The Steven M. Paquin Archive

The Catalysts

2008-12-18T13:00:00.000-05:00

A few days ago I was listening to podcast 1223 of Freedomain Radio where Stefan Molyneux explained what he thinks the life cycle of empires and what he calls modern free range empires. I do not know that much about history aside from American history; however, his argument seems to have some truth. I was a little hung up at first when he classified America as an empire. It is always something that I thought was incorrect because America does not actually expand its territory in the sense of traditional empires like Rome. Often times when I heard people claiming America was an empire, they were just continuing on an irrational rant and the only evidence they had was that America controlled Puerto Rico, the American Samoans, etc. However, Molyneux clarified the position by defining modern empires as free range empires, meaning the modern governments utilize individuals across the globe to serve their own ends. This made more sense to me. Even though America does not have a traditional empire with its flag on every spot of land, the government does try to control global activities. Some good examples are in the past when the United States governments installed dictators like the Shah of Iran. Seriously, completely unrelated to its original job description of protecting the natural rights of those residing within its borders. Not only does the American government involve itself in completely unrelated activities across the globe, but by doing so it violates the natural rights of those not residing within its borders. Of course, this is not to say the American government does not violate the natural rights of its own residents. This was just to clarify the definition of America as a free range empire. Not any better than the original, but not exactly the same either.

Anyway, at one point in his argument I laughed a little. He argued that the life cycle of empires including free range empires is as follows:

1) The government allows its residents to practice some of their natural rights.

2) This liberty allows the individuals to create and invent.

3) The individuals become increasingly productive and earn increasingly more wealth.

4) The government increases taxes to acquire some of the wealth these individuals have earned.

5) The increased taxation causes the government to become larger.

6) The larger government invariably violates the individuals natural rights. Additionally, the government violates some of these natural rights as an attempt to control the individuals in such a way they think will produce more wealth, which means the government can acquire more through taxation.

7) Finally, the individuals get annoyed with this system and causes the government to collapse or decline. Obviously, there are several options at this point.

8) The individuals create something new, which is actually just another variation of government. Thus the cycle repeats itself.

Therefore, currently America is on the decline. It is around step 6. The income tax was established early in the 1900's. The government has continued to grow with lots of superfluous departments and agencies. Taxes increased to support this. Now there is the emergency of the Nanny State to make citizens healthier. There are also an inordinate amount of regulations to try and make American businesses more productive.

This is when I laughed a little. I have recognized a sort of decline of America, and I know the only way to reverse that trend or slow it is for America to become more isolationist, but with trade. Essentially, alliances with none, free trade with all. The American government needs to withdraw from its global games, allow its businesses to trade with whoever, and only shoot those trying to shoot at at those within America's borders. Of course, that does not solve all the problems. I am really not interested in trying to implement that trend because natural rights will still be interested. I just recognize that if individuals are interested in reversing or slowing America's decline that is what they have to do. I thought this before listening to this podcast, and it appears to fit Molyneux's argument. However, the reason I laughed is that, at least here at my college, several individuals, probably the majority, also think America is on the decline. The majority of the students are more liberal, and they think America is on the decline because of its global games, but also because it is not humanitarian enough on an international level. I used to be Republican back in high school, so I know the conservatives think America is on the decline because it appears weak. They want less humanitarianism and more military activity. They are simply tired of losses and draws like Korea, Vietnam, and Desert Storm. The reason I laughed is because they are both wrong, and no matter which one is in office, they will be accelerating the American government towards step 7. International humanitarianism enforced by a government means increased taxation and infringement of natural rights for the unfortunate in other countries. It means conscription to fight genocidal dictators and to "keep peace." Tougher military action does not mean the protection of American residents' natural rights. It means the violation of natural rights of those in other countries. Once again, increased taxation on American residents, and conscription. It also means more security, more bag checks, more metal detectors, more violations of American residents natural rights for their own safety. Each of them think that their actions are slowing or reversing the American government's decline, but both of them are steepening the nose dive. They really have no idea what they are doing.

I think part of the reason is that they cannot think of a world without government. They really would not know what to do with themselves. Government was supposed to provide protection from murderers and thieves so individuals could live their lives as they pleased. Government is now an obsession. Government is life. Therefore, they cannot recognize my understanding of less government. That is crazy to them. No regulations. They think the world will descend into Thomas Hobbes state of nature. Of course, if they thought about it they would realize Hobbes was wrong. The war of all against all does not exist unless individuals want it too. However, without recognizing it, that is what they accelerating towards: no government; the exact opposite of what they want, and that makes me laugh a little.

Service Staff Friendship

2008-12-17T13:00:00.001-05:00

Earlier this semester in my sociology class, several students instigated a discussion where they argued that the college students were not friendly enough with the service staff. The service staff specifically refers to those who clean the college and serve and prepare the food in the dinning halls. Honestly, I am not surprised these individuals argued this. Their entire mentality points in the direction that they believe that love and friendship is an entitlement of every individual not something that is earned and selfishly given.

The discussion began when someone pointed out that the majority of the service staff was black and/or of a lower socioeconomic bracket. Of course, this caused some to argue that the college students were racist and disliking of lower classes. Obviously this is ridiculous; just as ridiculous as assuming that service staff members and customers must be friends. I am not saying that these individuals should be rude to another another. Rudeness is just an indication of self-loathing behavior. One feels he must verbally attack another in order to establish his self worth through superiority. The individuals of these separate groups must be polite with one another, one group is making the other groups paid experience better, while the other group is paying the first group. However, both groups should not have to be friends with one another. If they want to be friends with one another that's fine, but the simple fact that one group is the service staff and the other group is the customers does not mean they have to be friends.

The core of this belief is a strange egalitarianism. It is not the egalitarianism that argues every man has the same natural rights. No. That egalitarianism is almost forgotten. This egalitarianism argues that everyone must be treated exactly the same at all times, meaning everyone must be friends with one another at all times. It is the assumption that love and friendships are entitlements based upon the mere fact that everyone is a human being and everyone exists. This only points to a deeper problem. Since one thinks he should give away his love and friendship freely because it is an entitlement, he believes everyone else should love him solely because he exists. It points to a degree of self-loathing. The individual does not believe he deserves love in the true sense, where another recognizes the values in him, practices the same values, and selfishly wants to be around him because their similarities make him enjoy life more. He believes what he is taught. He believes he is weak, insignificant, and usually evil. Furthermore, he believes everyone is like him. Therefore, true love and friendship are unattainable. Therefore, the only way to make him feel at least a little good is if he loves everyone simply because they exist, and elicits love from everyone simply because he exists. He feels good because he gives love and friendship to those he does not know well enough to give love and friendship to, such as the service staff. Then he elicits love from them, and they do not know him well enough to give him love and friendship. Everyone is weak, insignificant, usually evil, and wholly undeserving of love, but everyone gives and gets love regardless of any factors. It convinces them they have self worth because they have disregarded logical rules.

Personally, I like my relationship with the service staff to go as follows.

Service Staff Member: Good evening Sir, what can I get for you tonight?

Me: Good evening. May I have the steak.

Service Staff Member: (Places steak on plate) Here you are, Sir. (Paces plate to me)

Me: (I receive plate) Thank you.

Service Staff Member: Have yourself a good evening.

Me: You too.

See, simple, polite, professional, and not giving away friendship and love like it was free hard candies.

Environmental Studies Response 9

2008-12-16T13:00:00.000-05:00

I just noticed I forgot to post my last environmental studies reading response. Here it is below.

It is no secret that environmentalism favors a government intensive approach to solving environmental issues. However, this is utterly inefficient, as evident in Michael Grundwald’s article The Clean Energy Scam, describing government’s nonsensical approach to biofuels.

The argument for biofuels is that “cars emit carbon no matter what fuel they burn, but” (Grundwald 44) plants absorbs carbon from the atmosphere; therefore, biofuels help nature before harming it. Unfortunately, other more carbon-absorbent plants must be cleared to create land for growing biofuel crops. Consequently, the atmosphere’s net carbon amount increases. Furthermore, deforesting the rainforest is the prime method of securing biofuel cropland.

Regardless of this truth, politicians continually support biofuels because they are unconcerned with doing what is correct; they are only concerned with remaining in office, increasing their power, and keeping their party in office. Of course, politicians do not support biofuels by simply saying, ‘Biofuels are peachy keen. I am Joe the Politician and I approve this message.’ Supporting biofuels involves money; around $8 billion rightfully belonging to American residences, but Joe the Politician steals to subsidize biofuels. ‘Subsidy’ is just a fancy word for ‘pacifier’. Thus, Joe the Politician purchases an $8 billion pacifier with money he stole, and gives it to the farm lobby; a powerful baby that – without its binky – throws a temper tantrum and votes out Joe the Politician and his cronies. Therefore, subsidizing biofuels has nothing to do with sustaining nature; it is all about maintaining power.

This is just one small example of how politicians specialize in boondoggles. Therefore, if politicians cannot properly address this small environmental problem, environmentalists have no reason to believe that any politician can do it correctly.

Grundwald, Michael. “The Clean Energy Scam.” Time. April. 2008: 40 – 45.

Education

2008-12-15T15:34:00.004-05:00

This semester I did not get to post as often as I like because school really drained me this time. It was not that I lacked the time to post. It was that I lacked the enthusiasm to because college is becoming increasingly annoying and increasingly boring. My first semester was exciting because I had far more free time than in high school, the classes were slightly more interesting, and I had more independence. However, that has worn off. Therefore, since my first and only exam is in a few hours and then I get to go home tomorrow, I am going to take this time to complain about education.

I have not spent considerable time thinking about all the problems with education; therefore, this post is not going to be anywhere near as encompassing as previous posts. That is not to say my previous posts have all the answers. They are certainly not close, and I recognize I could be completely wrong about pasts posts and even this post, so long as I am provided with conclusive evidence as to otherwise.

Everyone recognizes there is a problem with education. It is one of the few topics actually discussed at college. There is the government (meaning how to make it a bigger welfare state), how to protect the environment, why people suck (which includes racism, prejudice, selfishness, all that stuff), and why education sucks. Unfortunately, no one really has the slightest clue why education is poor. They just point to statistics of drop out rates, graduation rates, SAT scores and say, "See, they are low; therefore, education in this country is poor." Of course, they always follow up with the statistics from Europe and Asia and say, "See, education there is great." However, these individuals do not realize that the statistics really have nothing to do with whether the education in one particular place or another is good or bad. The real mark of good education is if it ignites the desire to learn. This means that the students must actually want to learn, voluntarily educate themselves, and are learning what they want to learn.

Therefore, while others say education is poor because of lackluster statistics, I say education is poor because it is boring and supported by violence. Simply look at all education prior to college. However, do not count pre-school or kindergarten. I do not remember those periods very well, but the little parts are do remember are distinctly different from the other periods. In those two periods I remember sitting on the floor with toys or coloring. From first grade to twelfth grade, however, I remember sitting in rows with thirty other students, all facing the same way, staring at someone talk to me for about fifty minutes. After fifty minutes I and all other other students would get up, go to another room, and repeat the process roughly six times a day, five days a week. This is utterly boring. The emotions I associate with my school years are a feeling of physical sickness (like I actually wanted to vomit all the time), incredibly tired, really freaking warm (like unbearably warm like I was cooking), anger, hatred, self-loathing. As far as I recall, first grade to twelfth grade was infinitely worse than college.

The best example that captures how awful that period of education is comes from an experience in my seventh grade geography class. On an unrelated tangent my teacher stated something like, "These are the best years of your life. You are having the most fun now." I then turned to the student sitting to my left and said something to the effect of, "That is the most retarded thing I ever heard." The student then replied with something like, "Yeah, if that's true, I am just going to kill myself right now."

Education is not fun, it is boring and horrible, even though it should be fun. The fact is, education, meaning learning new things, is incredibly enjoyable. When I learn something new it is like the sunlight hits me in the face. I have those incredible ah-ha moments. However, I experienced this very rarely in my formal education. Furthermore, I actually went to a private school, which is supposed to be better than public school. If that is true, public school must be awful.

I think the two biggest reasons why education is so boring is because the students do not actually get to do anything, and because students are learning about topics they do not care about.

Firstly, sitting in rows for six fifty-five minute periods five days a week does not count as doing something. That is the opposite of doing something. Presently, it seems so obvious to me that this is a major problem with education; however, while I was in school I could not figure it out. I always thought I was the problem and I just needed to focus more. Yet, now, whenever I plainly describe school as sitting in rows I laugh a little. I just think to myself, "Who honestly thought this was a good idea? Who really thought people were going to learn this way?" I just think of a comedian like Lewis Black, Jerry Seinfeld, or Eddie Izzard describing how people came to a conclusion as to how they were going to educate students. However, I only realized how utterly horrible and ridiculous the concept was until I heard Stefan Molyneux of Freedomain Radio compare education to sitting in rows like fattening calves. At that moment it became so obvious to me. The complete absence of stimulation in education results in not actually learning anything. It is basically like trying to teach something to someone who is sleeping. More stimulating and active methods are required. For example, one of my favorite classes was anatomy and physiology even though I have no interest in science. The reason it was one of my favorite classes was because I was actually dissecting animals. I actually saw the inside of lungs and stomachs. I saw where all the organs were. I had to look up organs I had not seen before. Today, I still remember parts of what I learned in anatomy and physiology. Whereas in environmental science, pre-calculus, geography, geometry, classes where I sat and listened and never did anything active to apply my knowledge I remember absolutely nothing. I can tell you that the semi-circular canals within the inner ear use the distribution of fluids within them to communicate to the brain how balanced the body is because I actually saw semicircular canals and the brain and the inner ear of an animal. Furthermore, I discovered them myself. The teacher did not throw up a slide and say, "Here they are." However, I cannot deduce all the lengths of a polygon based on one length, I do not know the characteristics of different climates, I do not know the nitrogen cycle and how it interacts with other cycles. Why? Because I was bored out of my mind because I was not applying any of it.

Secondly, if a student has absolutely no interest in a topic, there is no reason for him to learn it. Of course, there is a benefit to learning basic math and writing skills, but does every student really need to learn pre-calculus. I really dislike math. I had no interest in taking that class, but I was forced to because of some state requirements or something. However, today, I cannot remember a single thing about pre-calculus and I have not died, I have not failed out of college, and I can get a job. I fail to see the importance of learning something I have no interest in, if it has no role in keeping me alive and allowing me to interact with the world. Forcing students to take classes they despise only compounds how boring and distressing and discouraging education is. If students are allowed to learn what they would like to learn, even unconventional topics, they will be more excited about learning. They will also do better in those classes, and will be interested in learning on there own. When a student is provided with active learning in topics he loves, he is taught that learning is enjoyable; therefore, he will seek to learn independently. Thus, education becomes a life long activity, and individuals become smarter. However, if a student is provided with inactive boring learning in topics he hates, he is taught that learning is miserable; therefore, he will try to avoid education and never seek to learn independently. Thus, education is no longer part of his life, and he is not as intelligent as he would like to be.

Of course, no one wants to hear these ideas. If these ideas are correct, then that means they have been wrong their entire lives. No. Instead, individuals believe the solution to poor education is giving schools more money. This is a horrible idea. It is like paying someone who know is a horrible mechanic to fix your car. You are basically paying for your car to get just a little better. If schools are given more money, they will spend it trying to make things more boring and more restrictive.

Other problems with education include the fact that it is forced. Parents must send their children to school or else they will be fined, sent to jail, or their children will be taken from them. Fantastic ways to motivate people to learn. Obviously, children do not see government agents holding guns to their parents heads saying, "Go to school or else." However, I am sure there are parents who would not send their children to school, or send their children to more active yet state un-approved schools if allowed the choice.

Another problem with education is that the majority of it is public. Therefore, the state sets the curriculum. If the state has no idea how to run a business and has no authority to run a business, the same applies to education. It is a business like anything else. Better learning environments are created, when schools can compete against one another in the free market. Furthermore, since the state controls the schools, the state puts an emphasis on math, science, and conformity. Through schools the state tries to create students who will serve the interests of the states. The goal is not to provide the best place for customers to learn. The goal is to create future leaders and future civil servants. It should not be that much of a stretch to understand, since those exact lines, "future leaders" "future community leaders" "future civil servants", are actually used.

The worst problem with education, however, is how it is presented. Teachers argue that high school prepares one for college, and college prepares one for a life and a career. Therefore, high school must be somewhat related to life and careers. As education stands now, this is completely false. However, this is how it is presented, and this is what students assume. Thus, students also assume that since high school is horrible, their lives and careers will also be horrible. In a previous post I explained that nonsense parties where individuals drink excessively is motivated my self-loathing. That is definitely still a part of it; however, I think this presentation of education also plays into it. Students may assume that since life is going to continue sucking, that this is the most opportune time to get in as much hedonistic joy as possible before they acquire larger responsibilities that will not allow them to behave in this way. Basically, this presentation of education may only add to their self-loathing. They already do not like themselves, so the drink and party to cripple their reason, cripple their ability to recognize reality. Then education basically confirms this for them. Life sucks, and you suck, that is why you boring education is forced upon you. Thus, they continue to use the only method they know of to feel "good", which means to feel less because what they do feel is pain, hatred, anger, boredom, and self-loathing.

Unfortunately, college essentially follows the same blue print as high school. The only differences are there are fewer classes, few assignments, more time, and more independence. Yet, classes are still forced upon individuals, and they use the same boring standard.

There is only one defense for any of this. There is the defense for general education requirements. Allegedly they make someone a well rounded person, which is allegedly good. I do not buy it. If someone does not want to learn something, there is no reason for him to learn it. Well rounded individuals are no better than others, especially if they are unhappy. Furthermore, well rounded individuals know only a little about several topics. While a skilled individual knows much about one topic. From a practical perspective the skilled individual seems more equipped then the well rounded one.

The other defense I have heard for courses like geography forced upon individuals is that it helps the brain grow and develop. I do not buy this either. Of course, I could be completely wrong. Though I do pretend to be a doctor on occasion, I am certainly not a doctor. Therefore, my the brain does grow and develop in useful ways when learning topics one does not want to learn. However, I do not understand how the brain grows and develops through these courses, if after a year the individual no longer remembers what he learned in the course. For example, I do not remember anything about geometry, pre-calculus, environmental science, or geography. If my brain grew and developed while learning those topics, would I not remember them? Furthermore, even if my brain grew and developed while learning those topics even though I do not remember them, what exactly are those grown and developed parts filled with? They are certainly not filled with geometry, pre-calculus, environmental science, or geography.

A Great Story

2008-11-18T20:32:00.000-05:00

From Crackle: A Jewish Man's First Bacon

Like A Begging Dog

2008-11-09T15:11:00.000-05:00

On a similar note to my previous post, there is this student in one of my classes who constantly interrupts the teacher to contribute here own information and anecdotes. To be fair, she does sometimes raise here hand. However, every four minutes she tries to add something. Most of the time, it is not really information pertinent to the course. Granted, the course is not very specific about what is pertinent information. The class is essentially about transitioning from college life to real life, so it covers topics like resumes, cover letters, apartment leases, bills, health insurance, etc. However, personal anecdotes acting as a superfluous examples are a problem. Here are some paraphrased examples of her contributions:

"Hey, that's the name of my mom's law firm."

"That happens to my dad a lot. He tries to avoid it by doing this, but that doesn't help."

"At the hospital I work at (insert name here) the other nurses talk about that all the time."

"My brother is the number two goalie on the east coast. It's kind of a big deal."

Though the constant interruptions are certainly annoying, the real problem here is that the individual is trying to have her life affirmed. She is like a begging dog. Asking the teacher to call on her, and praise her for her examples. In some cases, she is not even seeking praise for an example. She is just seeking praise for a quality about another member of her family.

The problems here are one, she is dependent upon the reactions from the other class members and the teachers to make her happy. As I stated in the previous post, happiness is only achieved independently. The actions of others cannot make one happy, for it requires dependence, which requires one to violate his nature as an independent reasonable individual.

The second problem is that she is using the qualities of her family members to gain affirmation of her life. She is not even stating her own accomplishments. It is about her brother's "big deal" accomplishment as the number two goalie on the east coast. The prestigious law firm her mother works with. The wit and intelligence of her father. However, there is nothing about her own accomplishments. Therefore, she is not only dependent on reactions, but also dependent on the accomplishments of people she knows. Just as one is not guilty by association, one is not successful by association. She is only violating the independent quality of her nature two fold.

Politicians Are Like Jesus

2008-11-08T14:42:00.001-05:00

No, that is not a compliment. However, maybe the more appropriate title would have been "Politicians' Supporters Like Jesus' Disciples." Unfortunately, it just doesn't have the same ring.

Anyway, I began thinking about this, while on the myface. I am a visual person. I like images. Therefore, most of my time on the myface is spent looking at other people's pictures. Most of them aren't very good. Sometimes its like someone gave a crack baby a camera. Everything is all out of photos, the shots are diagonal, people's nostrils are up against the lens. Whoever has the camera has to use some common sense. Furthermore, they should not read this and hide behind the nonsense that it is abstract art or something. No. That is not the case. The case is you are trigger happy with a camera, and since you have a digital camera, with a million image limit on the number of photographs, you lack any motivation to stop, frame up a shot, and click.

As anyone can tell. I am not in a very good mood. College has been driving me insane; however, that is a topic for another day.

As I was saying. I was looking through some myface pictures, and since the election just occured most of them were reaction shots. Additionally, I believe all of them were reaction shots of supporters of Barack Obama. The shots show individuals out on the quad, jumping up and down, hugging, high fiving, waving the peace sign, and worst of all, crying with joy.

This is incredibly disturbing and overwhelmingly gross. Regardless of what these individuals claim to be their religious beliefs, even if they claim they are atheist, they have selected a new God, a Jesus equivalent.

First, I want to make it clear I am not singling out Obama supporters. Nonsense like this happens for all sorts of political elections throughout history and across the globe. The only connection to Barack Obama this really has, is that the images were of Obama supporters. However, in another time they could have been John F. Kennedy supporters, Ronald Reagan supporters, really the supporters of any politician. The problem here is not necessarily the candidate (though politicians and political candidates do have a wide array of problems) the problem here is the disturbing reaction as if they are worshiping a God.

This situation reminds me of a quote from Ayn Rand's We The Living.

"Well, if I asked people whether they believed in life, they'd never understand what I meant. It's a bad question. It can mean so much that it really means nothing. So I ask them if they believe in God. And if they say they do -- then, I know they don't believe in life.... Because, you see, God -- whatever anyone chooses to call God -- is one's highest conception of the highest possible. And whoever places his highest conception above his own possibility thinks very little of himself and his life. It's a rare gift, you know, to feel reverence for your own life and to want the best, the greatest, the highest possible, here, now, for your very own."

These individuals do not love life. For, they believe in a Jesus equivalent. They believe the politician is the greatest thing since sliced bread, that the politician makes life worth living. Politicians do not make life better. Government does not make life better. One makes his life better. Improving one's life, achieving happiness, is a personal pursuit. It is not something achieved through government handouts, or politicians' careers.

Unfortunately, this is how these individuals are behaving. They believe this particular politician has infinitely improved their lives. This is a sick dependence comparable to the disciples of Jesus. These individuals have ground themselves down into human fodder to prop up the careers of individuals who will orchestrate thievery, murder, and the initiation of force behind a governmental-guise that at a distance appears as legitimacy. These individuals have destroyed themselves. Made themselves nothing more than support beams. Therefore, if their candidate fails, they collapse, for they believe they have no purpose.

It is true that a support beam without a platform is useless; however, men are not support beams. Men are never fodder, holding up a creature as a God. Men make their own purpose, by living their own lives, for their own happiness. Reducing one's self to a resource for others, is a complete contradiction of one's nature as an independent reasonable individual; therefore, it can only assure misery.

Obviously, these individuals are not as happy as they could be. Relying on other's successes to make one happy, to affirm one's own exist, never achieves happiness. However, they think they are happy now because they think all the promises of their God will come true. Unfortunately, over time, they will become disillusioned. They will see their Jesus is just another power seeking politician caring only for government's existence, not the individuals at all. Consequently, they will become unhappy. Obviously, the opponents supporters are now unhappy, once again because they relied on his success and not their personal accomplishments for happiness. Of course, this process will continue to repeat itself as it has in the passed until individuals' improve their philosophy.

However, those that realize this, realize how vicious government is regardless of what color and mascot it is dressed in, will be happy, or have a better potential to be happy than these individuals. The ones who realize this are not relying on any politician to succeed to affirm their own existence. They honestly could not care, or care very little. Instead, they solely care about their own lives, their own happiness. Therefore, they will not seek happiness from others success, from the ascent of a Jesus like others. Instead, they will go out and achieve happiness themselves.

World War II: A War Amongst Capitalists?

2008-11-07T13:00:00.000-05:00

Yeah, it does not make any sense. However, this is what my Arabic professor argued last week. If not obvious by his argument, he has extreme leftist/Marxist leanings. Therefore, there are already a host of other problems with moral warping, which I will not address here.

My specific problem with this argument was the skewing of definitions, specifically the definition of capitalism. He maintained that most of the states involved in World War II supported capitalism, while I maintained that few if none supported capitalism. The obvious exclusion is the Soviet Union; however, I think he even agreed with this. Furthermore, he may see the Soviet Union as the victim since it did not participate in the war until Nazi Germany attacked it. However, this should not be construed to imply that my professor supports the Soviet Union. Undoubtedly, he finds its practices atrocious. He specifically brought up the fact that Stalin murdered 20 million of his own people.

With the Soviet Union out of the way, obviously Nazi Germany would be the next exception we could both agree upon. Unfortunately, this is not the case. He continued to maintain that Nazi Germany was capitalistic. In response, I pointed out that capitalism was based on voluntary exchanges between individuals; therefore, Nazi Germany, which used government force to maintain corporations could not be capitalistic. He then attempted to make a distinction between capitalisms, as if there are multiple categories. He said I was speaking about the idealist Adam Smith capitalism. I do not remember that much about Adam Smith from history school, I am sure my thought and his share some similarities; however, I understand the definition of capitalism as a wall between state and economy. I am not sure if Adam Smith understood this. In any regard, my professor then stated he was talking about real capitalism, which Nazi Germany is. In reality, he was still wrong. There is no separations between capitalism. There are degrees of capitalism; however, a state that is even just one degree below capitalism is not capitalistic. There is either the free voluntary exchange of materials amongst individuals, or there is not for there may be just one exception. Nazi Germany was rife with exceptions. The United States was also rife with exceptions because of President Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal. I am sure Britain was similar. Italy also had a mix between socialism and capitalism; thus, making it not capitalism. Japan probably also had some exceptions. Of course, I only read small sections of the wikipedia articles for Japan, Germany, and Italy, so I could be wrong about some of them if not all. However, I am pretty sure I am right that World War II was not a war between capitalists.

In any event, I was addressing the problem with definitions. The problem with my argument with my professor was that we had completely different definitions of capitalism. I have no idea what he was defining, but it certainly was not capitalism. Unfortunately, he did not realize that what he was explaining was not capitalism. Of course, he did not make a mistake. It was not as if he thought one was supposed to take a left to get to the grocery store, when the grocery store was really on the right. The problem was that he really truly believed capitalism was something else. I am not sure how he defines it, but from what I gather he believes that capitalism is solely based on profit earnings. Therefore, if one gathers more profits with fascism and practices that, then that is capitalism. However, that is not capitalism at all. Capitalism has a completely different definition my professor apparently does not understand. Unfortunately, my professor will continue to stand by this false definition even if I provide him with the Merriam-Webster dictionary definition:

An economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

Individuals must understand that words have exact definitions. There are, of course, several definitions to multiple words depending on how the word is used in a particular context. However, the word dog can not refer to an animal that is a cat. The word capitalism can not refer to an economic system that has socialist elements. If any word could identify any person, place, thing, action, description, concept, etc. then words would have no meaning at all. Additionally, individuals must also admit to the possibility that they can be wrong. They must also demand conclusive evidence proving their falsehood in order to realize it. Granted, I did not provide conclusive evidence. I did not show my professor this definition. However, from his stand point, he can never be wrong because capitalism is always what is in his mind despite what dictionaries say. This was evidently conveyed when he stated that I was talking about idealist Adam Smith capitalism. The objective in saying this was to maintain that he was correct, not to understand the truth. He maintains correctness on the definition of capitalism because he talks about real capitalism not fake idealist Adam Smith capitalism. I always admit I could be wrong. For example, I stated earlier that I could probably be wrong about how capitalistic each state during World War II was. However, if someone is going to prove me wrong, they must supply conclusive evidence. Obviously, that would not require too much since I only briefly read the wikipedia pages. However, I am sufficiently sure I am correct about the definition of capitalism, since I just retrieved it from a dictionary and it pretty much said what I had argued.

Environmental Studies Response 8

2008-11-06T13:00:00.000-05:00

Here is my eighth reading response for my Environmental Studies class.

In The Omnivore’s Dilemma, author Michael Pollan describes how hybrid corn seed has doubled crop yields twice since 1930. This illustrates science’s incredible value, especially in regards to food production; however, part of Richard Levins’ Science and Progress: Seven Developmentalist Myths in Agriculture appears to favor “folk knowledge” over science.

The hybrid seed’s results are astounding. In 1920, the average corn yield was twenty bushels per acre. When hybrid seed was introduced in 1930, corn yields climbed and leveled out in the 1950’s around eighty bushels per acre. Presently, improved hybrid seed has increased corn yields to between 160 and 200 bushels per acre. Such an achievement displays science’s greatness and necessity. Furthermore, it indicates that in the future, science will accomplish more challenging feats, such as genetically altering seed so crops can grow in unbearable climates.

However, despite science’s clear extraordinary value within this sphere, Levins argues that scientific knowledge is not superior to folk knowledge. According to Levins, assuming “that science is the only way to knowledge” is “a chauvinist, class-based, and sexist contempt for the intellectual achievements of third world peoples, workers, and women of all countries” (Levins 437). Levins continues, arguing that modern science is not the only way to gather knowledge because “all peoples learn, experiment, and analyze” (Levins 437). However, that is not folk knowledge, but science without lab coats and gloves. When a farmer controls variables like fertilizer and water, and determines that his crops require more water, he has used science not folk knowledge. Whether on a personal level, like this example, or in a lab making hybrid seeds, science not folk knowledge has improved farming.

Levins needs to clarify his argument, specifically by defining folk knowledge differently from science. Otherwise, on this point it appears, Levins is backward, “scientific knowledge is modern” (Levins 437)
Levins, Richard. “Science and Progress: Seven Developmentalist Myths in Agriculture.”

Environment an Interdisciplinary Anthology. Ed. Glenn Adelson, James Engell,

Brent Ranalli, and K.P. Van Anglen. 1^st ed. New Haven: Yale University Press.

434-439.

Why I Did Not Vote

2008-11-05T11:36:00.002-05:00

Since last semester, I have been considering whether or not I would vote in this election. Though I had decided not to vote month ago, the decision was official yesterday when I let the election pass by without paying it the slightest bit of attention. My reasons for not voting in this election, and probably for future elections include the similarity of the two candidates, my unwillingness to consent to government violation of my natural rights, and the fact that democracy does not make sense.

Obviously, most individuals will argue that Barack Obama and John McCain are completely dissimilar. However, this is false, simply because each candidate wanted more government and more war. Obama wants a larger government for social programs. McCain wants a larger government for security. Though Obama does want to withdraw troops from Iraq, he does want them to participate in more peace keeping operations. McCain wants troops to remain in Iraq, and participate in operations throughout the Middle East. Expanding the government whether for social programs or security violates individuals natural rights. Social programs relies on government robbery of individuals' property. Security relies on government restrictions on individuals' life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Expanding war in both cases does not achieve government's purpose. Government is supposed to protect the natural rights of the individuals residing within its boundaries. Peace keeping missions does not accomplish this. Peace keeping missions attempts to protect other individuals' natural rights. That is not the American military's responsibility. The American military's responsibility is to sit on America's borders, aim its guns outwards, and shoot those trying to shoot at those residing in America. This should not be construed as meaning that immigrants should be shot. Immigrants are not shooting at those residing in America, they are trying to become other individuals residing within America, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Finally, American military operations in the Middle East, specifically in Iraq, is also not protecting the natural rights of individuals' residing within America. The American military should indeed kill terrorists trying to kill those residing in America, and if they are in the Middle East, then special operations soldiers should go there and resolve the problem. However, toppling foreign governments and attempting to build democracies is completely contrary to the American miltiary's purpose. Instead of protecting the natural rights of those residing within America, it is just violating the natural rights of those living within another country. Even if the American military removes a brutal dictator like Saddam Hussein and allegedly liberates Iraqi individuals the entire occupation results in breaking and entering, murder, robbery, imprisonment, and restrictions on Iraqi individuals who have initiated no force. Furthermore, it is the responsibility of Iraqi individuals to alter their government through force or more peaceful political change. That is not the purpose of the American government.

Secondly, a vote constitutes consent to a candidates entire platform. Therefore, by voting for either Obama or McCain I would be consenting to larger government and more war. I would be consenting to everything I listed above. I refuse to consent to that. I do not recognize any of their positions as legitimate. This is probably why I will continue to abstain from voting in the future. Even if there was a candidate I completely agreed with, his paycheck still comes from government robbery of individuals natural right to property via taxes. I will not consent to being robbed at gun point so someone else can earn a paycheck.

Finally, democracy does not make sense. There seems to be this assumption that democracy results in virtuous decisions. This is false. Democracy guarantees no virtue. Democracy is not constructed to guarantee any level of moral quality whether negative or positive. Democracy only guarantees agreement. Therefore, democracy is an incredibly poor decision making method. It is designed to make a decision, it is not designed to make the best decisions. I do not wish to participate in a faulty process, especially in one that is ultimately allowed to decide whether my natural rights will be protected or violated. Democracy only guarantees that one will be decided on, it does not guarantee that the best decision will be made, that it will be decided individuals' natural rights are to be protected.

I have tried to consider if there was ever an election I would participate in. Thus far, I think I may participate in an election if Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. were revived, Hitler was running for president, and the others were in his cabinet, and a liberal was running against them. That liberal could be McCain, Obama, a reincarnated Reagan, even George W. Bush. I may consider voting for the liberal, to make sure I would not have an even more psychotic and vicious government. However, this, of course, will never happen. Furthermore, if it was happening, I may just decide to move. Additionally, this situation only changes the first premise. Now the candidates are dissimilar. However, I would still be consenting to the violation of my natural rights. I would just either consent to a whole bunch of them being violated, or just a few. Also, the decision is still being left up to majority rule. This decision is too damn important to leave it to majority rule, to democracy. The best decision must be made, not just any decision. Thus, if I am to participate in any future election, I must discover that I am mistaken. Obviously, that is a possibility, I acknowledge I could be completely and utterly wrong. Furthermore, I will admit I am wrong, if I discover how.

Environmental Studies Response 7

2008-10-27T21:03:00.002-04:00

Here is another reading response for my Environmental Studies class.

Environment an Interdisciplinary Anthology’s biodiversity chapter implies that nature is inherently valuable. However, the articles With Mouth Wide Open and Human Domination of Earth’s Ecosystems inadvertently disprove this claim, for to justify it they rely on man’s existence.

Value presupposes a valuer. If an item is unvalued, it is worthless. For example, if Product A is developed and sold, it clearly has value because developers use it to earn profits, and consumers purchase it. However, if everyone including the developers dispose of Product A, it becomes worthless. Product A is not worth $3 because it costs $3 to produce; Product A is only worth $3 if individuals are willing to buy and sell it for $3. If no one wants Product A, it is worthless.

The same is true for nature; it is worthless unless it is valued. Fortunately, nature is valued by man. This is evidenced by With Mouth Wide Open’s and Human Domination of Earth’s Ecosystem’s attempts to scare and shame readers. The articles state, “Man is destroying the cod, and once it is gone, he can no longer eat it,” and “Man is destroying ecosystems and species, once they are gone, he can no longer see them and use their resources.” Essentially, nature has value because man exists. Therefore, man should not preserve nature for the sake of preserving it, but for the sake of preserving something he values.

Of course, some argue man should preserve nature even if he does not value it because animals value it. However, that must be proven. Just because Animal A eats Plant B does not mean Animal A values Plant B. Animal A’s instinct programs it to eat Plant B. Is that value, or is that distinctly different from man, who derives happiness from what he values?

Environmental Studies Response 6

2008-10-16T10:27:00.001-04:00

Below is the sixth reading response for my Environmental Studies class.

Several environmental mediums, such as Annie Leonard’s The Story of Stuff depict corporations as ignorant, voracious, and obese top-hat-wearing instigators and perpetuators of environmental problems. However, corporations have serious motives to solve environmental issues.

Leonard argues that in the past, present, and future corporations destroy nature to earn profits. However, corporations’ profit motive ensures that they will not continue to destroy nature. Corporations desire to create the cheapest and most effective products because individuals want them and they are inexpensive to make. Essentially, profit motivates corporations to create ideal products, but ideal products cannot be constructed before inferior ones. Furthermore, ideal products are environmentally friendly, for they use inexpensive renewable fuels, produce clean and harmless unobtrusive waste work as well as their predecessors, and cost the same. Simply imagine a car with these attributes. Any corporation that created it would become exceedingly wealthier.

Since most environmentalists blame corporations for instigating and perpetuating environmental destruction, they turn to the government to provide solutions. However, the government has no motivation to do so. If the government was motivated, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s recommendations to develop water conservation techniques and efficient farming would already be accomplished, for the state subsidizes water utilities and farmers. However, these subsidies eliminate any motivation to develop, for they remove all fear of bankruptcy caused by a competitor’s superior product. Water utilities and farmers never worry about profits because they are always guaranteed money from the government.

Environmentalists must remember that corporations’ environmentally harmful past is not vicious. Attacking corporations for their former inferior environmentally harmful products is like attacking the man who invented fire because he did not invent the light bulb. The light bulb is the ideal; however, man has no idea how to make it unless he makes fire first.

Collective Punishment

2008-10-07T19:57:00.002-04:00

Last week in my Environmental Studies class one student argued that there need to be global regulations on birth. That is correct, some super-state, as if there is not enough government already, needs to pass a law governing all the people of the world, which would restrict the number of children each individual can give birth to.

This statement immediately reminded me of collective punishments. Through my experience I find that they are most prevalent where children are involved like elementary schools or youth organizations like the Boy Scouts. These bullshit punishments penalize an entire group for the prohibited actions of specific individuals. Simply, individuals who have not violated any rules are disciplined because someone they are next to did. This does not teach individuals to stop committing certain acts. The only thing individuals learn from these punishments is that they are not individuals; that their lives have been forcibly tied to other men. Thus, they also learn that since all lives are tied to one another any individual can force another individual to stop committing an act for the sake of preserving the virtue of a human knot. Of course, this is completely false, and is just another source of the prevalence of warped morality.

These false teachings were indeed the root of the student's comment. He was acting like an individual who had been punished this way numerous times. He now assumes all human lives are latched; thus, it is his responsibility, as one of the shackled, to punish all the shackled for some of them are having too many children. First, I am not sure if this is even a vice, and it certainly does not violate any individuals' natural rights; therefore, there can be no government regulation of the act. However, that individual is not thinking like this. He is thinking like the child punished with collectivism, punished for the vices and rule breaking of individuals next to him. Thus, he now acts and thinks as if that system of punishment is just. Clearly, it is not for it punishes those who have done nothing wrong. It punishes those who happen to be similar to others or near others at the time of the prohibited act. Subsequently, he now propagates that thinking. He is a teacher of this warped philosophy through his punishment of others. He is now a fountain of moral corruption.

Additionally, collective punishment is also somewhat like racism. In fact, racism is a form of collective punishment. In my post on racism I pointed out that it identifying an individual negatively based on the actions of his ancestors. That is partially it. There is also negative identification based on arbitrary physical factors shared by a group of individuals. In any event, they are both very similar because it judging all similar individuals based on the actions of a few individuals. However, since men are independent individuals, using this collective judgment is irrational. Man's liberty separates him from other men. Therefore, if he is disconnected from a particular action, he cannot be associated with it, for his liberty allowed him to choose not to participate in the acts of other men.

This also holds true for attaching positive qualities to similar individuals based on the actions of some of them, or having pride in positive actions based on the fact that one is similar to the actual actors. Specifically, one should not have pride in his culture. He may admire the actions of particular individuals; however, he cannot say he has personal pride in them as if he participated in some collective act. In fact, there was no collective act. In fact, the individual is just riding on the coattails of another individual who happens to be similar to him in some way. One must be proud of his own accomplishments, not partake is a false collective pride that he earned only because he was born with similar physical characteristics as the actors. Once again, the fact that he has liberty, the fact that his mind is disconnected from the actor, the fact that he may have the choice to participate with the actor or not, indicates that he cannot seek merit for actions he did not commit. Essentially, collective punishment, judgment, merit, any form of collectivism is impossible without a collective mind; liberty, meaning independent minds protect individuals from collective punishment or judgment and bar individuals from stealing the merits of other actors.

Environmental Studies Response 5

2008-10-06T14:06:00.001-04:00

Another reading response for my Environmental Studies class.

The scientific evidence presented in Environment an Interdisciplinary Anthology and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2007 synthesis report was certainly impressive and difficult to challenge. However, physical science does not direct government policy; that is philosophy’s purpose.
The science presented in these readings is most admirable, even to those who do not understand all the specifics, such as how CO2’s interaction with the atmosphere causes global warming. Science in general is admirable because it illustrates man’s desire and passion to understand physical reality, and that his mind has an almost infinite potential to comprehend and solve problems. One example of science’s admirability is displayed in the readings’ description of using an ice column to analyze and compare past CO2 levels to the present.
However, a problem arises when scientific discoveries are used to justify governmental policies. Governance is not science’s responsibility, for no amount of digging, exploring, drilling, or chemical testing will reveal virtues. Virtues are uncovered via morality not physical facts. Therefore, proper governance is solely philosophy’s responsibility, for it unearths morality.
Unfortunately, environmentalism appears to only be focusing on science when it is actually a two-step process also requiring philosophy. First, scientific evidence must be accumulated and confirmed; the environmental issue and its potential harm to man are solely answerable by science. Second, philosophy must determine the virtuous resolution. For example, philosophy determines if violating individuals’ property rights for the sake of lowering CO2 emissions to resolve the environmental issue is virtuous or vicious. Obviously, vice is to always be avoid, while virtue is to always be pursued. However, simply following the first-step and jumping to moral conclusions undoubtedly results in an unacceptable and avoidable mix of virtue and vice.

Environmental Studies Response 4

2008-10-02T13:00:00.000-04:00

Here is the fourth response for my Environmental Studies class.

Judging from Paul Hawken’s The WTO: Inside, Outside, All Around the World, and Thomas Friedman’s Politics for the Age of Globalization, it appears some do not understand that globalization necessitates liberty.

Globalization is essentially the disintegration of state and national borders via individuals’ increasing potential to interact with others beyond those borders. Furthermore, divided individuals can only interact if they are not restricted by the borders’ creators. Thus, globalization requires liberty. However, Hawken muddles globalization with the World Trade Organization (WTO), and Friedman believes globalization requires expanding government paternalism, both of which oppose globalization’s liberty component.

Hawken’s mistake is clearest when he describes the United States filed complaint with the WTO regarding the European Union’s (EU) acceptance of independent Caribbean farmers’ bananas, but refusal of Chiquita Brands International’s. The WTO decided the EU was biased towards the independent farmers, and forced the EU to also accept Chiquita. This is not globalization, for businesses were utilizing the government’s monopoly on violence to force products upon individuals. Additionally, the EU’s restriction of Chiquita bananas also contradicts globalization. Globalization demands grocers independently choose what products to sell.

Friedman argues, globalization requires the government “to equip each [individual], and… society at large” (256). When the government assumes this responsibility it invariably violates rights and corrupts accountability. For example, Friedman proposes government loans for starting personal businesses. Firstly, this requires redistributing wealth, which necessitates thievery. Secondly, unlike a bank, the government can steal more money. Therefore, the government has no interest in restricting loans. Consequently, several unqualified individuals would receive loans. Furthermore, there would be prolonged low interest payment plans; thus, the hassle is limited if the business fails. Essentially, these loans depreciate personal responsibility.

Hawken must realize that globalization fosters freedom not oppression, while Friedman must learn that some of his recommendations hinder globalization.

Friedman, Thomas. “Politics for the Age of Globalization.” Environment an

Interdisciplinary Anthology. Ed. Glenn Adelson, James Engell, Brent Ranalli, and

K.P. Van Anglen. 1^st ed. New Haven: Yale University Press. 251-261.

Hawken, Paul. “The WTO: Inside, Outside, All Around the World.” Environment an

Interdisciplinary Anthology. Ed. Glenn Adelson, James Engell, Brent Ranalli, and

K.P. Van Anglen. 1^st ed. New Haven: Yale University Press. 261-268.

Environmental Studies Response 3

2008-10-01T13:00:00.001-04:00

Below is the third reading response for my Environmental Studies class.

In his chapters on administrative rationalism, democratic pragmatism, and economic rationalism John Dryzek emphasizes a higher value for citizenship than individuality, though the reverse is warranted.
Dryzek’s purpose for these chapters is to explore different methods of solving the environmental problem. The two basic methods are addressing the problem collectively through government, or individually and voluntarily. Dryzek argues collectivism is the best model, for it is a “flexible process involving many voices, and cooperation across a plurality of perspectives” (100) that also preserves camaraderie. According to Dryzek, collective methods like nationalizing nature into parks creates “repository[ies] of common trust and community pride,” and “emblem[s] of what it means to be a Canadian, an American, a Costa Rican, or a Japanese.” These “are experiences that Walt Disney could never provide” (139). Unfortunately, Dryzek’s argument implies significant violence.
Regardless of whether or not nationalizing nature better preservers it than privatization, nationalization relies on the government stealing from individuals. Either the government would steal land to nationalize, or it would steal money to sustain the nationalized land. Additionally, Dryzek favors collective problem solving, i.e. democracy, because “nobody wants a hazardous waste treatment facility in their backyard” (105); therefore, when that possibility arises, the community can veto or regulate it. This is violence. It is individuals who do not own the property deciding how the owner may use it. That is thievery and oppression. The peaceful way to black a hazardous waste facility’s construction is purchasing all the possible sites of such a facility. Subsequently, one owns the land and has the right to decide how it may be used. Another peaceful method is simply moving.
Obviously, many will argue that most individuals lack the resources for purchasing land or relocating. However, insufficient resources do not legitimize the violation of others’ natural rights.

Environmental Studies Response 2

2008-09-30T13:00:00.001-04:00

Here is the second reading response for my Environmental Studies class.

In chapter three of The Politics of the Earth, John Dryzek characterizes Prometheans’ as closed-minded; thus, implying that environmentalism thinks outside the box. However, true Prometheanism, and Garrett Hardin’s The Tragedy of the Commons reveals environmentalism’s closed-mindedness.
According to Dryzek, Prometheans believe “natural resources, ecosystems, and… nature itself, do not exist” (57 Dryzek). This actually directly contradicts Prometheanism, which believes reality exists; thus, it understands matter is finite. Prometheanism also believes man is productive and progressive, and that he has successfully lessened his dependence on nature for survival. Thus, Prometheanism believes man can progress beyond nature to a point when relying on it for existence will be unnecessary. Environmentalists argue the exact opposite, for they believe man cannot exist without nature. Thus, man must not progress beyond nature, but stagnate and preserve nature. Nothing could be more in the box.
Hardin’s The Tragedy of the Commons illustrates another environmentalist inside-the-box thought. In his parable, Hardin explains that individuals are inclined to place more cattle on a communally owned pasture, or commons. Eventually, there would be too many cattle for the commons to support, and must would starve. Hardin equates the parable to the current environmental problem, and concludes “mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon” (805 Adelson) is the only solution. Coercion is completely unnecessary; however, environmentalists cannot see another solution because the parable’s foundation is closed-minded. The solution without coercion is privatizing the commons. Consequently, the owner would want to sustain his property to continuously profit. This is impossible with commons because communal ownership is no ownership; no one is responsible for the property’s upkeep.
Closed-mindedness is not wrong. Knowing the truth is closed-minded. The problem is closed-mindedness about falsehoods. That is environmentalism, which believes nature is communal and man needs it; therefore, he must be forced to sustain it.

I would just like to add an example of a discussion from this very class to capture environmentalists' closed-mindedness.

The class was discussing how privatization could solve several environmental problems; however, most of the class was laughing and poking fun at the suggestions. One of the suggestions from the book was that whales could be privatized. Consequently, environmentalists could purchase whales to protect, and whalers could purchase whales to breed and slaughter like cattle. I pointed out that the one problem with this is that the whales could freely swim around from international waters to state owned waters, and that first sections of the oceans must be privatized, then one must find a way to keep one's whales in his plot of ocean. Once again the class laughed and pointed out how stupid this was. They argued that it could never be done because whales migrate. I stated that they were thinking like the first man who invented fire, claiming that man would never go to the moon and that man would never be able to electronically communicate with other men on the opposite side of the globe in mere seconds. I said that I did not know the solution, but that does not mean it will never be solved. They continued to point out that this was a completely different circumstance because whales' migratory patterns could not be controlled.

A few hours later, after class, I found the solution. I kept thinking to myself that cattle and horses used to freely move around, but then man invented fences and kept them in one spot, curbing those unstoppable migratory patterns. The whale solution could be implemented today. First, plots of ocean are privatized, and the geographical positions of one's plot of ocean is recorded on a computer that communicates with a satellite. Next, one purchases some whales, and herds them into these plots of oceans with boats or something. I am sure herding whales has already been pioneered. Then, one creates a device for whales which is similar to the electric dog collars. This device also has a GPS that communicates to the satellite the whale's current position. Thus, when the whale approaches the limits of one's plot of ocean the satellite knows and sends a signal back to the device, ordering that it zap the whale. The whale is zapped, swims in the other directions, and is conditioned not to leave that plot of ocean. Additionally, once more is understood about the brain, a chip could probably be placed on the whale's brain so that as it reaches the limits of the plot it just decided to turn around without any zap or conditioning. Man's mind has incredible potential, but it appears my classmates hate man too much to understand the greatness of his mind. In turn the only solution they see to such problems as this environmental issue is stagnation. Maintaining the environment for what it is, even if they have to violate individuals' natural rights to achieve this stagnation.

Environmental Studies Response 1

2008-09-29T13:00:00.001-04:00

This semester I am taking an atrocious class called Environmental Studies. It is a general education requirement, and it was either do this one which is related to political science or one that was purely science related. I never really enjoyed science, so I decided to choose this one. Over this semester I am sure I will be writing about this class on several occasions; however, I thought I would also post some of my work for the class. Currently, the class is assigned weekly readings, which we must respond to in no more than 300 words. Below is the first response from a few weeks ago.

Thus far, Red Sky At Morning indicates that environmentalism has a religious quality. Therefore, incorporating environmentalism and government produces tyranny.
Religion’s essence is valuing another entity more than one’s self. Environmentalism is similar, for it believes nature is greater than one’s self. Subsequently, “energy depletion, economic collapse, limited nuclear war, or conquest by a totalitarian government” are not the worst catastrophes, but “the loss of genetic and species diversity by the destruction of natural habitats” (pg 24) are. Essentially, animal and plant extinction is worse than suffering, oppression, and death. If this is true, individual men are less valuable than individual plants and animals; one’s self, life, liberty, property, and happiness are worth less than nature.
This similarity with religion indicates that government implementation of environmental policies results in tyranny. Government’s purpose is to protect man’s natural rights. However, religion identifies another entity as greater than man. Therefore, it would be correct to oppress man for the sake of the greater entity. Thus, appropriate government environmental policies would include “require[ing] new SUVs and pickup trucks to achieve forty miles per gallon,” financing the development of renewable energy, and “[increasing] tax[es] on oil and gasoline” (pg 70). These policies violate every individual’s property rights. One’s natural right to property allows one to manufacture and sell any car variant he chooses, and to use his money as he pleases, both free of government intervention.
Unfortunately, the government violates individuals’ natural rights through similar methods, so few will notice the harm behind environmental polices. However, a victim’s apathy does not legitimize the attacker’s actions. Furthermore, apathy towards environmental preservation and thus self preservation does not legitimize tyranny; natural rights protect apathy.

Meld

2008-09-28T12:37:00.002-04:00

In the same Sociology class where femininity was discussed, my professor mentioned a far more disturbing concept at the end of class. It began as a discussion on terms for sex. The professor wrote the following sentence on the board, "Honey, we're finally alone. Let's __________," and asked the class to fill in the blanks. It actually was pretty funny some of the terms people came up with. However, at the end of class the professor mentioned that there were no terms on the board that reflected anything "spiritual" or "mutual." She said all the terms were about desiring to do something to another person, and she suggested that in our spare time, not for class, we come up with a term that was both mutual and spiritual. Apparently, she has been thinking about this for some time, saying that the only term she could ever come up with was meld. She then said something to the effect that the term isn't about doing something to another person but just melding together and becoming one.

This is gross. First, all I am imagining is two people melting into a giant fondue of sex. However, that is beside the point, and even if I did not envision that the term would still be grossed. As I have said before, love is about becoming more, meaning achieving more happiness. Therefore, there cannot be two people melting, or melding, into one. That is subtraction. That is less. That is the destruction of two selves for some new entity. This common concept that in love 1 + 1 = 1 is perverted. Love is not about destroying two individuals into one entity. Love is about individuals maintaining who themselves and achieving happiness for themselves. It is not about achieving happiness for some singular fondue from their remnants. It is about achieving their independent happiness. Once again, love is selfish, it is not altruistic as this term suggests.

Additionally, though their is some mutual aspect to love, this does not mean that sex has to be equalized in every action. Nor does it mean that both individuals must agree that certain actions are pleasurable and other actions are not pleasurable. For example, the two individuals do not have to agree that doing something to another is pleasurable, yet having something done to them by the other is not pleasurable. If the two individuals had to pursue this, then mutuality would make sense because both individuals would mutually want to both do something to the other person all the time. Of course, then mutuality would also be impossible because sex does not work that way. Essentially, in each act one gives and the other receives. "Melding" suggests that a knew form of sex must be found where each individual is neither giving nor receiving because for mutuality to exist everything must be equalized both in actions and which actions derive pleasure and which do not derive pleasure. Obviously, the only way to achieve this is on the fictional spiritual level, which obviously delves into the irrational, and in order for a romantic relationship to function properly it cannot exist in some ignorant mystical atmosphere. Part of love is A's desire to do something to B, and B's desire to have A do something to it, and vice versa. The disgusting mutuality of "melding" would remove this pleasure, and all that would exist is some mediocre compromise with lots of irrational mystical elements involved.

Femininity

2008-09-26T22:12:00.003-04:00

On Monday this past week in my Sociology class an intense debate about femininity began. It started out that the class was discussing how genders were becoming neutralizes. Next, one student stated that he thought that was sad. Obviously, everyone knows he is already approaching that line, and unfortunately he did not address it in the best way. However, I think there is significant merit to the foundation of his argument, and it is something I have considered and may have even briefly addressed in a previous post. Unfortunately, as I already said, he could not capture the essence of the issue well, and personally, I do not think I can either. Basically, what I am going to do is present a very simple idea really with no solution as to whether it is correct and virtuous or incorrect and vicious; however, it is something that should be seriously addressed, which just is not addressed in the current trend of gender neutralization while also remaining politically correct.

First, I want to specify gender neutralization. The term does not refer to males and females holding the same careers, enjoying the same natural rights which they are both equally entitled to, equally receiving judgment on their character and not physical qualities, etc. Gender neutralization refers to males trying to be like females and/or females trying to be like males. In turn, though there are certain physical features that classify males and females, the genders are essentially exactly the same in all other facets.

Secondly, I want to say that I believe that everyone regardless of gender may choose how they want to appear or behave in anyway as long as their actions do not violate another's natural rights. If a male wants to behave or appear as a female, or a female wants to behave or appear as a male, that is their right to choose it, and I do not necessarily consider it vicious. For example, some male homosexuals behave and appear more like females because that is their character, their self, and what makes them happy. Perfectly virtuous. This also applies to some females who are homosexuals and behave and appear more like males.

Thirdly, the problem I really have (and I am not sure if it is a legitimate problem or not) is males who want to make themselves as females or females who want to make themselves as males even though they are not homosexual. I find this difficult to describe and that previous statement certainly did not capture it, but I think it is some of the closest material I am going to get. From personal observation I find this far more prevalent among females, but I think I could be wrong because I do not regularly observe people while I am out, I also do not go out often, and I also do not associate with many people. So the possibility that I am wrong is very high. However, I think what I am trying to illustrate is clearest is some feminists movements. Some variations of feminism do not appear to be concerned with convincing people to judge females on the content of their character and not on their physical qualities. Instead, some aspects of feminism are interested in making females equal to males in almost every aspect. The difference is that the former wants both genders to be judged on the content of their character not on their gender. The latter appears to want females to be males.

The first issue is that philosophy, if that is indeed what some feminist movements are aiming form, implicitly classifies male gender as superior to female gender, when that is certainly not the case. It is as if the philosophy is stating, "the male gender sets the standard, and females must achieve that standard." Instead, the philosophy should be, "this is the standard, all genders must achieve that standard."

The second issue with that philosophy is that a male is a male and a female is a female, and it appears some females are not acting more masculine because that is their self and what makes them happy, but because that is how they believe they must achieve the "standard." Essentially, the idea, which I think is false, is "in order for equality between the genders, meaning equal judgment of character, I, a female, must be more masculine. " That is certainly not the case, and I believe this is what that student was trying to address, for at one point he said, and his entire argument focused on this, "there are some things that make a woman a woman." I think there is some merit to this, but I think those unique female qualities are not determined by her job, social status, etc. I believe a female can hold any job, social status, etc. and still maintain femininity. I think it may actually come down to physical and behavioral characteristics, but I am not sure. The best analogy I can think of is that an apple is an apple and an orange is an orange. They are both fruits, like males and females are both humans. Furthermore, an apple is not better than an orange, and an orange is not better than an apply. Like a male is not better than a female, and a female is not better than a male. However, an orange cannot be an apple, and an apple cannot be an orange. There are unique qualities that make an orange and orange, and unique qualities that make an apple an apple.

My final issue with gender neutralization is that I believe it may contradict one's nature, which is a vice. Obviously, it does not contradict the nature of some homosexuals because their selves' have qualities that are closer to the opposite gender. I am specifically referring to the people I previously mentioned who believe they achieve equality by acting like the opposite gender. The problem is that each person has unique characteristics which make them an individual. Including in these characteristics are also physical ones. Some are far more shallow than others, such as hair color and eye color. I do not think that gender is as shallow as those two; however, it is also certainly not as deep as one's character. This is why I think it deserves some level of acceptance. One should not contradict one's gender out of spite or the attempt to achieve equality. The former is a dependent life, one driven by the positions of others and contradicting them. The former is just the incorrect route to equal judgment of character.

However, once again I admit I could be completely wrong. I have not fully explored this topic. I do not understand it as well as I would like to. It is something I have though about on and off for some time, and I was reminded of it in that class. I thought this would be a good place for preliminary exploration.

Seperation Of Morality And Rationality

2008-09-24T22:05:00.002-04:00

"What is ethical is not always rational."

This is what my International Relations professor said on Monday. He was responding to my complaints about offensive realism, which I expressed before the weekend and in my last post. He followed up this by saying that he sees no place for ethics in international relations. As I have explained several times before politics or in this case international relations is always linked to morality. Even when one does not admit it. Any policy one desires to enact is based on one's concepts of how things should be done, or, in other words, values. One does not support a welfare related policy on a whim. One supports welfare related policy because his values indicate that giving funds to the unfortunate is virtuous. He supports that policy because of his morality. Of course, there are all sorts of vicious qualities of that policy, such as the whole part about stealing from thousands of other people and redistributing their wealth to those deemed "unfortunate" or "needy." However, that is not what I am trying to address. First, I am trying to show, as I have done several times in the past, the morality and actions are linked. Since morality plays an enormous role in politics, it must also play an enormous role in international relations. For example, a state leader who seeks regional hegemonic power does not seek it on a whim. He seeks it because his values indicate that security is the highest value and achieving regional hegemony is the best way to obtain that value. Once again the state leader is trying to act virtuously, he is pursuing his morality. However, even those who cast out morality like my professor and that asshole John Mearsheimer are still considering morality. The previous example was the basis of his own theory, and their is clearly morality at its foundation. The reason that Mearsheimer and my professor believe they are amoral and cast it aside when theorizing international relations is because they believe there is a separation between morality and rationality, which is the ignorant basis of my professor's statement I began with.

I have one question. If rationality is not based on morality, if rationality is not based on virtue and irrationality is not based on vice, then exactly what are they based on? I really cannot even conceive of how my professor or others who advocate this separation would answer. I suppose they may try and argue that rationality is acting on one's self-interest. In turn, I would point out that acting in one's self-interest is indeed virtuous. However, that would lead to a whole other discussion because most believe that acting in one's own self-interest is vicious. Therefore, if they were correct, then rationality would be acting viciously. Though this is incredibly skewed rationality is still linked to morality.

Essentially, acting rationally is pursuing the best, the good, the better, or just moving in the general direction of perfection. For example, if state security is good, and if regional hegemony is way to achieve state security, then pursuing regional hegemony is better than not pursuing regional hegemony. A simpler example would be, if peanut is good, and spreading peanut butter on bread is the best way to obtain peanut butter, then spreading peanut butter on bread is better than not spreading peanut butter on bread. Assuming for the moment that these examples are correct, it would then be irrational to not pursue regional hegemony or not spread peanut butter on bread because whatever that action could possibly be would not be as good. Simply, irrationality is the pursuit of the worst, the bad, the lesser, or just moving in the general direction of imperfection.

However, in order to ensure that one is acting rationally and not irrationally one needs some guidance. He needs some codes or standards that indicate to him what is rational and was is irrational. For example, achieving state security through regional hegemony is the assumed rational objective. Therefore, some codes would include increasing the state's offensive military capability, using conflicts to decrease other states' power and offensive military capability, never trust other statesmen, always act immediately for one can never be certain with 100% accuracy what another state's intentions or future intentions are. Another example, obtaining peanut butter through spreading it on bread is the assumed rational objective. Therefore, standards would include obtaining a jar of peanut butter, obtaining a knife, obtaining a slice of bread, opening the jar of peanut butter, using the knife to extract peanut butter from the can and spread it on the bread. Additionally, some codes are more important than others. There is a hierarchy of value. For example, never trusting other states is more important decreasing a state's power and offensive military capability. The reason is because if one trusts another state it may be a trap that could indefinitely obstruct a leader's pursuit of regional hegemony, while one does not necessarily have to decrease another state's power to become a regional hegemon, one only has to surpass all other states. Therefore, if there was a conflict between the two codes, meaning that at one moment a leader could choose to decrease another state's power and trust another state, or allow another state to maintain its power and distrust another state, the rational choice would be the latter, for distrusting all states is a more important code than decrease another state's power. As for the peanut butter, obtaining the peanut butter is far more important than obtaining the knife, for one could use other utensils, the bread, or his own hand to extract and spread the peanut butter. Therefore, if the two standards were in conflict, if one could either have the knife and no peanut butter, or no knife and peanut butter, the rational choice would be the latter because obtaining the peanut butter is the more important code than obtaining the knife.

What I have just explained with standards or codes and their hierarchy is basically morality. Morality is a set of values one uses to guide his life towards the best, the good, the better, or just in the general direction of perfection. Furthermore, some values are more important than others. Therefore, if a lesser values is in conflict with a greater values, one must choose the greater value because it leader him towards perfection. Choosing the lesser values would lead him towards imperfection. However, is this not also rational? I can see no other possibility, and I admit that I may be wrong. Of course, if one does find that I am wrong, I demand to be proven wrong. One cannot just make an empty claim. Presently, I am convinced, morality and rationality are indeed linked. Morals are the values one uses to guide him towards the virtuous, the best, the good, the better, and perfection, and rationality is using those values to pursue the virtuous, the best, the good, the better, and perfection, while always choosing greater values if they happen to conflict with lesser values.

What The Hell Is The State Doing?

2008-09-19T10:26:00.004-04:00

Apparently being an utter asshole.

This semester I am taking Introduction to International Relations. Currently, the class is learning about realist international relations theory, which breaks down into several subgroups, most importantly defensive realism and offensive realism. I find that defensive realism has some merits, but offensive realism is bullshit that justifies vicious power seeking.

Today, the class watched a video of offensive realist John Mearsheimer and discussed his theory in class. Like all realists, Mearsheimer argues that international relations is anarchic, meaning that there is no super state governing all other states. I will give it to him, even though it is not really anarchic because there are a bunch of states and not just all individuals. Anyway, he finds that it is the anarchy that causes states to be security seeking. Essentially, since there is no governing super state to act as 911, all states must be concerned with providing their own security. Alright, good enough, so far so good. He also posits that states act rationally. I completely disagree with this. There is an element of irrationality in the way states behave; however, they consistently adhere to their irrational premises thus having the appearance of rationality. The reason I find that states are irrational is because of Mearsheimer's next point. According to Mearsheimer, because the states are security seeking and acting rationally all states do and must continue to follow offensive realism. This international relations theory argues that states must act aggressively, seeking to become regional hegemons. Basically, each state wants to be the most powerful state in their region, so that no other state will want to attack it. Furthermore, regional hegemons also seek to eliminate hegemons in foreign regions because foreign regional hegemons have the potential to attack one another.

My question is why? Why do states want to seek security? The correct, meaning morally correct or virtuous answer is because the state's purpose is to protect individuals' natural rights. The only reason states are security seeking is so to defend against attacks from foreign states, to protect individuals from foreign initiation of force. However, this is not what Mearsheimer is arguing. Mearsheimer is arguing that each state should seek to be a regional hegemon.

Once again, why? Why do they need to be regional hegemons? The international system is anarchic. This does not mean that their is complete and utter chaos. It does not mean that states and individuals are allowed to act psychotically and start torching, raping, murdering, and stealing from one another. All states are supposed to want the individuals residing in their boundaries to live safely from the initiation of force from other states - that is, of course, in addition to domestic criminals. So, all each state needs to do, is take all its guns, and aim them outward, and sit there. States only need to shoot when another state is attacking them. This is defensive realism.

However, Mearsheimer says this is not good enough because no state knows another state's intentions. No state knows another state's current intentions with 100% accuracy, and no state knows another state's future intentions at all. Alright, that is fine. One mind cannot read another mind. The problem is, Mearsheimer sees this as the reason to act offensively. A state must gain regional hegemony as quickly as possible before other states decide to attack. But, why would other states want to attack? They are all just protecting the individuals residing in their territory. Obviously, like Mearsheimer said one leader cannot read the mind of another leader. One leader may want to invade another state. Maybe because that leader is seeking regional hegemony, or maybe because that leader is irrational, the two might be inclusive. However, the possibility that one state may attack another state does not legitimate the other state's aggression in search of regional hegemony. The mere possibility that one state may attack another state does not legitimate the other state's initiation of force. All states have to do is point their guns outward, sit, and wait for an attacker. The state will see the aggressor coming. The state will see itself being attacked. At that point the intentions of the other state are not a mystery. They are clear. The other state is violating the natural rights of the other states' individuals. Therefore, retaliatory force can be used. The state's use of force is then legitimized.

Fortunately for Mearsheimer, he appears to be amoral, or at the very least he appears to believe morality does not apply to the state. In the little video the class watched Mearsheimer explains that Americans have difficulty supporting realism because realism has a pessimistic view of the world and Americans are idealists. Basically, realists believe there has always been conflict, there is conflict, and there will always be conflict. Realists do not believe the human mind can solve this problem, whereas idealists do. I already have a problem with this because Mearsheimer has essentially said progress is impossible. Of course, it is not, man invented fire and the Internet and everything in between. History has proved this point of Mearsheimer's wrong.

However, at the same time Mearsheimer has said something even more disturbing. Mearsheimer argued that pessimism is correct - the Truth - and that idealism is wrong - false. He argued that is is wrong to try to seek virtue in international relations. Actually, he basically said it is wrong to seek any morality in international relations. According to Mearsheimer, there is not morality in international relations, there are just states.

To make the connection a little clearer, Mearsheimer argued that some times Americans ideals, or morality, lines up with the government's intentions, or amoral whims. For example, Mearsheimer argued that in World War II America fought Nazi Germany and Japan to eliminate foreign regional hegemons. America fought these states in order to secure unchallenged hegemony in the western hemisphere. At the same time Americans fought Nazis and the Japanese because they were initiating force. Americans used retaliatory force to protect their own natural rights and the natural rights of others who were also being attacked. See, no conflict, accept the absence of morality versus morality. However, Mearsheimer also points out that during World War II the American government allied with the Soviet Union. Here is a problem. The American people, moralists, find that the Soviets are vicious. However, the American government wants more states to join its fight against the Nazis and Japanese so to be sure to eliminate those foreign regional hegemons. Mearsheimer says at this point the government brings out spin doctors to convince the American people that the American government is doing a virtuous thing, even though the American government's actions are amoral. The government said the Soviet Union was an emerging democracy and free market, just a bunch of lies so the American people would not be pissed.

So, seriously, what the hell is the state doing? Mearsheimer appears to be arguing that the state has individuals best interests, and individuals just cannot know the truth - that the state uses vicious means to achieve security for the individuals. However, that is not what the states are doing at all. The states do not care about the individuals residing in their territory. Mearsheimer made this clear when he said states do not follow morality. If the government needs to kill innocent people for its security, the government will kill innocent people. The state apparently only cares about its own security. Once again, why? So that the state can exist. Well, why is that important? Why is it important that the state exists? Because non-existence is bad. Why is it bad for a state not to exist? Because it is good for the state to exist. Well, why is that good? ...

The state is only acting to preserve its own existence. As long as the government buildings are standing everything is peachy keen and the state will violate everyone's natural rights to make sure this happens. The state does not want to protect individuals natural rights. The state only wants to exist.

My professor liked that I brought up this point. He said every great thinker has tried to explain why the state exists. Of course, he did not find my points to be valid objections against offensive realism. I agree offensive realism is correct, not morally correct, not virtuous, I mean this is how state currently act. However, I think it is wrong, vicious, for states to act that way. I think offensive realism is wrong because it is vicious. He then tried to point out that there is a disconnect between the people and the state. Basically, that political theory - the connection between morality and politics - does not matter in international relations. Like hell it does.

A week ago he had us read another article by Charles Tilly, who argued that states act like the mafia. I found that one agreeable. He argued that states never actually sat down with the people and made a contract where it would protect their individual natural rights. Obviously, that never happened. However, he goes on to say that those ideas are myths created to excuse the state, myths that basically allowed the state to keep existing. According to Tilly, states actually sought to amass power from the very beginning. One king would basically disarm regional lords in order to amass power, secure a certain territory. Later on when individuals realized their natural rights were being violated, they demanded less tyranny from the state. That is when these myths were created. Though they are morally correct, virtuous, they are actually incorrect in the sense that the state has never cared about protecting individuals' natural rights. The states only afforded individuals some liberty so that the people would not try and topple the state. Once again, all the state wants to do is exist, and it will do anything to achieve that.

This is what my professor was trying to point out. He was trying to say my moral arguments against Mearsheimer's offensive realism was invalid because states never were interested in protecting individuals' natural rights. In that case, the state has failed. The state is wrong. The state is vicious. A new system, one concerned with protecting individuals natural rights must be created. If it is not, assholes who think like Mearsheimer, and assholes who act on Mearsheimer's thoughts will continue to get away with initiating force.

One other point my professor brought up was this notion of the prisoner's dilemma, which basically tries to justify states' offensive conquest for security. He used this in response to my argument that state's do not need to seek hegemony. All they have to do is sit, chill out, point their guns outward, and respond if there is any attack. I found that Mearsheimer's theory was based on the paranoia of imminent nonexistence threats, which Mearsheimer puts behind a menacing cloak that says, "You can never know what another state is intending. You better do something quick or one might attack you." Once again, the possibility of attack does not legitimize force. Only actual attack legitimizes force.

The prisoner's dilemma is as follows:

A and B are arrested for a crime. They are separately told that if one confesses and the other does not, the confessor will get 2 years in jail and the silent will get 10 years in jail. They are also told that if they both confess they will both get 5 years in jail. They are also told if they both do not confess they will bother get 10 years in jail. Finally, A and B cannot speak to one another or even see one another. They cannot garner any cooperation. The choice is then that each must confess so as to get the least amount of prison time as possible. This applies to offensive realism as a defense for initiating force. Initiating force will either get a state a little closer to hegemony or achieve hegemony, while not initiating force will render the state into non-existence.

My problem with this parable is that it is built on the idea that everyone is inherently vicious. No one is inherently vicious. Everyone is inherently good. Furthermore, this is about jail, not security and defense. A more realistic parable could be created.

Families A, B, C, and D live in the same neighborhood. They live in anarchy. There is no government. There is no one on the other end of 911 if there is an emergency. Therefore, all the families own guns, several of them, for the purpose of defense. So that they can shoot thieves and serial killers that might attack them. The families would want to kill these aggressors to protect their natural rights, so they could go on living their lives, which are entitled to them, using their liberty, which is entitled to them, pursuing their happiness, also entitled to them, and using their property, which they earned. They want to protect what is rightfully theirs. The end of the parable is that the families went on living their lives peacefully occasionally enjoying one another's company at a neighborhood BBQ.

Why would A, B, C, or D want to attack one of the other families? Only if the family attacked them first. However, why did the attacking family initiate force? Maybe because that family is psychotic, or maybe because that family thought the other family was going to attack them, maybe they thought all the families were going to attack them and they wanted to be the toughest family in the neighborhood so no one would ever attack them. Maybe family D believed Mearsheimer. Believed that they could never know what A, B, or C was intending; therefore, they should assume the worst and start trying to become the biggest bad ass in the neighborhood. However, the fact remains that neither A, B, or C initiated force against D. Maybe A was outside parading its guns. Maybe B purchased a fifty caliber machine gun and a bazooka. Maybe C was doing combat training. However, none of them actually marched on family D and started firing. Thus, family D has no reason to attack. None of the families have any reason to attack one another. They only have reason to shoot, if someone is attacking them. Of course, since they were not attacking the aggressor that would make the aggressor's actions irrational. Of course, the aggressor may have used Mearsheimer's argument as justification. However, that is not a real justification. That is an irrational premise, which he just consistently followed. See, the two are inclusive. The moral of this parable is that maybe defense should be put in the hands of the individuals, not the states. That is the only problem with this parable. It does not properly represent international relations because the families are protecting their own natural rights, while the states are supposed to be protecting others' natural rights - states do not have any natural rights.

Here is the John Mearsheimer video we watched in class.

My Philosophy Part 3: Government

2008-09-03T22:19:00.002-04:00

As I have stated on several previous occasions the purpose of government is to protect individuals' natural rights to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and property. Certainly nothing more because in most cases when it attempts to accomplish more it actually violates natural rights.

Government is essentially a security firm. It is supposed to use defense or retaliatory force, meaning that the government only reacts, only uses force, when someone is being attacked, when force is initiated against someone's natural rights.

Obviously, that is not what any present government does. Actually, there probably has never been a government in existence that acted this way, that acted properly. Even the best government's, liberal democracies, are dysfunctional. Even liberal government's become monsters, drooling beasts lusting for violence. They murder, steal, kidnap, and shackle people. There are so many simple examples. Any ridiculous regulation works. For example, a month ago Chicago legalized fois gras, which meant at one time fois gras was outlawed. Fois gras is nothing more than a meal. It is a fattened goose liver. Neither eating fattened goose liver nor serving it violates any individual's natural right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, or property. No one is being attacked when fois gras is served. No forced is initiated when someone eats a chunk of fois gras. Yet, the government outlawed it, meaning that if an individual ate or served fois gras he would receive a fine. Of course, he could refuse to pay the fine, but that would not go over well. The government would keep hassling him to pay them because he bit into a fattened goose liver. The man could continue to refuse. The government would continue to hassle. Eventually, the police would show up. The police have no right to be there. This man harmed no one. Yet, men with guns arrive at his home and demand money. Since no natural rights were violated, the government is not using retaliatory force, the government is initiating force, in this case they are stealing, they are violating his natural rights, specifically his natural right to property. Of course, the man could continue to refuse, but then the police would try to arrest him. The man could resist that, but then the police would attack him. He could fight back, fight for his life because he harmed no one and two men with guns are threatening him, but then the police would shoot him. Obviously, the smart thing to do would just be to pay the fine because one would rather live and enjoy a comfortable amount of liberty than be dead. It is not like this man is living in Society Russia or Nazi Germany. Tyranny in liberal democracy is a burden, but not a ruthless cruelty devoiding life of all individual pleasure and liberty. However, this could still happen, and in the end an innocent man is threatened, robbed at gun point, kidnapped, and murdered because he ate a fattened goose liver. Some people will say that is an awfully stupid reason to die and he should have just paid the fine. I agree to some extent. I have already stated that. However, it is more stupid, more ignorant, more psychotic to murder a man or do any of that to a man who ate or served a fattened goose liver. That reasoning is as sound as the Son of Sam. "I kill people because a demon possessing my neighbor's dog told me to." "I threaten people, rob them, beat them, kidnap them, and kill them because they eat fattened goose liver."

Of course, the animal rights activists out there will say that animals have rights like humans and the government is also protecting those rights by making sure geese are not force fed to expand their livers. Allegedly that is painfully. Personally, eating sounds delightful. Additionally, animals do not have rights. I explained that in several previous posts, so I will not explain it here. However, there are other examples of tyranny within liberal democracies. The drug war is a prime example. Men are kidnapped, murdered, and robbed because they use or distribute drugs. Now, the drug war activists will say that drug dealers and users initiate force, they murder, kidnap, and steal. Well, what do you know, murder, kidnapping, and stealing are already initiations of force. Therefore, the government can narrow the spectrum and focus on retaliating against those actions not the acts of using and distributing. However, that may not be clear enough for the drug war activists. However, what these activists will not mention, or do not know, is that about every month or so SWAT teams kill innocent men in the war on drugs. SWAT was originally for hostage situations. I have no problem with that. Hostages' have had force initiated against them, and they need to be rescued. Therefore, special tactical teams trained to retaliate against the hostage holders in order to save the hostages is necessary. However, SWAT should not be used to blow open doors without knocking and declaring that they are the authorities all in the name of fighting drugs. The argument is that if the authorities knock then the drug users and distributors will have time to flush all the drugs down the toilet, eliminating the evidence. However, if the drugs are the problem, then flushing them down the toilet is good because now they are gone. No more problem. Of course, the drugs is not the problem any way. The problem is that every once and awhile SWAT hits the wrong house. They break open the door, the innocent residents inside are nervous that armed robbers, killers, kidnappers, or rapists are coming into their house, so they fire back in self defense. In response, SWAT fires back. The person in the right here is the home owner. Whether or not they have drugs, the home owner has not violated anyone's natural rights. Therefore, busting down their door is clearly not retaliatory force but initiatory force. The one retaliating with force is the home owner. His natural rights are being violated by the government. Of course, once the home owners realize they are firing at the authorities they drop their guns. If only the authorities would knock and declare themselves, but know the authorities must behave like armed robbers, killers, and kidnappers.

However, this example may not be satisfactory either. It sure ought to be. The former on sure ought to be. I am not going to list every example of tyranny, initiatory force within a liberal democracy. One only has to think.

Obviously, I have a clear and enormous problem with government. However, I am within my own conflict between anarchy and some form of limited government. In a previous post I outline my problems with democracy; therefore, I can never be satisfied with that. However, as I think about it more, some aspects of a liberal democracy may not be initiatory force. Yet, I still know there is lots of force; therefore, it is still bad.

Firstly, there is no way capitalistic anarchy is achievable in my life time. People depend on the government too much. Furthermore, in a democracy, the government is the people. Since day one of America the government has been expanding, becoming more tyrannical. In order for capitalistic anarchy to function, the people must function. They must not have warped moralities that see justice in a drug war. The current democratically elected government is a clear indication that people are no where near ready for capitalistic anarchy. However, my other fear with anarchy, is even if the people function properly there will always be the misguided killers, thieves, and rapists. How are these actions to be countered? How are the innocent to be protected from the criminals? Obviously, a private security firm could take up the task. However, could that not lead to competition between multiple security firms that could become violent? Of course, if the people are acting properly the competing firms will compete but not attack one another. However, how are the firms to investigate crimes? They could make contracts with their customers outlining their search procedures. If a customer does not agree, he does not hire that particular firm. However, what if the victim was from one security firm and the criminal is of the other security firm? How is the victim's security firm to investigate the criminal since they do not have a contract with him? They cannot just break into his house. Of course, firms could cooperate on this matter. They also could not cooperate, which would be a problem. At this point I really have no answer as to how this would work. Of course, I have not thought much on the issue, but the possibility that killers, thieves, and kidnappers could roam free alarms me. Unfortunately, there are plenty roaming free today under the guise of government.

Secondly, in recent months I have been seeing a little less force int he government. The prime example is taxes, which I readily labeled as armed robbery. However, as I have thought about it, there may have been some consent in the matter. If all candidates for the House support taxes, then by voting for any candidate would not the vote be consenting to taxes? When voting for a candidate one cannot pick and choose which policies he agrees with. A vote is for the whole package. Therefore, if he votes for a candidate that will keep taxes, he consents to taxes; therefore, it cannot be armed robbery, it cannot be initiatory force. Therefore, those voters who voted for a pro-taxes candidate and refuse to pay their taxes are actually the one's initiating force. They are violating a contract, and violating the terms of the contract makes them a thief. However, what about the minority? What about those that did not vote for the pro-taxes candidate? Say they voted for a candidate who wanted to eliminate all taxes? Is not force being initiated against them, for they never agreed to taxes? Or, is the simple act of voting consent? I think that is how it works in a democracy. If one votes he consents to abiding by all the policies of the victor regardless of whether or not the victor is the voter's choice. Therefore, could not voting be the loop hole? By not voting one is not consenting to the system. He is not consenting to following the victor's policies even if the victor is not his choice, for he has not made a choice. Thus, could it then be initiatory force to collect taxes from him? Or, is simply living within the boundaries the consent? By living in America one consents to adhering to all the policies of the American government. If one is displeased he can simply leave whenever he likes. Therefore, the government would only be initiating force if it refused to let the residents within its boundaries to leave, or attacked innocents outside of their boundaries. Unfortunately, I think this may be how it really works. Even more unfortunate is the fact that there is no where to move to. One can leave America, but it may be the freest country presently on the globe despite all its initiatory force. Once again I have not actually done any research. I have no idea if America is the freest country on the globe. I assume it is one of them. However, there is no unclaimed land to go to. There is no wilderness where natural rights are natural rights and there is no government to confuse them with warped citizen's rights and then violate natural rights in the name of consent by choosing to live some where. There is no place for the capitalistic anarchy, but as I have stated that appears to have its problems. It may be worse than a liberal democracy.

As one can see I am caught in this tug of war. Throughout high school I wanted to work for the government. I wanted to be a protector of natural rights. However, I have come to see that if I was part of the government I would be initiating force. I would be violating natural rights. I would not be a defender. Therefore, I no longer desire to work for the government; however, the desire to defend is still there. I have had a few conversations with my cousins about what is enabling government force and what is not. I see government employment as clear enabling. They do not. I am unsure about voting. By voting there is that consent given to the government; however, as I have stated, I think the real consent comes from living here. However, that really does not seem right to say living here is the consent, and thus by staying here I am enabling. Therefore, wherever I went I would be enabling some government. My cousins pointed out that by my argument using roads and public transportation would be enabling. There seems to be some truth to that. Unfortunately, I use public transportation frequently. Of course, I really do not have much choice in the matter. I cannot afford a car and I need to get places. I could just go to less places though. However, even if I had a car I would have to use the roads, meaning I would need a helicopter and I cannot afford that let alone I have no idea how to fly it. Therefore, I am decided about public transportation and roads. There seems to be something wrong with calling it enabling because of my limited choice. However, I could always choose not to go anywhere, but even the people who brought me my food would use the roads. Of course, I could grow my own food. These make me question whether or not government employment is enabling tyranny. I obviously have much more choice in that matter.

The way my cousin explained it to me is through an anecdote. If an amnesiac washes up on the shore starving and approaches a house for food but no one is home, should the man break in and steal food. The answer is obviously yes because life is valuable and even the home owner should value life. However, the man should remain at the home until the owner returns. He should explain the situation and offer to pay back everything. The damage of breaking in and the food he ate. He should even offer to work for the home owner until the debt is paid if he has no money. My cousin states that government employment, using the roads, etc. is just like this. Their motives for government employment is to increase liberty. I see that as impossible to accomplish because as I stated before the people are the government. The people must change first, then the government can follow. Unfortunately, currently people do not want to increase liberty. However, my cousin argues that working for the government to increase liberty is just like a prolonged version of that anecdote. I really do not see it though because who is the amnesiac and who is the home owner. The home owner must be the people, for their house is being invaded and their food eaten. That is the apparent initiation of force. However, the amnesiac cannot be the government. That would mean that the government is sick and dying and needs what the people have to live. This is somewhat true, but there is no incentive to keep the government alive. It is an institution not a dying human being. Maybe the amnesiac is the amount of liberty, breaking into the house is the government, and the home owner is the people. Therefore, after awhile the amnesiac is not starving, liberty is increased, breaking into the house and government is no longer needed, and the home owner and the people are satisfied. That seems a little shaky to me though because the people and the government are directly related; therefore, the home owner and the breaking and entering should be related. Meaning, the home owner should have instigated the break in some how.

the final point my cousin gave me was that the good is not the enemy of the perfect. He said this to point out that a good government, a government that protects individuals' rights most of the time is not the enemy of the perfect government that never violates individuals' natural rights. My problem is where is the line between good an evil, and is the American government or any government on the side of good, or is everything on the side of evil? This also applies to actions such as employment with the government. Is that good or evil? Certainly, none of them are perfect.

The Comancheros and The Journey To The Center Of The Earth

2008-09-01T21:17:00.002-04:00

The Comancheros - three stars

This movie came in one of those John Wayne collections; therefore, my assumption was that it was going to be awful. However, a John Wayne fan I know reviewed the collection and said all of them were pretty good. Thus, I decided to actually read the description on the back. Basically, the movie was about John Wayne, a Texas Ranger, tracking down an arms dealer selling guns to a gang of Native Americans and Caucasians. Furthermore, I realized it was from the director of Casablanca, Michael Curtiz.

The beginning of the film is excellent. A few men in the woods with two of them about to duel. One man explains that he found his woman was more interested in the man he is about to duel. The allegedly more attractive man basically says that is not his fault, to which the previous man responds, "I intend to simplify her choice." That man does simplify the woman's choice, by getting shot by the other man, Monsieur Paul Regret (Stuart Whitman).

John Wayne then tracks down Regret while he is on the lam. Unfortunately, Regret is a little to crafty and escapes a few times, that is only after a few attempts are foiled by the Duke. At one point Regret is able to get is little girly pee shooter revolver back. He aims it at Wayne, to which Wayne replies by punching that Pilgrim square in the nose. Wayne then picks up the gun and pulls the trigger a few times, but the gun only clicks. "No bullets."

Unfortunately, a gang called the Comancheros complicates Wayne's hunt for Regret. However, he does get Regret back when he discovers him at poker game while he is undercover. Wayne then takes Regret on his fight against the Comancheros, and Regret actually assists him. In turn, a local judge basically pardons him. What actually happens is all the other Texas Rangers sign a statement saying that Regret has always been a Texas Ranger. This is one of those two moments I am not to keen about. Regret did murder an innocent man. Assisting in the fight against the Comanchheros does not change that.

The other part I am not satisfied with is the blatant prejudice towards Native Americans. Firstly, I am not some hippie who claims that the Anglo-Saxons stole all the Native Americans' land. That is ridiculous. Some of the land Anglo-Saxons did steal, and the true crimes Anglo-Saxons committed against Native Americans are atrocious. However, they are extremely exaggerated because some of the are not really crimes. I will explain this all in a later post. However, in this movie the Native Americans are obsessed with alcohol. The Caucasian half of the Comancheros actually do not pay their Native American half with money. Instead, they pay them with whiskey, which the Native Americans promptly pour over their face. I understand that genetically Native Americans and alcohol are not the best of friends; however, this just depicts all Native Americans as utter fools who lust drunkenness.

Aside from these two problems The Comancheros is a great story about securing property and natural rights on the open range, the nearest thing to wilderness. It indicates the natural rights are truly natural, for they exist in an area with almost no government. It is also always entertaining to see the Duke in action slugging people, shooting people, and beating them over the head with beer bottles and chairs. However, I would have liked to see the film explore Regret's east-coast city personality versus Wayne's western-frontier personality, but that might be better for a comedy.

The Journey To The Center Of The Earth - two and a half stars

I am not referring to that recent 3-D remake from the outstanding actor Brendan Fraiser. I am talking about the original with Pat Boone, James Mason, and Alrene Dahl. Pat Boone is not much better than Brendan Fraser; however, James Mason makes up for it with his rudeness and one liners. My favorite is when Sir Oliver S. Lindenbrook (Mason) begins his expedition and Carla Goteberg (Dahl) has forced herself into it. Goteberg is being belayed down the first descent and Alexander McKuen (Boone) remarks that maybe Goteberg will want to turn back because of the height of the first descent. Lindenbrooks responds by saying, "You make my mouth water."

The Journey To The Center Of The Earth is a descent adventure film, but it does have a lull towards the latter half of the middle, while they are in the cave with the enormous mushrooms. It was also nice to see where the inspiration for the rolling boulder in Indiana Jones came from. Philosophically it is solid, except for Lindenbrook's sexist remarks. There is a great few lines from Boone about how man is curious and even though he will freeze to death exploring the north pole he will keep returning to know the truth. Lindenbrook then makes a speech at the end explaining that it is this curiosity, this desire to know truth, this desire to understand and progress that is the spirit of man. Even the skeptical and fearful Islander that comes with them is convinced. In the beginning he is the one that asks why they should die in the caves exploring the center of the earth, which prompts Boone's explanation. After Lindenbrook speaks at the end the Islander, without his translator, says "If you ever go back down there, I want to go again."

Smart People and The Day The Earth Stood Still

2008-08-20T22:54:00.004-04:00

Smart People - two and a half stars

This is from the same maker of Sideways, which I moderately enjoyed. The problem I had with Sideways is that the film appears to hate its main characters. It is as if the film itself believes the characters are worthless and have no possibility of improving, even though the ending indicates that one character will improve. Smart People has less of that mentality. Professor Lawrence Wetherhold (Dennis Quaid) is the only character the film hates. Obviously, this is an improvement. However, Smart People had more shortcomings in the end. The film is not as complete as Sideways. There are parts of the Smart People story that are not sufficiently addressed. This is especially noticeable in the Chuck Wetherhold (Thomas Haden Church) and Vanessa Wetherhold (Ellen Page) relationship. Something strange happens, which could just be passed off as drunkenness, causing the uncle-niece relationship to become awkward. Though it is spoken about towards the end of the film, it is never resolved. Furthermore, Vanessa's fulfillment of the mother role is never corrected, or even talked about like the previous issue. Thus, the audience is left to wonder why she would want to go to Stanford, or if she is even going to go through with attending. Finally, Vanessa's conservative mentality makes it unbelievable that she would smoke marijuana and drink alcohol at her uncle's suggestion. There needs to be some incentive. The most obvious would be that Vanessa's mentality and academic studies have resulted in no friendships, making the uncle the only possible candidate. Therefore, she would do anything to keep that friendship. However, there was no threat that she would lose the friendship if she did not smoke or drink; thus, there is no incentive for her to abandon or ignore her standards. Of course, another positive of the film is Ellen Page. She does an excellent job with her role. However, I would like to see her in other roles aside from the smart or smart-ass or lethal teenager. Yet, I cannot be that disappointed. I like her too much to be that disappointed right now. Of course, I cannot actually like her because I do not know who she is. However, her acting abilities are an indication of her love for creating, and if she is anything like the Ellen Page during interviews, then she must not be all that bad.

The Day The Earth Stood Still - three stars

The trailers for the remake with the infinitely talented Keanu Reeves indicates that The Day The Earth Stood Still is a sci-fi action flick. The action part is incorrect. The original is almost devoid of all action, and I like that way. Usually sci-fi films are filled with action and violence. Though the robot Gort does injure some people and shoot some lasers the destruction is minimal. Nothing blows up. Objects hit by the laser disappear. Additionally, I can count the number of times Gort attacked on one hand.

The film is more about an alien learning about earth, and trying to determine how he can convey his message. However, that is just what happens. Obviously, the true meaning of the film is the theme. This film is completely theme. It is not meant to be purely entertaining like the remake appears. Though not all elements are philosophically sound and there are several missed opportunities for commentary, the majority is pretty solid. Basically, the alien was sent by his home planet to earth because terrestrials recently discovered atomic power. Therefore, in short time terrestrials would discover how to use atomic power to travel easily throughout space. However, since earth is currently at war, usually at war, and appears to have a predisposition to violence the aliens fear their lives are at stake. The alien's message is basically, "We never interfered with you before because what you do on your own planet is your own business. However, if you come into space and start attacking us, we will have to destroy you." Obviously, destroying all terrestrials is extreme. However, the basic principle is what government should be, and how people should behave. People can live their own lives because their lives are their own. However, if they start attacking other people they must be stopped.

My favorite scene is when the alien steps off his ship and states, "I come in peace and good will." His ship is already surrounded by the military. He walks toward the military line, extending an item towards them. When the item expands a soldier fires, inuring the alien and destroying the item. The alien then states that the item was a gift, and with it man could create life on other planets. The message here is that people react to force to quickly. Defense force or retaliatory force can only be used in response to initiating force. Extending an item does not violate anyone's natural rights; therefore, defense force is unnecessary, and is actually aggressive force. Obviously, the alien should have explained the item was a gift as he approached in order to assure his safety; however, his lack of speaking does not legitimize their force. He has the right not to speak.

My other favorite scene is after the alien has abandoned his ship to go undercover and learn more about terrestrials. During his absence the military keep his ship and robot surrounded and then they try to break into both of them. Once again initiating force is displayed through the violation of property rights. Of course, the alien did park on a baseball field, violating the field owner's property rights. However, no one asked him to move, and the alien may be unaware that he parked in the wrong spot. Of course, he was monitoring earth for a while so he should have known. However, this was completely a missed opportunity regarding property rights because the alien notices people are trying to break into his ship and does not say anything. He does not even shake his head as he constantly does throughout the film. Unfortunately, the alien does break into someone else's house, making him an aggressor. Consequently, any head shaking at the attempted breaches of his ship combined with his breaking and entering of a house would make him contradictory. This is just one of the few philosophically unsound moments.