan (116)

And a shout out to my homies at the Miami(OH) Econ program:
80 Miami (OH) (77)

Commentary below, and full rankings on page 2. Read more »


Passage of the Day


Catallarchy\'s College Football Top 25 - Week 1

For all games played through 09/06/05, here are the latest rankings:

Rank - Team (Previous)
1 Texas (2)
2 USC (6)
3 VaTech (4)
4 Louisville (3)
5 Iowa (10)
6 Colorado (9)
7 Tennessee (8)
8 WVU (7)
9 Wisconsin (15)
10 Cal (11)
11 Oklahoma St. (14)
12 Georgia (13)
13 Virginia (12)
14 Florida State (16)
15 Michigan (25)
16 Ohio State (NR)
17 U Conn (20)
18 Az. State (22)
19 Clemson (23)
20 Northwestern (NR)
21 Nebraska (NR)
22 Utah (21)
23 Georgia Tech (26)
24 Michigan State (NR)
25 Alabama (NR)

Other Catallarchy Teams:
94 Kentucky (98)
116 Western Michigan (114)

Dropped Out:
36 LSU (17)
37 Oklahoma (1)
38 Texas Tech (19)
39 Purdue (24)
41 Auburn (5)
48 Miami (18)

As always, comments are appreciated, and some commentary after the "more" and the full rankings on Page 2. Read more »


Catallarchy\'s College Football Top 25

It's back! Yes, from a year and a half hiatus, my version of an automated football poll is rested and ready for the new season. Here's the original poll, with some methodology, which I'll repost after the break. But for now, the Preaseason Top 25!

Rank - Team
1 Oklahoma
2 Texas
3 Louisville
4 VaTech
5 Auburn
6 USC
7 WVU
8 Tennessee
9 Colorado
10 Iowa
11 Cal
12 Virginia
13 Georgia
14 Oklahoma St.
15 Wisconsin
16 Florida State
17 LSU
18 Miami
19 Texas Tech
20 U Conn
21 Utah
22 Az. State
23 Clemson
24 Purdue
25 Michigan

Other Catallarchy Teams (that I know of):

26 - Georgia Tech
114 - Western Michigan (sorry Doug!)

Some analysis later once the first round of games is played, and I get back from the beach. Just doing my part to promote nationalism and statism. ;)

Methodology below the break, the full rankings on Page 2. Read more »


George Washington on the proper response to King George\'s Depredations

Excerpted from a letter to Bryan Fairfax, dated July 4th, 1774: Read more »


Samuel Adams, <i>The Rights of the Colonists</i>

The Report of the Committee of Correspondence
to the Boston Town Meeting, Nov. 20, 1772


I. Natural Rights of the Colonists as Men.

Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature.

All men have a right to remain in a state of nature as long as they please; and in case of intolerable oppression, civil or religious, to leave the society they belong to, and enter into another.

When men enter into society, it is by voluntary consent; and they have a right to demand and insist upon the performance of such conditions and previous limitations as form an equitable original compact.

Every natural right not expressly given up, or, from the nature of a social compact, necessarily ceded, remains.

All positive and civil laws should conform, as far as possible, to the law of natural reason and equity.

As neither reason requires nor religion permits the contrary, every man living in or out of a state of civil society has a right peaceably and quietly to worship God according to the dictates of his conscience.

"Just and true liberty, equal and impartial liberty," in matters spiritual and temporal, is a thing that all men are clearly entitled to by the eternal and immutable laws of God and nature, as well as by the law of nations and all well-grounded municipal laws, which must have their foundation in the former. Read more »


Patrick Henry\'s Address to the 2nd Virginia Convention

Patrick Henry, St. John's Church, Richmond, Virginia, March 23, 1775.

No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The questing before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it. Read more »


What should the limits of liberal tolerance be?

In a liberal society, what theoretical limits should be drawn to the exercise of illiberal social goals through market/property means?

I alluded to this question in my earlier post responding to David Velleman, and as David surmised I have a problem with the laws of public accomodation as they stand, so my response is/was a bit off target given his intended point.[1] Rich Puchalsky's objection brings the question to the fore:

This is clearly not true. If you ran a restaurant in a majority-white, generally prejudiced area, you would get a lot of business by putting up a “no blacks allowed” sign. Sure, some liberals might boycott you, but those people were never much of your customer base anyway, and you would positively attract business from local racists who would see an opportunity for community bonding. In fact, once it became legal to discriminate, there would undoubtedly be created a group of racists who refused to patronize businesses that admitted blacks. If they were 20% of the population in the South, you’d still do better to discriminate as long as the percentage of boycotters and lost black customers was less than 20%.

Now, in an isolated position I think that property owners should be allowed rather broad leeway in determining who they do and do not want to do business with. I think that there are too many 'protected classes' as it is, or rather that the pursuit of protection of the classes has gone a bit too far in terms of disallowing certain kinds of non-pernicious discrimination (the persecution of VMI comes to mind; not all exclusion is oppressive, arbitrary, or wrong a priori).

And as Nick pointed out later in the thread, I pretty clearly believe that there is not 20% of the population in the south that would preferentially dine at whites-only restaurants. I think that in 2005 it would pretty much be economic hara-kiri to operate as an openly racist/prejudiced shop. On the other hand, I don't know why the objection has to be, or should be cast solely in 'whites as oppressors, blacks as victims'. There are plenty of movements for black-only this-or-that in large areas of the South, and in 2005 I can certainly see that while a whites-only restaurant or hotel would probably wither on the economic vine, I'm not so sure a blacks-only version would. Read more »


The limits of acceptance

Just saw a good post over at Left2Right about how those on the left need to drop the insistence of total acceptance of every lefty/liberal social position (e.g. homosexuality) and instead work toward a modis vivendi of tolerance where everyone's entitled to dislike anyone/anything else as long as you don't act on it.

For people who are disgusted by homosexuality, that feeling is a part of their sexual identity, to which they are just as entitled as homosexuals are to their homosexuality. What gay rights activists should demand of such people is, not an acceptance of homosexuality, but the toleration that would consist in their not discriminating against anyone because of it. Homosexuals should demand equality in employment, housing, education, borrowing -- and, yes, military service. In a pluralistic democracy, people should not be denied the opportunity to serve thier country in war because of someone else's distaste for their sexuality. (But a private institution such as the Boy Scouts may refuse to have homosexual scout leaders, if they choose. And then liberal-minded parents may pull their sons out of scouting and send them to study Karate instead, where they will learn to address a veritable rainbow of fellow students respectfully as "Sir" or "Ma'am".)

The last bit brings up what I think is the essential rub of the whole bit- there are some people for whom simply being allowed to dislike or disapprove of something social is not enough; they want to have some way of responding to their particular set of animii in a meaningful manner so that they have an active part in constructing the society they interact with on a daily basis.

In other, plainer words, some people (like the Boy Scouts) want to express their distaste for homosexuality and homosexuals by barring them from leadership positions in their group. David Velleman would agree with that to some extent, but we see where the problem begins to be revealed as we continue to the next paragraph:

Protecting gay rights probably requires positive anti-discrimination laws, which some will oppose out of their distaste for homosexuality. The answer to such people is, not "Get used to it", but rather "You are entitled to your distaste for homosexuality, but others are entitled to their taste for it, and we all have to live together as equal citizens." We don't defend the First Amendment by telling people that they have to get used to pornography. Some people can't and won't get used to pornography -- and they are entitled not to, so long as they don't try to control what other people read or see.

Bon Anniversaire a nous

In the midst of the weekend's festivities, we neglected to mention that May 26th[1] marked our 2nd Blogiversary. As Jonathan said at the 1st Blogiversary, we started the blog with high hopes, that four regular libertarian guys (neither professors nor professionals) could make some impact in the public discourse- and since then we've nearly quadrupled our number of regular contributors, increased our unique visitor traffic by orders of magnitude (doubling our average traffic since last year, to boot), and speaking for myself, have been educated and amazed by the intelligence & wit of my fellow writers and the commenters who drop their two cents into our mix.

To all the readers & contributors, salut! Thanks for making our/my hobby fun & entertaining. Read more »


You\'re Invited...

As Jonathan mentioned a few days ago, a contingent of Catallarchists has descended upon DC in the course of spreading the word, mobilizing the masses, and- er, no, we're just here to meet, greet, & have fun. You should join us! Read more »


Salvador Allende - The Herald of Pinochet



For a long time, science and technology have made it possible to assure that everybody enjoys those basic necessities which today are enjoyed only by a minority. The difficulties are not technical, and - in our case at least - they are not due to a lack of national resources. What prevents the realisation of our ideals is the organisation of society, the nature of the interests which have so far dominated, the obstacles which dependent nations face. We must concentrate our attention on these structures and on these institutional requirements.

Speaking frankly, our task is to define and put into practice, as the Chilean road to socialism, a new model of the State, of the economy and of society which revolves around man's needs and aspirations. For this we need the determination of those who have dared to reconsider the world in terms of a project designed for the service of man. There are no previous experiments that we can use as models - we shall have to develop the theory and practice of new forms of social, political and economic organisation, both in order to break with under-development and create socialism.

We can achieve this only on condition that we do not overshoot or depart from our objective. If we should forget that our mission is to establish a social plan for man, the whole struggle of our people for socialism will become simply one more reformist experiment. If we should forget the concrete conditions from which we start in order to try and create immediately something which surpasses our possibilities, then we shall also fail.

-- Salvador Allende Gossens,
First Address to Parliament after election, 21 May 1971

"We consciously entered into a coalition in order to be the left wing of the system – the capitalist system, that is. By contrast, today, as our program shows, we are struggling to change the system … Our objective is total, scientific, Marxist socialism".

-- Allende as told to Regis Debray (Conversations p118)

Institutions are the foundation of a functioning civil society. Chilean civil society pre-Allende was marked by its stable democratic traditions, respect for the rule of law, and its relative prosperity compared to its neighboring countries. The country was not without problems, however- its economy was wracked with chronic inflation and a dependence upon mineral exports (exacerbated by a policy of import substitution industrialization in place since 1950). Still, at the time the press was free, private property was respected, and the country was free of political violence.

Enter Salvador Allende Gossens. By 1970 a three time loser in presidential elections, he represented the Socialist Party, an explicitly Marxist party dedicated to radical reform of Chilean society, though through electoral means instead of outright war. He was a personal friend of Fidel Castro and openly admired Castro’s Cuba & explicitly communist totalitarian states around the world (such as the USSR, China, North Korea, etc). Between the company he kept and his rhetoric, the impression left on the center and right of Chilean politics was that despite protestations to the contrary, Allende’s vision of the end of “the Chilean Way to Socialism” was more akin to East Germany than West, more Soviet than Swedish.

After a split between the center and right coalition that had thwarted Allende in prior elections, Allende’s coalition (the Unidad Popular, or Popular Unity party, a coalition of most parties of the left, including the Socialist and Communist parties) finally won a plurality of the vote in 1970 with 36% to Jorge Alessandri’s 35%. Absent an electoral majority, it was up to Congress to vote for President. Tradition had it that the candidate with the plurality would be elected by Congress as a matter of course; but given the suspicions surrounding Allende’s true motives (and those of the Unidad Popular and the broader Chilean left), the Christian Democrats forced Allende to agree to a Statute of Democratic Guarantees- in effect making Allende explicitly agree to work within the constitution (and Congress) to maintain democratic institutions, and to maintain the apolitical nature of the military (keeping the military option off the table).

Allende signed the document, and gave the impression to all that he would indeed work within the institutions of Chilean society to introduce reforms- committing himself in theory to gradualism, albeit a faster form than that of his center-left predecessor Eduardo Frei. Read more »


Tragedy Strikes!





When a falling apple is a gateway drug...