I saw reference to "Monckton's Law of Opposite Consequences" yet where is it?
I first encountered a reference to Monckton's Law today. It seems very apt and fitting in many cases today with regard to how all of our various governments around the world operate. It also explains something I've spoken of often for years now.
I've pointed out how they give bills and new laws titles that sound great and promise great things and if someone doesn't want to vote for them or challenge them they mock the person and say "You don't support X" where X is the good thing the title would imply the bill or law is doing.
My observation has lead me to realize that a lot of the time (perhaps even most) the result ends up being the opposite of what that title would imply. They use fear, ridicule, and fear of being ridiculed to convince people to ram through things based upon title alone. The body of the bills is often very much the opposite of what that loaded title would make you think.
Monckton's Law is something it seems created by "Lord Christopher Monckton" whom is a person I've been aware of for years that has been in conflict with the Climate Change Alarmists. He was actually engaged in challenging them since before they migrated from "Global Warming" which was specific to "Climate Change" which is not specific and can cover any change of any kind.
Monckton's Law of Opposite Consequences
"Any attempt by governments to interfere in the free market in pursuit of some political objective or another will tend to bring about a result that is precisely the opposite of that which was – however piously – intended."
I chose to write this article after seeing reference to it as that specific line in this article. I wanted to know more and I found out it is very difficult to find references to this "Law" yet people apparently are very aware of it. Even Monckton's detractors reference it.
Why then is it so difficult to find?
I did find Monckton himself referencing it in an article about Gun Control, Militias, and Massacres which certainly is different from the normal foray into Climate Change territory.
The simple truth is that Monckton is not a one issue person. He is a person like many of us that recognizes the accelerating authoritarianism and tyranny and is trying to stop it. He is one of those that knows the Scientific Method is a tool designed to protect us from our biases while we seek answers. He knows you can always question and challenge in science. He knows that pushing consensus (aka popularity) as a reason to support something and not challenge it is not at all scientific. He is fighting what some of us have come to refer to as Scientism.
In the cult of Scientism the priest hides behind labels. Yet they still push dogma which you dare not question. You are supposed to blindly believe what they tell you or risk being viewed as a denier. They may even elevate the fear and coercion tactics and call you a terrorists, a seditionists, an insurrectionists, a racist, etc. All of these labels have nothing to do with the topic they supposedly are the expert on. They have everything to do with keeping you in line. If you are afraid your career will be destroyed, your life put at risk, etc. then the hope is you'll get in line and go along with what they are saying. There is absolutely nothing scientific about that. Though it is a lot like religion. In fact it might as well be a Secular Religion. Instead of manipulating you with fear of damnation in the afterlife they are instead manipulating you with the potential of them turning your here and now into hell. You are the dreaded denier. That is their version of the Blasphemer, or Heretic.
If you are not allowed to challenge something then it absolutely is NOT Science. This is inescapable truth. Now the thing you are questioning might have a basis in science yet a certain group of people might find benefit in not allowing the narrative to change. In that case it may have begun with the seeds of science and it was hijacked and turned into dogma to fit a narrative. This is usually political, power, or wealth related reasons.
That is enough of a side track. It is my own personal reasons I think about things similarly to Monckton's Law of Opposite Consequences.
For years I talked about how laws and bills tended to do the opposite of what their flowery emotionally loaded title would imply. Whether you called this Clown World, Mirror World, etc. That essentially is the basis for this Law.
Here are some examples I cited in the past:
"No Child Left Behind" - didn't leave children behind because it stunted all children. If you were gifted you were held back. This is the genesis of the "Participation Trophy" and other similar things. The result did not lift all children. It equalized them and sought equity. Yet lifting people up is not the only way to achieve equity.(1) You can also pull all people down. That is what this and all "equity" actions I am aware of do. They make it far worse. Opposite Consequences.
"Gun Control" - the places with the most strict gun control not only tend to have the most gun deaths (so many that a lot of those places never even report such things on the news) but other crime accelerates as well. Criminals that already plan to break the law don't care that you have an anti-gun law. The only people it impacts is law abiding people. They lose the ability to defend themselves and others. It does not deter criminals. It encourages them. This is perhaps why 90% of mass shootings occur in gun free zones. What better place for an armed criminal to go than somewhere they know their victims are disarmed? Now the other thing it does is disarm the populace so they cannot resist a government that might say be taken over by a dictator. Perhaps this is why Hitler, Mao, and many others pushed gun control narratives and disarmed their populace before going full on Tyrant. Perhaps this is why Australia is going through what it is going through now. Opposite Consequences.
"Affordable Healthcare Act" - Also known as Obamacare, or if you live in Massachusetts it is just an evolution of Romney Care. It was written largely by the Insurance companies, Pharmaceutical Lobbyists, etc. It centralized a lot of things. If you study history and the consequences of such things the outcome was obvious to many of us dissenting against this move. The result has been much less effective medical industry, and sky rocketing costs. It has provided record profit to the people that wrote the bill though. It also provided a wealth of lobbyist money and political fundraising that further insinuated unelected power in the government and corrupted it.
I used to be able to make appointments and go see the doctor the same day. This was not unusual. I could do this when I had insurance, and I could do it when I did not. Now with or without insurance I have to schedule appointments months in advance. My insurance premiums are through the roof. Some years I had to go without because Post-"Affordable Healthcare Act" my insurance premiums were on par with my mortgage payment and still had co-pays and other things.
I have insurance now purely for an emergency and that costs me more than any bill but my mortgage. Yet I haven't been to the doctor in over a year. They make massive profit and I don't actually get to use the service. Opposite Consequences.
"Inflation Reduction Act" - Get ready for even more inflation. Opposite Consequences.
That is enough for a moment. Yet I do think being aware of this concept is valuable.
I also see the value in Lord Christopher Monckton despite the ad hominem attacks, and ridicule his detractors constantly throw his way.
I wanted to write this article once I realized how difficult it is to actually find reference to this material when we do a search.
- Equity cannot be achieved of the type being pushed. It is resisted by reality and nature itself. We can seek to provide equality of opportunity. Equality of outcome though is impossible and this easily provable. Put two people in a room somewhere. Drop a prize in a random location. Have them both try to get it. The one closest will get there first. This is a simple example of how reality works. EQUITY is only achievable in the negative pulling everyone down direction. Yet really the central planners are always elevated. They end up the Lords and Ladies and we end up the Serfs and Slaves.
EDIT: I propose instead of this being Monckton's Law that it be Monckton's Razor as there are exceptions.
There is a problem with Monckton's Law of Opposite Consequences:
We do not know if it is a law because of human nature, or market forces
or is it because there is a cabal of powerful elite who keep pushing toward dumbing down, disarming, lowering self worth, and destroying the wealth of the people.
There are some laws and govern-cement programs that have worked well. But that seems to be in spite of the thing instead of because of it.
Most of the stuff that comes out of DC is to destroy the little people.
So much so that there are two options:
Soooo, is it incompetence? Or a law of opposite consequences?
Or is it an evil cabal?
We really need to work this out. Probably get rid of the cabal, and then do tests...
Hehe... yeah. I am not a big fan of "Laws" of this type other than having them trigger thinking. I don't like absolutes.
I see this law as more of a "ALERT! Pay attention!" type of thing.
The thing here is that it may be a law.
You know, how you pull a lever, and it causes an action
an equal and opposite reaction.
So, given that govern-cement is force.
When you use force to get something done, there is an opposite reaction.
and since we are dealing with a large system AND people, the reaction will be slow (not immediately apparent) and the system of levers are quite complex, so which way will the "opposite force" come out?
Thus, Monckton's Law may be a law.
And in order to get rid of its effects we need to abolish govern-cement by force.
Or, maybe it is the bureaucracy that is the problem?
As in, we really need the reaction to be soon enough after the force, that we can see it as one and deal with it.
I suspect the Bureaucracy may be a side effect of this "Law"
The reason I am leaning towards Razor is because of something you said that is true:
If it doesn't always result in the Opposite then that would mean it can't be a law. It could be a Razor though.
Lolol! Gravity sucks, we should abolish that first, instead of exploiting it..
Disinformation. Fake news. Gravity is just the shape of spacetime in the presence of mass.
I think this is a case where instead of a law perhaps it could be Monckton's Razor. :) As the razors are not absolutes, just cautionary.
If you were replying to me, I would say you (benevolently) misread my words, and thought I was saying "There is no law" in regards to Monckton's Law. (If you even did misread them.) But I was not! =p (Although I still think what you said is technically correct nonetheless.)
And that's for your benefit, because I was actually referring to the very LEGAL laws that Monckton would fear most. THOSE are the laws I would call false laws. Monckton is cool with me, at least as far as I know him from this single post.
So I am on Monckton's side here, and I still agree with you that there's no need to consider Monckton's Law an unbreakable law. Nor would I disparage it either. I'd only disparage unjust legal law which tries to oppress and bind us, as well as the unjust modification or enhancement of words, in the way that you mentioned these villains will often do.
Nah... it wasn't a direct response to you. Just me thinking about it more. I wrote the article probably within a couple of hours of the first time I ever heard of Monckton's Law. As to Monckton. I've always liked him. He seems like a guy of strong integrity that cares about the world and the people of the world. He also doesn't seem to be dogmatic.
Alright, I understand then.
I think you're probably right, but realistically, the words themselves have less meaning than the true implication of the words. And the implication is simple: Idealistic naivety leads to tragedy.
We are all ignorant about things. The true thing the separates those you are referring to from those like us is when we encounter new information we change our thinking. When they encounter new information if it would require changing their thinking they ignore it.
I've come to the conclusion awhile back that there is only one type of person I truly HATE. That is the "Willfully Ignorant".
Mmmh, I think the word "ignorant" says it well enough, to be honest. You see, ignorant is not the same as "A child who has not yet seen and does not yet know."
To be ignorant is to specifically ignore truth and goodness when you see it. Thus, I think all ignorance is inherently willful.
And a person with no will, or who simply cannot learn, is perhaps either a Forrest Gump who does good because that's his simple nature, or a Lenny, who breaks rabbits and kills a woman, not knowing exactly how or why.
But I suppose "willful ignorance" does indeed happen if you take someone and point with your finger at what you want them to see, and right before their eyes, they see it, and then they say "I see nothing."
On the other hand, perhaps the other person is simply delusional. Either way, I certainly don't think you're wrong in the general sense, so consider this only a discussion, and not an argument.
We are all ignorant about subjects. Until we learn about them. The willfully ignorant are those that have encountered something, acknowledged it, and continue to act as they did before encountering that new information. At least that is how I view them.
I am knowledgeable about quite a few things though I am ignorant about some areas of everything that I know. There are also far more subjects that I am likely almost completely ignorant about.
People have made the term "ignorant" a negative thing. Yet if it doesn't mean "does not know about something" then what word describes that?
To be ignorant is to ignore.
To be unaware is to not be aware of something.
For example, there is a bird in a tree just across the street. But we are not "ignoring" the bird. We just do not quite see it. It is technically visible, but without looking for it, we are simply unaware.
But when the bird takes flight and goes "Tweet tweet!" and the tree rustles, and the bird is clearly there in front of your own eyes, that is the moment to either acknowledge the bird, and become aware and learn of its presence, or we can ignore it until it flies right over us, and we feel a nasty wet PLOP land right on our head. =p
At that point, either we are forced into acknowledging it, or we go a step further into what you said. We will be more than merely ignorant. We'd be willfully ignorant, and walk right into town covered in bird doodoo, denying it the entire time, even as people stop and stare.
So I would say we are NOT always ignorant of things. We are merely waiting to see them. We are unaware, but our eyes are open.
Other people are able to see things, but choose not to. The ignorant.
And some people are suffering consequences of that ignorance, and STILL choose to ignore it. The willfully ignorant.
Unaware, uninformed, unknowing, =/= ignorant, willfully ignorant, or believing falsehood in a malignant way that prevents a person from acknowledging truth, even if the truth is right before their eyes.
But all this is meant to imply is that ignorance means to ignore reality, which is inherently more wicked than merely not knowing or not noticing. I cannot blame the blind for stumbling over a pot-hole.
Thus the liability of the ignorant is that much higher. I would not wish for a person to call me ignorant, even in a good-natured way, simply because I know I cannot know everything, yet I do not think that's the same as ignorant. No, there must be meaning to words, and if "everyone is technically ignorant about SOMETHING" is the word, then I think that the word ignorant loses its venom. But this is a good venom, because we need to be able to look at a person being properly ignorant, and declare, "THE TRUTH IS RIGHT HERE, LOOK, AND IF YOU DO NOT, YOU ARE BEING IGNORANT!"
And then that person has a choice to either acknowledge or not acknowledge, and that is the true difference between being merely unaware of a thing, versus being ignorant of a thing.
I was using ignorant as a synonym for unaware, unknowing, uninformed. I apply the term Willful to it to bring it into the realm of what you are calling it. Willful ignorance is simply to me them being aware as it was brought to their attention and they even acknowledge they are aware but then they continue as though they never saw it.
Nescience. @heretickitten is quite correct that ignorance means to refuse to know. Nescience means to simply not know.
The only problem with Nescience is that if I use that regularly very few people would have a clue what I was talking about. I suspect there is nescience about nescience.
As I was trying to find more about "Monckton's Law" I realized it is pretty difficult to find. That is why I thought I should write about it.
A dark question I have pondered is the simple concept of stupidity versus evil.
And the dark truth has revealed itself: Accidental stupidity is more wicked than deliberate malice.
Because a person who makes an informed choice can at least be held truly accountable. Only a grinning fool covered in the blood of the innocent can shrug and feel no guilt or remorse. This fool knows not what he does, thus we suffer.
While a person who has an objective, either good or evil, can at least personally understand that they made the choice themselves, and can be punished or rewarded for it accordingly, man to man. At least when we accuse them, they cannot deny it or blame someone else. They will take responsibility. They knew what they did.
In other words, I would more respect a man who slaughtered and says "Yes I did!" than a man who slaughtered and says "Was just following orders!"
One man has a mind and will. The other ....is nothing but either a feral beast, or some sort of vessel for an entity that DOES have a mind and will. And the act of being merely a vessel for evil is indeed much worse; for a true being chooses their destiny and their place in reality.
And those who did not choose, yet still took action, are mere monsters wearing human flesh, with no real mind of their own. Thus we suffer.
Memetic viruses walk this Earth unopposed. Words with meaning and purpose. The true world is not words. There is no word; there is no law. But humans sometimes hear these words and obey mere ideas, moreso than true reality.
Thus the reason Monckton's law can hold true: Words hold no truth. Words never had anything to do with truth. The connection between mere words and truth does not exist. Only the truth is true. Only reality is real. Ideas are not. Words are pure fiction by necessity and the true fact that words can be composed in any order to create ideas that are more or less the truth, but not the actual truth, is the reasoning why we cannot trust words alone. A description of an object is not the true object. And the thoughts or words of a person are not necessarily the actions of that person.
Other humans are not nearly as much our enemy as memetic viruses are, which although crafted by humans, surely must have some mind or will of their own. Thus we suffer. Thus we suffer. Thus we suffer.
Unfortunately, those who seem to be part of the evil cabal are narcissists, sociopaths and psychopaths.... and these do not take ownership of the evil they do.
They will deny it, even in the face of video evidence.
Sooo, we, the little people fighting this memetic war do not have the luxury of an "informed person who knew what they were doing and can be held accountable"
We have
Ah, but that's where my dark truth leads to.
That it is indeed more wicked to be ignorant than it is to be informed.
And in turn, the punishment for ignorantly casting evil into the world might very well be much more severe, for how DARE a human, an animal with an intelligent mind, for while birds have wings, goats have horns, and wolves have teeth, it is humans who have great INTELLECT, and so to fail to use their mind is perhaps the absolute most wicked crime a human can commit.
And when their failing hurts others on a mass scale, then who would call it wrong to condemn them?
Its not a matter of intellect, its a matter of integrity and morality. Upton Sinclair said that its close to impossible to get a man to understand something that his job depends on him not understanding, which exemplifies the inconvenient truth, that theres no defense against stupidity unlike evil.
I was recently disparaged by @coloneljethro for taking the position that sanctioning the evil and stupid for the harm they do should proceed regardless of whether they're evil or stupid. My point was that the reason for sanction is to prevent innocents - or valiant opposition - from being harmed. Trying to make allowances for stupidity only perpetuates harm. If someone is proved to be non compus mentus when prosecuted, then it becomes appropriate to provide them guardianship that will protect them and others from their incapacity.
Nonetheless, society has a duty to protect itself from the harm both evil and stupid people do.
Perhaps I could have explained myself better.
My point is that punishment/sanction simply doesn't work. Its utility as a deterrent is marginal at best and it does little to nothing to actually alleviate the harms done. In that light your insistence upon it seems akin to the old 'the beatings will continue until morale improves.'
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying nothing should be done, but rather that we might be better served by approaching things differently. It seems a bit surreal to protect society from harm by means that require harm to be done before they can be implemented (punishment/sanction follows harm, no?). If the harm is going to occur either way, would it not make more sense to focus on minimizing and/or repairing harm that will inevitably occur?
I have to respectfully disagree with your argument. I'd like to preface my rebuttal with first stating I very much appreciate your consideration of the matter, as you have clearly given it thought. Folks that give this matter thought enable rational consideration of the issue, and you are absolutely correct in your determination that it matters very much to society how government is implemented to prevent harm to people. A lot of what government does is improperly done, and in my estimation dramatically increases the harm people endure.
However, the specifics of sanctions aren't yet part of our considerations here, but merely whether or not mechanisms to prevent harm are undertaken regardless of why harm is being done, or by whom. It is a sad fact of existence in this world that violence is effective in dissuading people from continuing actions that draw violent response. Violence dissuades evil and stupid people alike, as well as good and innocent people.
Government is force. When government intervenes in our lives, it is always bringing the threat of violence. Whether people are deliberately hurting others, or hurting others inadvertantly, they need to be stopped, which is why we all form governments to defend us. There are possibly better ways to do this than government. I certainly think so. But this is clearly something necessary.
Once the harm is stopped, then who and why was committing it can be differentiated, and that is where I reckon we can consider how to handle folks that just aren't mentally capable of constraining their actions themselves, and need to have some kind of guardianship.
But if they're doing the rest of us harm, like poisoning our water or food, they first need to be stopped, and even if it takes violence to do so.
If you can suggest something else, I'm all ears.
Thanks!
The law is not problematic in any way, it simply describes the reality. Furthermore its idiotic to suggest that the government should be disbanded because they are incompetent, and it suggests that you don't understand who the real incompetence and responsibility for it lies with.
Misleading or false title.
I'm a pretty strong admirer of Lord Monckton, except for the title and the smarm that comes with it. I have always been impressed not just by his scientific chops and capacity for reason, but his extraordinary manner and lack of ad hominem attacks. I've seen him counter vile personal slurs with aplomb and never resorting to insult, capably sticking to his guns while devastating attempts to dodge or cherry pick data.
His mastery of both the scientific method and the data climatology deals with is admirable, but, despite his title and (perhaps pretended) arrogance, it is his adherence to principles that strongly advance substantive debate and refusal to stoop to personal insults that has most impressed me.
You have also. I yet recall an occasion you had to deride my own failure to strongly adhere to such principles in the past, and instead you but noted you seek to yourself advance them. A good example for a hothead like myself, which I have benefited from ever since.
Thanks!
It is not easy. I sometimes slip up and fail. I try to learn from it.
To be honest it is much easier to do than what Monckton pulls off. He does it live when people can see him. I suspect many of the times I seem calm and collected in my writing that is likely after a lot of emotions passed my face and I had time to collect myself. I've pulled it off live before but I don't hold a candle to Monckton in that regard.
Curated for #informationwar (by @aagabriel)
Delegate to the @informationwar! project and get rewarded