Albert Einstein: “A Foolish Faith In Authority Is The Worst Enemy Of The Truth”

[DamianTV]

http://www.infowars.com/albert-einstein-a-foolish-faith-in-authority-is-the-worst-enemy-of-the-truth/

I thought it was an Excellent Quote.

[heavenlyboy34]

Kind of ironic how typical Einstein fanboys nowadays prefer to follow authority. :( Einstein was really a radical fellow...quite the badass. Too bad Tesla has never gotten the same praise. He really earned it IMO

[FrankRep]

Says the guy who wanted world government.


"As long as there are sovereign nations possessing great power, war is inevitable. There is no salvation for civilization, or even the human race, other than the creation of a world government."

Albert Einstein, 1945 (http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/International_Relations/World_Government_Theories)


National Archives GOV:

Einstein on Call for World Government
http://estore.archives.gov/ProductInfo.aspx?productid=N-09-AUDIO28

[Sanguine]

I see quotes from Orwell, Mandela, Spooner, and now love of Einstein, but somehow I'm the bad guy for being a socialist. Are we going to start quoting Tolstoy next? Russell?

[FrankRep]

I see quotes from Orwell, Mandela, Spooner, and now love of Einstein, but somehow I'm the bad guy for being a socialist. Are we going to start quoting Tolstoy next? Russell?

Einstein Was Wrong When It Came To Socialism (http://www.lewrockwell.com/2010/10/phil-maymin/einstein-was-wrong-when-it-came-to-socialism/)
Socialism caused the famed physicist to reject all the foundations of science


LewRockwell.com
October 7, 2010


When it came to politics, Einstein was no Einstein.

Albert Einstein was one of the smartest scientists ever. But when it came time for him to convince others of his socialist views, he essentially rejected all of the foundations of science.
...

Einstein envisioned a centrally planned economy, a single world government, with all means of production publicly owned, with work distributed equally among all those who are able, with a guaranteed livelihood to every person on Earth, and with an educational system oriented towards social goals.
...

[Occam's Banana]

I see quotes from Orwell, Mandela, Spooner, and now love of Einstein, but somehow I'm the bad guy for being a socialist. Are we going to start quoting Tolstoy next? Russell?

Yeah, right.

Because quoting a pithy, wise or insightful bon mot is obviously the same thing as agreeing with the quoted person's entire Weltanschauung.

:rolleyes:

[Sanguine]

Einstein Was Wrong When It Came To Socialism (http://www.lewrockwell.com/2010/10/phil-maymin/einstein-was-wrong-when-it-came-to-socialism/)
Socialism caused the famed physicist to reject all the foundations of science


LewRockwell.com
October 7, 2010


When it came to politics, Einstein was no Einstein.

Albert Einstein was one of the smartest scientists ever. But when it came time for him to convince others of his socialist views, he essentially rejected all of the foundations of science.
...

Einstein envisioned a centrally planned economy, a single world government, with all means of production publicly owned, with work distributed equally among all those who are able, with a guaranteed livelihood to every person on Earth, and with an educational system oriented towards social goals.
...

Lol LewRockwell

Virtually all of that is just "Socialism isn't scientific. Socialism isn't logical. Einstein abandoned science." I find better rhetoric on Policymic. "What if they could work but didn't want to?" Is a really weak criticism (most socialists advocate not giving them any benefit), and the other points ignore Einstein completely. Lew Rockwell writers don't know a thing about socialism to even begin with.

[purplechoe]

I see quotes from Orwell, Mandela, Spooner, and now love of Einstein, but somehow I'm the bad guy for being a socialist. Are we going to start quoting Tolstoy next? Russell?

How about Dostoyevsky...

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/7cz_yC2fXh0/mqdefault.jpg

[FrankRep]

Lol LewRockwell



"As long as there are sovereign nations possessing great power, war is inevitable. There is no salvation for civilization, or even the human race, other than the creation of a world government."

Albert Einstein, 1945 (http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/International_Relations/World_Government_Theories)


I reject the idea of a world government. I reject your World Revolution.

[acptulsa]

Lol LewRockwell

Virtually all of that is just "Socialism isn't scientific. Socialism isn't logical. Einstein abandoned science." I find better rhetoric on Policymic. "What if they could work but didn't want to?" Is a really weak criticism (most socialists advocate not giving them any benefit), and the other points ignore Einstein completely. Lew Rockwell writers don't know a thing about socialism to even begin with.

They know one thing about it. It doesn't work.


Imagination is more important than knowledge.

Not when you use your imagination to dream up something which looks good on paper, but when codified into law enslaves and impoverishes tens of millions. Yes, imagination is more important than knowledge when it comes to working a puzzle like relativity. But the human condition is a puzzle that obeys no one single equation. And that's why psychiatry can never be the science that physics is. And that's why socialists almost invariable come up with a cure worse than the disease--and codify it into law, making the new disease incurable. Because when a simple equation could never work, you have to be omniscient to come up with a plan that allows no one to fall through the cracks. And you, son, are not omniscient.

[heavenlyboy34]

Lol LewRockwell

Virtually all of that is just "Socialism isn't scientific. Socialism isn't logical. Einstein abandoned science." I find better rhetoric on Policymic. "What if they could work but didn't want to?" Is a really weak criticism (most socialists advocate not giving them any benefit), and the other points ignore Einstein completely. Lew Rockwell writers don't know a thing about socialism to even begin with.
Judging by your writings thus far, they know a helluva lot more than you do.

[acptulsa]

Judging by your writings thus far, they know a helluva lot more than you do.

Those who steep themselves to the bone in theory do it only for one reason--to attempt to discredit those who understand what it amounts to in practice.

[Occam's Banana]

Not when you use your imagination to dream up something which looks good on paper, but when codified into law enslaves and impoverishes tens of millions. Yes, imagination is more important than knowledge when it comes to working a puzzle like relativity. But the human condition is a puzzle that obeys no one single equation. And that's why psychiatry can never be the science that physics is. And that's why socialists almost invariable come up with a cure worse than the disease--and codify it into law, making the new disease incurable.

I must spread some rep ...

"And that's why psychiatry can never be the science that physics is."

And exactly the same thing goes for economics. And sociology. And any field involving Human Action.

People are not photons ... or stones ... or ballistic projectiles ... or interchangeable cogs in some "social" machine ...

[acptulsa]

People are not photons ... or stones ... or ballistic projectiles ... or interchangeable cogs in some "social" machine ...

Gotta spread a little rep myself. That is very quotable.

One size fits all never does. And one size fits all laws least of all. But what other kind of laws can there ever be?

But there has never been a one size fits all free market. Never.

[osan]

Says the guy who wanted world government.


"As long as there are sovereign nations possessing great power, war is inevitable. There is no salvation for civilization, or even the human race, other than the creation of a world government."

Albert Einstein, 1945 (http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/International_Relations/World_Government_Theories)


National Archives GOV:

Einstein on Call for World Government
http://estore.archives.gov/ProductInfo.aspx?productid=N-09-AUDIO28


You need to be a bit careful with that.

There is nothing wrong with the concept of world government, in principle.

Therefore, unless you know the man's mind sufficiently, your tacit assessment falls down.

It is by no means far fetched that Einstein, having been an expert at math and physics, may have approached politics from a naive position. Such a view, as expressed in the quote you cite, may well have been based on the naive belief that an honest global governing establishment was possible, practically speaking. He may have held the opinion at one time in his life and abandoned it later.

If humans were not, on the average, so endlessly corrupt, a properly conceived world government would probably be a very good thing when compared with what we have had these past 6000+ years up to this very day. Forget political theories for a moment and think of it in terms of daily reality. A world government conceived in the primacy of individual liberty, honestly and capably administered, could be a pretty sweet deal. But people are inept, and fallible, and corrupt, and fear-stricken and all manner of other things that make the prospects remote that world government would ever be a good thing for the meaner. You know that. I know it. Most of us here know it, but back then, in the age of creeping nuclear terror it may have been all too easy to accept the hopelessly flawed idea that such a government could be anything better than rotten to the core. On that basis I gently recommend you take a step back and reconsider your assessment. There is a good chance he was speaking from a perspective that viewed the possibilities as being starkly delineated between a world government where the planet survives for the most part and the status quo where we blow ourselves to kingdom come on a planetary basis. He was probably doing the best he could with what he had and under the circumstances in which he found himself. It is difficult to fault a man for that, even if his conclusions seem terribly flawed in 20-20 hindsight.

Just my plugged kopek's worth.

[osan]

Yeah, right.

Because quoting a pithy, wise or insightful bon mot is obviously the same thing as agreeing with the quoted person's entire Weltanschauung.

:rolleyes:

Very nice. I could not have done it so well.

[osan]

People are not photons ... or stones ... or ballistic projectiles ... or interchangeable cogs in some "social" machine ...

I'm with acptulsa on this one. The social machine element may or may not have issued from a moment of profound insight, but I bet it may lead to a few of those.

Honestly, your choice of expression was well considered.

[Sanguine]

Judging by your writings thus far, they know a helluva lot more than you do.

>is a socialist
>told knows nothing about socialism by people that aren't socialist

You all know my position by now, so stop misrepresenting it. If you can't debate, don't try.

[DamianTV]

General: One world Govt wouldnt be so bad if it was a Limited Controlled and Restricted Govt. But we all expect that this will not be the case, hence our hesitation.

Debate: Not being able to debate neither validates or invalidates a point made.

I cant prove god doesnt exist. At the same time, religions cant prove god does exist. And we'd both go back and forth on that specific topic forever. But claiming "I made a point and they failed to disprove my point" does not mean that a point is valid or invalid. Man cant fly. Oh, proven until man flew. Man will never walk on the moon. Proven only by having not walked on the moon until man walked on the moon. Non right angles can not be Trisected. Mmm hmm, I took care of that one.

Socialism: Has nothing to do with debate. It has everything with cramming the decision of a small group of dominant men down everyones throats, whether they want it or not. They can still win said debate, but it will always be ignored by the ruling class. I could give a shit less about someones personal point of view until they come to my front door demanding I surrender to their point of view, at gunpoint.

Orwell was a self proclaimed Socialist, and look at how often we reference him. The intent to take care of ones neighbor, apply a Label, and turn the Label of the persons intentions is misrepresentation. Orwell tried to warn people of the power of a Socialist Government, not of a Society that took care of itself voluntarily.

And Einstein was born in Germany. It doesnt mean he was a Nazi.

[osan]

I cant prove god doesnt exist. At the same time, religions cant prove god does exist. And we'd both go back and forth on that specific topic forever. But claiming "I made a point and they failed to disprove my point" does not mean that a point is valid or invalid.

You are mixing two points here, perhaps confusing them.

One can most certainly prove God exists or does not. It is, for example, a common fallacy that negative assertions cannot be proven. Strictly speaking, this is not so; one can prove negatives with the proper setup of premises. When those premises are accepted and they happen to be mutually exclusive, once the positive premise is proven, thereby is the negative by direct implication, bearing in mind that cogency does not guarantee truth.


I could give a shit less about someones personal point of view until they come to my front door demanding I surrender to their point of view, at gunpoint.

Yessir.


Orwell was a self proclaimed Socialist, and look at how often we reference him. The intent to take care of ones neighbor, apply a Label, and turn the Label of the persons intentions is misrepresentation. Orwell tried to warn people of the power of a Socialist Government, not of a Society that took care of itself voluntarily.


Well put. It is clear from his writings that he was not in favor of evil. I have determined the same for Hitler. Mao and Stalin were different. Mao seems to have been most definitely evil by intent. The case for Stalin less certain. The latter two aside, our history provides abundant evidence, proof in fact, that mal intent is not a prerequisite for evil results. It is indeed the intransigent do-gooder who poses the most singularly profound and immediately dangerous threat to life, limb, prosperity, and freedom as he cloaks his perfidies in the language of brotherly love as triggers are pulled. "For the greater good!" It is all rot.

As with so many others of the authoritarian-collectivist-progressive bent, Orwell likely chose to believe that absolute authority in the hands of a wise few could indeed be benign and guarantee weal for all. Ask yourself this: why would anyone believe such a thing as that; something so obviously false that it screams "lies!" like a shrieking banshee? See http://freedomisobvious.blogspot.com/2011/02/fundamental-problem-for-humanity.html

People often retreat into comfort any way they can get it. At times the drive is so overwhelming that they will trample roughshod upon anyone standing between themselves and their comfort. Consider the drug and alcohol addicts who pursue those comforts often unto their own destruction, as well as that of those around them. Religious and political comfort may have roots in the finest of intentions, but often fall far short in terms of circumspection and personal courage. Hitler is perhaps the quintessential example of this from the 20th century. His comfort laid at least in part upon his vision of glory for his Germany. He didn't HATE Germany and its people - he loved them, as witnessed by his writings, his speech, the testimony of those who knew him, and so forth. There is nary a source of which I am familiar that has ever credibly claimed that Hitler woke up in the morning asking what could he do that day to further harm Germans. His comfort laid partly in the ego-centric drive to be the great German Messiah, saving "his" people from all forms of contamination at the hands of human filth.

If we assume their genuine good intention of keeping us from evil, the Catholic church provides another stark example of good intentions leading to results far worse than that which they presumably feared. Bad enough in any case, as the countless millions they slaughtered would likely attest.

Misguided good intentions pose the single greatest threat to humanity, particularly in an era of mechanized militarization. No other threat comes close, all else equal. This his why we need the rule of principle, backed up by sheer, murderous force.

[LibertyEagle]

Says the guy who wanted world government.


"As long as there are sovereign nations possessing great power, war is inevitable. There is no salvation for civilization, or even the human race, other than the creation of a world government."

Albert Einstein, 1945 (http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/International_Relations/World_Government_Theories)


National Archives GOV:

Einstein on Call for World Government
http://estore.archives.gov/ProductInfo.aspx?productid=N-09-AUDIO28

HAHA. Thanks Frank. You have a knack for coming into threads and laying down fact bombs. Thank you.