The Sovereign Individual: Mastering the Transition to the Information Age

Product Information

He opened up a bookshop, he was editor of the times, these are ways of injecting ideas into the minds of people before Cambridge Analytica existed….this is the world we are moving into, the one where people can be affected more easily by people like this because minds have been opened to their self profiteering ideas Reply

Rand, Ayn (1982). "The Metaphysical Versus the Man-Made". Philosophy: Who Needs It. Bobbs-Merrill. p.40. ISBN 0-672-52725-1. "Citation: this is in his exclusive, sovereign power. Man is neither to be obeyed nor to be commanded." To end on a linguistic note — note that we commonly use the word “will” to denote the future tense, as in “what do I think WILL happen”. The way you used that phrase, it was to denote an impersonal process. But at root, to “will” something to happen is to intend for it to happen. The point is, that our ideas of what “will” happen often have more of an element of “willing” than we would like to admit. Reply As a father of three, I know that it is wrong to assume children adopt all the views and manners of their parents. Rees-Mogg Jr may not share every part of the Rees-Mogg Sr worldview. But we know from his own mouth that he shares much of it. Lord Rees-ogg would be very proud of his son’s campaigning role in reversing the UK’s commitment on overseas aid, and even prouder of how he helped get Britain to the hardest Brexit of all, whatever the impact on the “left-behinds” whose votes were just a necessary step on the journey, first in the EU referendum, then in the 2019 general election. A few days later, I was on a train again, London to Aberdeen for the start of Burnley FC’s European tour. Did a bit of work. Had a nap. Then started the book. Marylebone’s Ancient Mariner was right. It was, in its own way, mesmerising. I haven’t read The Sovereign Individual, but it sounds like a precursor to the Neoreaction (NRx) school of politics. Popular with right leaning figures such as Steve Bannon (apparently) and Peter Thiel. The philosophical underpinnings of NRx (provided by Lang 7 Moldbug) seems to be attracting a growing audience.

More episodes

First published in 1997, shortly before New Labour won the first of our three election victories, it is called The Sovereign Individual, and is subtitled Mastering the Transition to the Information Age.It is the product of very large brainpower, sweeps far and wide in historical research and current analysis, but its strength, especially reading it today, lies in the force of its predictions about the new millennium. The Sovereign Individual: Mastering the Transition to the Information Age (1997, with James Dale Davidson) ISBN 9780684832722 This is not an exercise in prophetic, rational economics: it is an aristocrat’s charter. Aristocrats? Remember them? Remember how they looked down their noses at us and how we chopped their heads off? Those are the people this book is written to resurrect and flatter.

A view that is held by 'negative-rights libertarians'. Legal theoretically sovereignty is achieved by person A, the declarator, by applying a power norm on person B which does not require any declarative volitional behavioral action of B, where as a legal consequence B becomes the legal subject (of the obligation) meaning B receives an obligation to perform an action that includes all physical noninterference action with A's property (negative sovereignty) by B, or any other obligation (positive sovereignty). Example of negative sovereignty power norms are declaring a land ownership claim by planting a flag or raising a fence on previously unowned land installing a physical interference ban exempted by local rules. Positive sovereignty power norms violate consent (volition) of the legal subject in the sense of libertarian involuntariness, but the negative sovereign power norm does not by definition. 'Negative-rights libertarians' reject positive sovereignty i.e. positive sovereignty is an illegitimate claim right to enforce a positive obligation and therefore belongs to initiatory instead of defensive force. But that principle does not follow from the simple non-aggression principle (NAP) which, instead of giving a definition of all banned action, just formulates a ban on aggression which is defined as the initiation of force, which is defined as the application or threat of a property or contract violation, where property and contracts are created by juridical norms. The NAP does not reject other juridical norms like positive sovereignty. This rejection follows from the permission of all acts of non-aggression, also called the liberty principle i.e. the permission to physically interfere with (appropriate) any physical resource (land) until juridical norms of property and contract creation are applied against it. [6] Johannes Voet originator of the Voetstoots acquisition norm which is an element of libertarian property acquisition theory. James Dale Davidson is an American investor and financial writer. His co-author William Rees-Mogg is a former editor of The Times. Their unique ideas are presented clearly and their reasoning is based on the theories of other thinkers. With that monopoly broken, the word of god could be undermined, creating competition (amongst Catholic and Protestant religions). Luther’s works accounted for no less than 1/3 of all German-language books sold between 1518–1525. Dan-Cohen, Meir. 2002. Harmful Thoughts: Essays on Law, Self, and Morality. Princeton University Press. p. 296I, me, my’– far from acting in the national interest, our deluded and desperate PM is acting in gross betrayal of it Gabriel Gatehouse has something to confess. Throughout the making of the series he’s been developing his own conspiracy theory. It’s about a book, called The Sovereign Individual, written by two men who were also pushing stories about the Clintons in the 1990s. It was early in August, 2018, as I stepped from a train at Marylebone station, that I experienced something of an Ancient Mariner moment, and was introduced to the most important book nobody has ever heard of. It’s the idea that Lord William Rees-Mogg was just engaging in a disinterested, rational exercise of “prophesy-making”, putting aside “what do I WANT to happen”, and just thinking about “what I think WILL happen”. As if he had no self-interest or ideological bias involved in putting forward the vision of the future that he did. And those who oppose his vision, or certain aspects of it, are just engaging in “nostalgia and wishful thinking”.