Nate,
I appreciate your challenge. You're very reasoned and thought-provoking; both of which qualities are seriously lacking in any other refutation I've seen of Ron Paul's ideas.
That said, I'll briefly (yeah, right) state the areas where I oppose your points.
Foreign aid, when provided by tax dollars is something I'm against in any form. Dennis Praeger's colleague, Michael Medved, agrees that we shouldn't send foreign aid to Israel or any other country and he, too, is a Jew. His brother lives in Israel.
My opposition is easily stated and is the entire basis for my "libertarianism," which I'd rather call classical liberalism; it's this: I'm absolutely against the initiation of force. Force is for defense, only. While I hold all manner of moral standards and feelings of my own, it is wrong for me to force anyone to live to those standards. If anyone violates my individual unalienable rights, that's when I'll employ force. Barring that, I'll live and let live. When the govt points a gun at me and takes money I've earned, I don't care what wonderful things they're going to spend it on, it's legalized mugging. Now, if individuals, churches or charities want to give money to people overseas, great. Certainly we should all do this. But it should be voluntary. And that includes the freedom to not volunteer one's own money or help or what have you.
You said, the "police provide security and a safe environment." I disagree. I like the saying, employed by pro gun rights people, "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away." I believe in self-defense. The police have their place and I'm grateful for their work. But the illusion that anyone can provide safety or security is what has fed and abetted the progressive movement for 150 years. The police are great, but they're really there to arrest the criminal after the crime's been committed and safety and security have flown the coup. I can see how getting that guy off the street keeps him from doing it again and that could keep potential victims safe, but the damage to current victims is done. Where there's freedom, there's risk. And besides, we're paying for our local police. Do foreign nations pay for our world policing services? Nope. We're forced to pay for them, too. Our military is to protect and defend our constitution; to defend US. Other countries must work out their own defense. Again, any individual can volunteer to go over and help or teach or even fight for people in foreign countries. I just think our interests or more especially, our security, the threat to us, must be specifically defined when we commit troops, and sometimes it's not. Ron Paul wants congress to approve military action and maybe even declare war before action is taken. That doesn't seem too radical to me.
I shudder a little when you refer to "using our influence for good." Certainly, like many things, the decision to use violence / force must be considered on a case by case basis and there are many things to consider. It's hard for me to argue against WWII and fighting Hitler, etc. Again, I just want to begin with the idea that we must have a specific threat to the U.S., which we're combating, which is the reason we're putting blood and treasure on the line. And then, we should declare war and get the people's approval through congress. As far as the good done in Korea and Vietnam. Good for them. But where was the good for us? Where was the threat to us? Communism seemed to be spreading, but I think free trade did more to defeat it than our wars by proxy or the rest of the cold war.
Individuals must be responsible for themselves. People aren't children. We must treat them as adults. Even when it comes to our kids, I think we parents intervene too much. I think we initiate force too much. Although intervention and initiative force are sometimes called for. I sometimes neglect my kids. I've even spanked them. I'd sure be upset if you or the state intervened. And my kids wouldn't be well served if I were taken out of the home. A stronger argument than that would be, if I got into an argument with one of my brothers. Do you think you should intervene and come to my defense, even if I'm having my rear end handed to me? It's none of your business. Win or lose, I've got to face it myself. Only then am I allowed the maximum growth opportunity. Even if I get beat up by my brother, I can't see an argument for you showing up at his house and exacting revenge. Now, if our argument and/or fisticuffs somehow spill over onto your property, it then becomes your business as far as your right to forcibly remove us from your property because we've then initiated force against you by violating your individual unalienable right to own and control property. And I'd make all of these same arguments to counter your Alphatown vs. Betaville scenario.
As far as our justice system being racist, I don't agree with Ron Paul there. The only flaw I see in the numbers argument is that it still appears that blacks, as a percentage of the whole population, are over-represented in our prisons and executions. That is, if 20% of our population are black, yet 30% of the total number of prison inmates are black, then they're over-represented. But I'd say that it's because they commit more crimes, as a percentage, than whites. That said, there are a variety of what I would call racisim-inducing statistics on blacks. Couple that with the fact that 90% of them voted for Obama and that they appear to be happy to be represented by Sharpton, Jackson and Rev. Wright and it becomes difficult indeed to not make a few generalizations. If you look at a couple of them individually, like Walter E. Williams and Thomas Sowell, not to mention Clarence Thomas and Condi Rice and the list goes on.., Larry Elder; anyway, there are many exceptions to the evident rule. That is, the rule as evidenced by the statistics and voting records. I've read at least some of the "racist" text in Ron Paul's newsletters and didn't find much to disagree with based on the arguments I just made. It does seem like there are some generalizations that can be made. However, I view people as individuals and it would be ignorant of me to assume anything if I met a black man. I would have to get to know him as an individual; like any other individual.
Anyway, maybe in closing I can just restate my libertarian ideology.
As long as no one's individual, unalienable rights are being violated, let people do what they may. That includes drugs and prostitution. Both are abhorrent and completely immoral. But I have no right to force anyone to do or not do anything, even if I think what he's doing is wrong and bad for him. Gay marriage comes to mind. I've stated in my blog why I oppose it and how I think it hurt kids' best chances for the best rearing. But I can't hold a gun to anyone's head and keep him from having sex with whomever. Persuasion, yes. Force, no. Abortion, of course, can be argued on the same basis albeit from the other side. Sure, a woman's body is her private property and she has an individual unalienable right to it. But an unborn baby, too, has that right to his own body and life. If someone leaves a helpless newborn baby on my doorstep, that baby is on my private property but I can't kill it. I really don't see the difference; what, a thin layer of skin, muscle, fat and other tissue separates the two scenarios from each other? I don't buy it. In both cases, you have a baby being deprived of its right to life. I may not want the baby I find on my porch but I can't kill it.
I know government is necessary and that money from taxes is needed. I just start from the basis of national defense being the only legitimate use of govt and that there's no need for the defenders to do anything at all unless we're attacked and that happens only rarely. If we could start the national debate there, it would be great. But when the other candidates talk of "repairing" the social safety net instead of tearing it down, I know we're not even applying the brakes of our careering car as it heads toward the cliff. Let's give to the poor, I love education and healthcare for those who can't afford it. Just let freedom reign by making all of the funding for those programs, whether foreign or domestic, be voluntary, through individuals, churches and charities. It's satanic for the govt to seek to destroy our agency.
Friday, February 24, 2012
Monday, January 23, 2012
Learning how to form an argument
Many people are at a loss when it comes to coming up with a counter-argument when confronted with something with which they disagree. The conversation goes something like this: First, there's a strong statement from a speaker who believes what he's saying is true, like, "The sky is blue." The person who disagrees with that statement then says something like, "That's ridiculous." or, "No, the grass is green." or, "Blue is an ugly color."
For the record, these are not arguments. They range from childish name calling to the irrelevant. Yet, so often, this is what I get back when I make an argument. And that's from normal adults. I don't know if people are just lazy or they just can't bring themselves to care about what I've said. I'd like to believe that they're so cowed by my reasoning that they find themselves bereft of even one active braincell.
In keeping with my initial statement, let me try to come up with some more effective counter-arguments.
"No, the sky isn't actually blue. What you're seeing is space and space is black. The sun's rays merely make it appear blue." or, "It looks more grey to me." or, "No, it's technically azure."
Oh well. I guess I can also choose to believe that the reason I get almost no feedback on my blog is that the few who've read it find my points irrefutable. Or maybe they're just scared. Pansies. The truth is, the counter-arguments I have gotten have all been as feeble as those illustrated above. It's really rather pathetic.
Actually, I would love to have a conversation with someone. There's so much I learn whenever someone will actually engage me. And, for me, this is the preferred venue for that kind of an exchange. I think it's good to argue. To do it in writing gives your cooler head a chance to prevail. Dennis Praeger once said that you don't really know what you think about something until you write about it. I find I'm also much clearer in writing than in person.
I don't enjoy face to face conversations nearly as much. Mostly this is because, in person, the loud-mouth me-monsters take over. They're used to talking a lot, been doing it their whole lives. It never occurs to them that though they talk the most, they truly have the least to say. These are the guys who'll raise their voices and drown you out if they even think there's a chance you'll try to interrupt them. They just parrot some crap they heard some newscaster or talk show host say, hoping they'll sound smart.
And that's if you can even get them to talk about anything important. That's the other thing I hate about social situations. Look, I really don't care about the weather or sports or Dancing with the Stars or the latest dirty laundry somebody aired on the news last night.
So, between the yackers and the irrelevance of the topics of conversation, I guess I'd just as soon sit here and blog to no one or write comments to stories online that I find relevant.
Bottom line: all it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. This blog is me doing something. And you who read but won't engage because you're to busy or you just can't bring yourself to muster the effort because you're lazy or you don't think it matters, that's you doing nothing.
For the record, these are not arguments. They range from childish name calling to the irrelevant. Yet, so often, this is what I get back when I make an argument. And that's from normal adults. I don't know if people are just lazy or they just can't bring themselves to care about what I've said. I'd like to believe that they're so cowed by my reasoning that they find themselves bereft of even one active braincell.
In keeping with my initial statement, let me try to come up with some more effective counter-arguments.
"No, the sky isn't actually blue. What you're seeing is space and space is black. The sun's rays merely make it appear blue." or, "It looks more grey to me." or, "No, it's technically azure."
Oh well. I guess I can also choose to believe that the reason I get almost no feedback on my blog is that the few who've read it find my points irrefutable. Or maybe they're just scared. Pansies. The truth is, the counter-arguments I have gotten have all been as feeble as those illustrated above. It's really rather pathetic.
Actually, I would love to have a conversation with someone. There's so much I learn whenever someone will actually engage me. And, for me, this is the preferred venue for that kind of an exchange. I think it's good to argue. To do it in writing gives your cooler head a chance to prevail. Dennis Praeger once said that you don't really know what you think about something until you write about it. I find I'm also much clearer in writing than in person.
I don't enjoy face to face conversations nearly as much. Mostly this is because, in person, the loud-mouth me-monsters take over. They're used to talking a lot, been doing it their whole lives. It never occurs to them that though they talk the most, they truly have the least to say. These are the guys who'll raise their voices and drown you out if they even think there's a chance you'll try to interrupt them. They just parrot some crap they heard some newscaster or talk show host say, hoping they'll sound smart.
And that's if you can even get them to talk about anything important. That's the other thing I hate about social situations. Look, I really don't care about the weather or sports or Dancing with the Stars or the latest dirty laundry somebody aired on the news last night.
So, between the yackers and the irrelevance of the topics of conversation, I guess I'd just as soon sit here and blog to no one or write comments to stories online that I find relevant.
Bottom line: all it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. This blog is me doing something. And you who read but won't engage because you're to busy or you just can't bring yourself to muster the effort because you're lazy or you don't think it matters, that's you doing nothing.
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Distilling Ron Paul's "Foreign Policy"
Rush disparaged RP's foreign policy once again today. So I'm compelled to make a follow up post.
Foreign Policy is just a deliberately intimidating phrase some numbskull in Washington came up with. It simply refers to a way of dealing with people. So let's get over it and begin to think for ourselves instead of listening to those who project themselves as way smarter than we are. I mean journalists, talk show hosts and other pundits and talking heads.
Ron Paul says our actions led to the attacks against us on 9/11. This is not to excuse or justify the murders of our fellow Americans that took place that day. What he means is, we did some things they didn't like so in response they committed some horrific, evil acts.
Let's distill this down to the local level to make it more understandable. Let's say I live on your block in your neighborhood. The neighborhood consists mostly of small abodes, some of them barely inhabitable shacks. You live in one of those shacks; yours happens to be on the corner. I live in the middle of the block in a huge mansion. I'm rich and powerful. You're not. I figure there's a chance that thieves, rapists and murderers will try to enter the neighborhood. Since you're on the corner, I figure that's a strategic spot to set up some neighborhood defenses; say, a small bunker with a machine gun. You're not happy about it, but I elbow my way into your yard. After all, it makes you and me safer, right? Well, you make it clear you want me off of your property. I won't leave. So you blow up my house, killing part of my family. It's obvious that your crime of murder is much more heinous than my crime of trespassing. But it's hard to argue against the fact that my actions led you to yours. You're not excused or justified. But, in hindsight, I can see that maybe it wasn't right for me to violate your individual inalienable (read: God-given) right to private property.
Here's another example: The mayor of an affluent, neighboring town disagrees with what we allow to go on in our town. The women are too immodest, too many people own guns, the church is teaching false doctrine, the divorce laws are too lax. The neighboring town sends its police over and they capture and kill our mayor. And install a new mayor of their choosing. Are we okay with that?
What if China invaded us, out of concern for our underprivileged working class, and they imposed communism? Yea! They saved us from ourselves! Thanks, China!
To repeat: even when you're right, it's wrong to force others to do what you think is right.
Evil dictators and regimes murder their people overseas. It's terrible. But they're adults. They have to solve their own problems. It's not possible for us to police the world. And HELLO, look at the disastrous results when we try. Vietnam, anyone? How are things in Egypt? "Palestine?" Libya? Korea? Iraq? Afghanistan? We take out one evil regime, only to see it replaced by another, often worse evil regime. If you watched the video in my last post, you know we've done this several times in Iran. What are we, Mrs. Kravitz? Let's get our noses out of other people's business.
Ron Paul just wants us to bring our troops home from Japan, Germany, Afghanistan, etc. and strengthen our home defenses. Let's make America an impenetrable fortress and let those other sleeping dogs lie. Besides, we can't afford it.
Foreign Policy is just a deliberately intimidating phrase some numbskull in Washington came up with. It simply refers to a way of dealing with people. So let's get over it and begin to think for ourselves instead of listening to those who project themselves as way smarter than we are. I mean journalists, talk show hosts and other pundits and talking heads.
Ron Paul says our actions led to the attacks against us on 9/11. This is not to excuse or justify the murders of our fellow Americans that took place that day. What he means is, we did some things they didn't like so in response they committed some horrific, evil acts.
Let's distill this down to the local level to make it more understandable. Let's say I live on your block in your neighborhood. The neighborhood consists mostly of small abodes, some of them barely inhabitable shacks. You live in one of those shacks; yours happens to be on the corner. I live in the middle of the block in a huge mansion. I'm rich and powerful. You're not. I figure there's a chance that thieves, rapists and murderers will try to enter the neighborhood. Since you're on the corner, I figure that's a strategic spot to set up some neighborhood defenses; say, a small bunker with a machine gun. You're not happy about it, but I elbow my way into your yard. After all, it makes you and me safer, right? Well, you make it clear you want me off of your property. I won't leave. So you blow up my house, killing part of my family. It's obvious that your crime of murder is much more heinous than my crime of trespassing. But it's hard to argue against the fact that my actions led you to yours. You're not excused or justified. But, in hindsight, I can see that maybe it wasn't right for me to violate your individual inalienable (read: God-given) right to private property.
Here's another example: The mayor of an affluent, neighboring town disagrees with what we allow to go on in our town. The women are too immodest, too many people own guns, the church is teaching false doctrine, the divorce laws are too lax. The neighboring town sends its police over and they capture and kill our mayor. And install a new mayor of their choosing. Are we okay with that?
What if China invaded us, out of concern for our underprivileged working class, and they imposed communism? Yea! They saved us from ourselves! Thanks, China!
To repeat: even when you're right, it's wrong to force others to do what you think is right.
Evil dictators and regimes murder their people overseas. It's terrible. But they're adults. They have to solve their own problems. It's not possible for us to police the world. And HELLO, look at the disastrous results when we try. Vietnam, anyone? How are things in Egypt? "Palestine?" Libya? Korea? Iraq? Afghanistan? We take out one evil regime, only to see it replaced by another, often worse evil regime. If you watched the video in my last post, you know we've done this several times in Iran. What are we, Mrs. Kravitz? Let's get our noses out of other people's business.
Ron Paul just wants us to bring our troops home from Japan, Germany, Afghanistan, etc. and strengthen our home defenses. Let's make America an impenetrable fortress and let those other sleeping dogs lie. Besides, we can't afford it.
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
This is why I'll vote Ron Paul again in 2012
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPFQaLh-ycM
Please, please click the above link and watch the video.
Many are with Ron Paul domestically but not when it comes to foreign policy. This has become the "conventional wisdom." The "cool kids" are all down with the idea that, as Rush put it today, RP's foreign policy ideas are, "tin hat." From Rush to Hannity to Glenn Beck to Michelle Malkin et. al. that's their view of Ron Paul.
Well, watch the video and decide for yourself. Then continue your research of RP and let's restore this country to its constitutional roots.
I voted for him in 2008 because I couldn't countenance McCain. I now understand him even better and he may be the last hope for the Republic.
I've said it before, but it bears repeating. Romney and his buds are the equivalent of turning the reins over to someone who will slightly slow our career toward the cliff, but still take us into the abyss. We MUST do a 180 and run back toward the constitution. RP will do that. THAT'S what's brought this country to its unprecedented prosperity: the FREEDOM protected by the constitution.
My siblings, force doesn't work. Freedom works. Force is evil. It's the essence of unrighteous dominion. God forces no one. Even if you are right, it's wrong to force anyone to do what is right. That goes for individuals as well as countries.
Do I wish for more handouts for the poor, free healthcare, education, citizenship, food, $million/year jobs for everyone? Do I feel like we all should be giving more, as the Savior would have us do? Of course! Where Dr. Paul and I differ from the rest of you and your candidates is that we know that you can't put a gun to anyone's head and force him to give, to do those things.
Well, that's what America has become. The government points a gun at those who earn money, takes it from them via taxes, and proceeds to give it to those who didn't earn it. I'm all for giving to the poor, but let me be free to choose to do it; and let me also be free not to do it, if I so choose. THAT is God's way. And that way brings blessings to the giver as well as the receiver. Come on. You don't really think He blesses legalized government mugging, do you?
It's called freedom. And it's our only hope. It's the only thing that makes America different from the dictatorships of the world, whether they be socialist, communist, fascist or monarchist. Instead of trying to be like the "cool kids" here or around the world, let's be ourselves. Let's be Americans. And freedom is what makes us uniquely Americans.
Please, please click the above link and watch the video.
Many are with Ron Paul domestically but not when it comes to foreign policy. This has become the "conventional wisdom." The "cool kids" are all down with the idea that, as Rush put it today, RP's foreign policy ideas are, "tin hat." From Rush to Hannity to Glenn Beck to Michelle Malkin et. al. that's their view of Ron Paul.
Well, watch the video and decide for yourself. Then continue your research of RP and let's restore this country to its constitutional roots.
I voted for him in 2008 because I couldn't countenance McCain. I now understand him even better and he may be the last hope for the Republic.
I've said it before, but it bears repeating. Romney and his buds are the equivalent of turning the reins over to someone who will slightly slow our career toward the cliff, but still take us into the abyss. We MUST do a 180 and run back toward the constitution. RP will do that. THAT'S what's brought this country to its unprecedented prosperity: the FREEDOM protected by the constitution.
My siblings, force doesn't work. Freedom works. Force is evil. It's the essence of unrighteous dominion. God forces no one. Even if you are right, it's wrong to force anyone to do what is right. That goes for individuals as well as countries.
Do I wish for more handouts for the poor, free healthcare, education, citizenship, food, $million/year jobs for everyone? Do I feel like we all should be giving more, as the Savior would have us do? Of course! Where Dr. Paul and I differ from the rest of you and your candidates is that we know that you can't put a gun to anyone's head and force him to give, to do those things.
Well, that's what America has become. The government points a gun at those who earn money, takes it from them via taxes, and proceeds to give it to those who didn't earn it. I'm all for giving to the poor, but let me be free to choose to do it; and let me also be free not to do it, if I so choose. THAT is God's way. And that way brings blessings to the giver as well as the receiver. Come on. You don't really think He blesses legalized government mugging, do you?
It's called freedom. And it's our only hope. It's the only thing that makes America different from the dictatorships of the world, whether they be socialist, communist, fascist or monarchist. Instead of trying to be like the "cool kids" here or around the world, let's be ourselves. Let's be Americans. And freedom is what makes us uniquely Americans.
Friday, October 21, 2011
Childishness and All-Too-Willing Parentishness
I remember, from my college study of psychology, transactional analysis from Eric Berne. His theory mirrors Freud with his id, ego and super-ego. Berne uses the terms 'child', 'adult' and 'parent' to describe people's interactions with each other. The 'child' is immature, weak, self-centered, the ultimate victim. The 'adult' is reason-based and mature. The 'parent' is judgmental, condescending, has a knee-jerk answer to every problem and is always full of unsolicited advice. The 'child' and 'parent' are emotion driven while the 'adult' is thoughtful and deliberate.
In America today, we find ourselves surrounded by (grown-up) 'children' (think: occupy wall st) with a government ever ready to step in and be everyone's 'parent.' Many outside of government also react to problems as a 'parent' with the underlying assumption that, "Well, I know I can do it, but other people can't seem to do it, so they need help." And they vote with that mindset. So the government has become the means by which the 'parents' in society help the 'children.' But, just as it's wrong for real parents to force kids to do right, it's wrong for voters, acting from the perspective of Berne's 'parent' are wrong to force the rest of us to do right; right being defined here as helping those in need. As a side note, the 'parent' treats everyone like a child regardless of his perspective.
It's easily understood from the perspective of Berne's rational 'adult' that it's wrong to forcibly take from some to give to others. And that's why those who willfully take us in the direction of socialism do so from the all-knowing, enabling perspective of Berne's 'parent.'
One shining example of this phenomenon is society's ('parent's') treatment of any and all "at-risk minorities." Minorities are labeled as victims and unfortunately, for them, they embrace victimhood and allow things to be done for them which they could do for themselves. It's easy to see the childishness in their behavior. It's also easy to relate. We all allow others to do things for us we could do ourselves. But certainly the government shouldn't encourage this behavior by compelling us to be each others' 'parent.'
Another example of 'parenting' with disastrous consequences is the state of our public schools. Over the past 150 years we've gone from educating kids using the Bible, classical literature, the constitution, history, geography and the hard sciences to institutional schooling where attendance is mandatory, the Bible is banned, the constitution is unknown, hard science often has been replaced by social science and history is now called social studies. The kids are conditioned to depend on an all-knowing 'parent' (the teacher,) the nuclear family is de-emphasized and political-correctness reigns supreme. But don't worry, it's "free." Although, to have accepted the status quo, we 'adults' have had to come to see things from the 'child's' perspective. That is, we've abdicated our responsibility to educate our kids. For an insiders perspective on the last 150 years of the history of schooling, see John Taylor Gatto's "Dumbing Us Down' and "The Underground History of American Education." Mr. Gatto taught Jr. High for 30 years.
Each of us must find himself in the role of the 'adult'. And from there we must act. Over the past 100 years, we've sunk evermore into Berne's other two perspectives and doing so, we've lost freedom. Only the 'adult' merits freedom and indeed, only the 'adult' can cope with freedom's eternal companion, responsibility. The real trick is to trust that others, if we allow them to do so, CAN cope with the freedom and responsibility we crave and which we know is man's birthright. Please, my friends, let's do what it takes to preserve that freedom.
In America today, we find ourselves surrounded by (grown-up) 'children' (think: occupy wall st) with a government ever ready to step in and be everyone's 'parent.' Many outside of government also react to problems as a 'parent' with the underlying assumption that, "Well, I know I can do it, but other people can't seem to do it, so they need help." And they vote with that mindset. So the government has become the means by which the 'parents' in society help the 'children.' But, just as it's wrong for real parents to force kids to do right, it's wrong for voters, acting from the perspective of Berne's 'parent' are wrong to force the rest of us to do right; right being defined here as helping those in need. As a side note, the 'parent' treats everyone like a child regardless of his perspective.
It's easily understood from the perspective of Berne's rational 'adult' that it's wrong to forcibly take from some to give to others. And that's why those who willfully take us in the direction of socialism do so from the all-knowing, enabling perspective of Berne's 'parent.'
One shining example of this phenomenon is society's ('parent's') treatment of any and all "at-risk minorities." Minorities are labeled as victims and unfortunately, for them, they embrace victimhood and allow things to be done for them which they could do for themselves. It's easy to see the childishness in their behavior. It's also easy to relate. We all allow others to do things for us we could do ourselves. But certainly the government shouldn't encourage this behavior by compelling us to be each others' 'parent.'
Another example of 'parenting' with disastrous consequences is the state of our public schools. Over the past 150 years we've gone from educating kids using the Bible, classical literature, the constitution, history, geography and the hard sciences to institutional schooling where attendance is mandatory, the Bible is banned, the constitution is unknown, hard science often has been replaced by social science and history is now called social studies. The kids are conditioned to depend on an all-knowing 'parent' (the teacher,) the nuclear family is de-emphasized and political-correctness reigns supreme. But don't worry, it's "free." Although, to have accepted the status quo, we 'adults' have had to come to see things from the 'child's' perspective. That is, we've abdicated our responsibility to educate our kids. For an insiders perspective on the last 150 years of the history of schooling, see John Taylor Gatto's "Dumbing Us Down' and "The Underground History of American Education." Mr. Gatto taught Jr. High for 30 years.
Each of us must find himself in the role of the 'adult'. And from there we must act. Over the past 100 years, we've sunk evermore into Berne's other two perspectives and doing so, we've lost freedom. Only the 'adult' merits freedom and indeed, only the 'adult' can cope with freedom's eternal companion, responsibility. The real trick is to trust that others, if we allow them to do so, CAN cope with the freedom and responsibility we crave and which we know is man's birthright. Please, my friends, let's do what it takes to preserve that freedom.
Friday, July 15, 2011
Pro-discrimination
Discrimination and prejudice have been given a bad name. The political-correctness nazis have succeeded, or, better said, we've stood by and allowed them to succeed in painting us into a corner when it comes to our freedoms of association and exchange.
I have the right to be/deal with whomever I wish. If I own a business and I don't want to serve black people or Mexicans or whomever, for whatever reason, I don't have to serve them, period. Now, I didn't say it was legal not to serve certain people or that I wouldn't get into trouble. But remember, rights aren't granted by the government or even by the constitution. Rights are granted by God.
Now, you may say that it would be wrong for me to refuse to serve certain people. And I might be inclined to agree with you. But, is it right that I should be forced by the government to associate or exchange with people with whom, if I were free, I wouldn't choose to associate/exchange?
Who gets to decide what's appropriate or good, if not me? Who gets to draw that line? Most would say, for instance, that it's ok for me to discriminate against one customer who offers to pay less than another customer, all other factors being equal. So, is that the line in the sand? Do we just all agree on it and then abide by it. Is there no individuality? No individual inalienable right to free association.exchange?
Let me see if I can bring this closer to home, literally. Part of the recent debate on the subject also holds that, for instance, if you own a duplex, you can't "discriminate" against potential renters. Really? So, what's the rule? First come, first serve? You suspend reason and judgement and randomly draw a name out of a hat? Or is there a rational way to meet with each potential renter and select whom you think is the best one? Remember, whatever your selection, you are discriminating against each and every one of the other hopefuls. You prejudiced crumb! Oh, wait, I get it. It's ok to discriminate against all of those other potential renters, as long as the person you selected is a member of a protected minority, right? Or as long as you can somehow prove that you used no untoward criteria in your decision, such as race, gender, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, religious affiliation (certainly you couldn't turn away a cagey looking group of twenty something Muslim men. Please, can we please start profiling...but, I digress.) etc., etc. Well, let me see. Let's say someone shows up on your doorstep one night. You don't know him. You have a bad feeling about him. You see no reason to trust him. Too bad. You have to let him in. You can't discriminate against him by turning him away. Oh, I forgot to mention, he's a minority. Yep- mi casa su casa, come on in. How long will you be staying? Am I, as a white male, allowed to stay while you're here? No? Oh well. At least I can find solace in the fact that I'm not a _____ist.
This is illustrating absurdity by being absurd. Read that last sentence back to yourself. Yes, it's absurd to deny even white, rich males their rights of free association/exchange. And it's self-defeating. It looks pretty good when the rich white guy loses his rights, but what will you do when they come and take yours?
Now, am I stupid if I don't serve certain people, say, black people, in my business? Is it wrong? Well, I'd say yes. But I maintain that I have that right.
And Walter E. Williams, a black man, agrees with me, as illustrated in his column, "The Right to Discriminate."
I have the right to be/deal with whomever I wish. If I own a business and I don't want to serve black people or Mexicans or whomever, for whatever reason, I don't have to serve them, period. Now, I didn't say it was legal not to serve certain people or that I wouldn't get into trouble. But remember, rights aren't granted by the government or even by the constitution. Rights are granted by God.
Now, you may say that it would be wrong for me to refuse to serve certain people. And I might be inclined to agree with you. But, is it right that I should be forced by the government to associate or exchange with people with whom, if I were free, I wouldn't choose to associate/exchange?
Who gets to decide what's appropriate or good, if not me? Who gets to draw that line? Most would say, for instance, that it's ok for me to discriminate against one customer who offers to pay less than another customer, all other factors being equal. So, is that the line in the sand? Do we just all agree on it and then abide by it. Is there no individuality? No individual inalienable right to free association.exchange?
Let me see if I can bring this closer to home, literally. Part of the recent debate on the subject also holds that, for instance, if you own a duplex, you can't "discriminate" against potential renters. Really? So, what's the rule? First come, first serve? You suspend reason and judgement and randomly draw a name out of a hat? Or is there a rational way to meet with each potential renter and select whom you think is the best one? Remember, whatever your selection, you are discriminating against each and every one of the other hopefuls. You prejudiced crumb! Oh, wait, I get it. It's ok to discriminate against all of those other potential renters, as long as the person you selected is a member of a protected minority, right? Or as long as you can somehow prove that you used no untoward criteria in your decision, such as race, gender, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, religious affiliation (certainly you couldn't turn away a cagey looking group of twenty something Muslim men. Please, can we please start profiling...but, I digress.) etc., etc. Well, let me see. Let's say someone shows up on your doorstep one night. You don't know him. You have a bad feeling about him. You see no reason to trust him. Too bad. You have to let him in. You can't discriminate against him by turning him away. Oh, I forgot to mention, he's a minority. Yep- mi casa su casa, come on in. How long will you be staying? Am I, as a white male, allowed to stay while you're here? No? Oh well. At least I can find solace in the fact that I'm not a _____ist.
This is illustrating absurdity by being absurd. Read that last sentence back to yourself. Yes, it's absurd to deny even white, rich males their rights of free association/exchange. And it's self-defeating. It looks pretty good when the rich white guy loses his rights, but what will you do when they come and take yours?
Now, am I stupid if I don't serve certain people, say, black people, in my business? Is it wrong? Well, I'd say yes. But I maintain that I have that right.
And Walter E. Williams, a black man, agrees with me, as illustrated in his column, "The Right to Discriminate."
Saturday, July 9, 2011
Casey Anthony and Big Guys vs. Little Guys
Let's get racial for a minute. There is some similarity between this recent acquittal and the acquittal of the police who were accused of brutalizing Rodney King. There is a group of people, I might argue- mostly white people, who are just as upset today as black people were in 1992.
Well, my question is, why didn't we see riots, looting and violence, in reaction to the Casey Anthony verdict, like we saw in L.A. back then?
I believe the answer may lie in this false enmity that, unfortunately, is still felt by the little guy for the big guy; the minority for the majority; this hatred for "the man."
When you've convinced yourself you're picked on, a victim, powerless, it's easy to rationalize bad behavior. Maybe this is why people of color commit, as a percentage of the entire population, such a disproportionate number of the crimes.
Well, life has progressively become more challenging for white males as we have been discriminated against in recent decades. And, again, we haven't seen an uptick in violence or crime from our population.
You can call a white man any number of names: cracker, honkey; but I'm afraid to even properly spell ni66er on my blog for fear of being shut down. You can make TV shows or movies where the white guy is routinely stereotyped as the dork or the bad guy. We all know white men can't jump or sing or dance and that they have no rhythm. Yet we don't care. Go ahead and call names, portray us however you want. As Rush says, you can't live for other people. You have to be you. No one will know whether he likes you if you're not you. Who cares what anybody thinks?
Why do none of these portrayals or name calling bother white guys? Maybe it's because we don't have racial advocates working day and night to make sure we retain our victim status and to make sure others are held back so we can advance because we can't do it for ourselves. And to make sure we always have an excuse, a scapegoat if we don't succeed.
Well, people of color, women, gay people, you can have your victim status. I want nothing to do with it. No thanks. I can do it on my own. But you know what? So can you. Wake up. There was a time when you were oppressed. In some ways you're still oppressed. But you're being done no favors by all of the advocates and politically correct crap that's out there. You're better than that.
And the degree to which you allow your way, your pain to be eased is the degree to which you weaken yourself. "No pain, no gain" isn't just for weightlifters. And, enough with the crime already. It hurts you more than anyone else and gains you nothing. You, too, are God's sons and daughters. We all need to live up to that.
Well, my question is, why didn't we see riots, looting and violence, in reaction to the Casey Anthony verdict, like we saw in L.A. back then?
I believe the answer may lie in this false enmity that, unfortunately, is still felt by the little guy for the big guy; the minority for the majority; this hatred for "the man."
When you've convinced yourself you're picked on, a victim, powerless, it's easy to rationalize bad behavior. Maybe this is why people of color commit, as a percentage of the entire population, such a disproportionate number of the crimes.
Well, life has progressively become more challenging for white males as we have been discriminated against in recent decades. And, again, we haven't seen an uptick in violence or crime from our population.
You can call a white man any number of names: cracker, honkey; but I'm afraid to even properly spell ni66er on my blog for fear of being shut down. You can make TV shows or movies where the white guy is routinely stereotyped as the dork or the bad guy. We all know white men can't jump or sing or dance and that they have no rhythm. Yet we don't care. Go ahead and call names, portray us however you want. As Rush says, you can't live for other people. You have to be you. No one will know whether he likes you if you're not you. Who cares what anybody thinks?
Why do none of these portrayals or name calling bother white guys? Maybe it's because we don't have racial advocates working day and night to make sure we retain our victim status and to make sure others are held back so we can advance because we can't do it for ourselves. And to make sure we always have an excuse, a scapegoat if we don't succeed.
Well, people of color, women, gay people, you can have your victim status. I want nothing to do with it. No thanks. I can do it on my own. But you know what? So can you. Wake up. There was a time when you were oppressed. In some ways you're still oppressed. But you're being done no favors by all of the advocates and politically correct crap that's out there. You're better than that.
And the degree to which you allow your way, your pain to be eased is the degree to which you weaken yourself. "No pain, no gain" isn't just for weightlifters. And, enough with the crime already. It hurts you more than anyone else and gains you nothing. You, too, are God's sons and daughters. We all need to live up to that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)