Before I get into my elaboration of my personal feelings on the matter, let me say up front that I'm against the outlawing of gay marriage. It's not right to force anyone to do anything or to forcibly prevent him from doing anything, as long as he's not hurting or threatening anyone else or violating anyone's individual unalienable rights. It's wrong for me to use force, to initiate it, even if I'm right. Force is for defense only. I'll go on to vigorously argue against gay marriage, but those are personal feelings of mine. And I have no right to enforce them on anyone, even if I feel I'm preventing him from hurting himself.
While we're on the subject. I don't need the govt's or anyone's license, sanction or permission to get married. Or, more accurately, I shouldn't need it. But the truth is, we, in our apathy, have allowed the govt to not only require us to get their permission, they also charge us money for it.
Now, I know it's hard to get your head around a concept that flies in the face of your lifetime of experience. But imagine. You're in a public place. And you're in the very act of dropping to one knee to ask your sweetheart's hand. And some random guy approaches and says, "Wait. No. Were you about to propose? No. You can't do that. I haven't given you permission."
Here's the tough concept I mentioned: Look, I know it's a random dude in my hypothetical example and in real life it's the govt. But how is that really different? The govt is literally made up of average, random dudes. How did they get the power and authority they have? Based on what criteria of merit? They're just like us. The vast majority are appointed or hired bureaucrats and the rest are politicians, hired by us. We're their bosses. We're sovereign (read: kings and queens) citizens. They're absolutely our underlings. Yet they have all of the power. Do you begin to see what's happened as you slumbered at the switch? We've all been asleep. Well, some of us are awake. And it's time the rest of you roused yourselves before it's too late.
You don't need; I don't need anyone's permission or license to do anything. As long as all parties to the thing I'm doing are voluntary, it's no one else's business. Look, no one needs you to protect him. Just as you're able to cruise through life making competent decisions, even making mistakes and failing sometimes. You recover and learn. You're capable; competent. Well, get this, so is everyone else. Stay out of it! Shut your yap and live your own life. Don't try to intervene and forcibly keep me from doing what I want if it's not hurting you.
There are various kinds of other licenses required by the govt. A classic example of this is the requirement that I, as a drywall contractor, be licensed by the govt. Now, I know you assume that all of my potential customers are stupid and that they must be protected from that stupidity and from me by the govt. Do I have that about right? You might not put it into those terms, but that's it, in a nutshell. Well, guess what. I've served 100s of happy customers over the years with only 1 or 2 complaints. And I've never been licensed. I refuse to obtain unneeded permission. My customers are competent enough to decide whether to hire me and whether I've done a good job. Beyond my lack of a contractor's license, I even let my business license expire, years ago. I got tired of paying the fee.
Anyway, the point is, no one got hurt from my lack of license. And in fact, I'm sure there are cases where some customer has been wronged by a bad contractor who WAS licensed. Stuff happens. You win some, you lose some. When you abdicate your personal responsibility and rely on someone else to do what you should do yourself, you're going to get burned.
Um. Let's see. Did the govt ever license a marriage that failed to work out and even hurt those who undertook it? Not to mention surgeries gone bad performed by licensed doctors, etc. Why was the govt not sued for its sanctioning of such a painful failure? The truth is, no one can guarantee security. Take hold of your freedom and the responsibility that goes with it and make your decisions. Make your mistakes. No one can save you from them. And they're very educational.
Friday, March 30, 2012
Thursday, March 29, 2012
The Hunger Games
This is the sequel to Atlas Shrugged, assuming the 'shruggers' never came back from Galt's Gulch. This is what happens when force, not freedom, is the rule of the day. This is the choice before us. Seemingly, most want a little bit of force with their freedom; like cat excrement in their soup. Some of us prefer no initiative force. The problem with the power of initiative force is that it feeds on itself. It's self-perpetuating. It seeks not just to maintain but to grow. It's fun to boss people around and make them do some of the things we want them to do. It would be more fun if we could force them to do all of the things we want them to do.
In The Hunger Games, the govt got too oppressive. It exercised unrighteous dominion. So the people rebelled. They were summarily slaughtered like sheep by the govt. Then, as a yearly reminder that "treason" doesn't pay, they're made to watch their children fight to the death in an arena. It reminds me of the right to rebel and secede which characterized the revolutionary and civil wars. In the former, the right to free association was upheld. In the latter, not so much. Anyway, all three stories provide an important argument for freedom. The book and movie are well worth the time and are a great reminder of what's really important and worth preserving...freedom.
In The Hunger Games, the govt got too oppressive. It exercised unrighteous dominion. So the people rebelled. They were summarily slaughtered like sheep by the govt. Then, as a yearly reminder that "treason" doesn't pay, they're made to watch their children fight to the death in an arena. It reminds me of the right to rebel and secede which characterized the revolutionary and civil wars. In the former, the right to free association was upheld. In the latter, not so much. Anyway, all three stories provide an important argument for freedom. The book and movie are well worth the time and are a great reminder of what's really important and worth preserving...freedom.
Monday, March 26, 2012
Some poems I've written recently
Mad Inaction
The greatest sin of omission is to know and yet not do;
to fail to take the action required, to refuse to follow through.
Knowledge can be so freeing; dreams such effortless bliss.
Is to learn but not act to really know? Well, one thing I do know is this:
it's hard to finish; it's harder to start, though great ideas abound.
But once you hear success' strains, you never forget the sound.
"If it is to be, it's up to me." That's what a wise man said.
When you've been and done, you'll be blessed to find the rest all seek abed.
So, be wise yourself. Do as you know you should while the sun lights the sky.
And the rest all seek throughout this life, you'll enter the day you die.
For what doth it profit a man to know but lazily refuse to do?
You must take responsibility as each day begins anew.
The freedom, love and meaning you'll find with every waking breath
will carry you cross each earthbound care and you'll smile as you meet your death.
O Liberty
O what will you trade for your freedom?
For, everyone has his price.
Your heart's on the line; your spirit, your mind.
Will you trade it for virtue or vice?
O what can be gained from the loss of
your liberty's glorious flame?
For what could be worth the stillborn birth
of a soul under Beelzebub's claim?
O say! Have you seen the proud colors
of our Heavenly Banner wave?
Have you felt your soul yearn for the freedom earned
by the lifeblood your fathers gave?
O Liberty looks upon you.
She wonders what's in your heart..
Will you ask her to stay? Will you give her away?
Or unite with her, never to part?
O man do you understand freedom
is the cure for your country's ills?
It's brighter than gold. O man, don't be lulled
to complacency. Don't lose your will!
O never defer to apathy!
Don't take for granted your rights!
And never revert to things as they were
when tyranny spread its blight.
O why won't you vie for freedom
o'er security, power and gold?
All these she'll provide as the moon guides the tide,
if you hie to her principles bold.
O reckon by light of freedom:
your guide through the long, dark night.
She'll ease your way, she'll carry the day
if you labor for her with your might.
O what would you prize above freedom?
The power to force the mob?
You'd wish to make safe your life, your faith?
Then freedom must not be robbed.
O Live and let live in freedom.
Your brothers can bear it as you.
Let Liberty reign through triumph and pain.
And her espoused self-reliance, too.
O search for your motive power,
your self-interest, your righteous desire.
To live in this land you must be a man
of action and feed your own fire.
O preserve, protect, defend freedom
as set forth by the law of this land.
Restore to her founding with anthems resounding
to God, as we make our last stand!
The greatest sin of omission is to know and yet not do;
to fail to take the action required, to refuse to follow through.
Knowledge can be so freeing; dreams such effortless bliss.
Is to learn but not act to really know? Well, one thing I do know is this:
it's hard to finish; it's harder to start, though great ideas abound.
But once you hear success' strains, you never forget the sound.
"If it is to be, it's up to me." That's what a wise man said.
When you've been and done, you'll be blessed to find the rest all seek abed.
So, be wise yourself. Do as you know you should while the sun lights the sky.
And the rest all seek throughout this life, you'll enter the day you die.
For what doth it profit a man to know but lazily refuse to do?
You must take responsibility as each day begins anew.
The freedom, love and meaning you'll find with every waking breath
will carry you cross each earthbound care and you'll smile as you meet your death.
O Liberty
O what will you trade for your freedom?
For, everyone has his price.
Your heart's on the line; your spirit, your mind.
Will you trade it for virtue or vice?
O what can be gained from the loss of
your liberty's glorious flame?
For what could be worth the stillborn birth
of a soul under Beelzebub's claim?
O say! Have you seen the proud colors
of our Heavenly Banner wave?
Have you felt your soul yearn for the freedom earned
by the lifeblood your fathers gave?
O Liberty looks upon you.
She wonders what's in your heart..
Will you ask her to stay? Will you give her away?
Or unite with her, never to part?
O man do you understand freedom
is the cure for your country's ills?
It's brighter than gold. O man, don't be lulled
to complacency. Don't lose your will!
O never defer to apathy!
Don't take for granted your rights!
And never revert to things as they were
when tyranny spread its blight.
O why won't you vie for freedom
o'er security, power and gold?
All these she'll provide as the moon guides the tide,
if you hie to her principles bold.
O reckon by light of freedom:
your guide through the long, dark night.
She'll ease your way, she'll carry the day
if you labor for her with your might.
O what would you prize above freedom?
The power to force the mob?
You'd wish to make safe your life, your faith?
Then freedom must not be robbed.
O Live and let live in freedom.
Your brothers can bear it as you.
Let Liberty reign through triumph and pain.
And her espoused self-reliance, too.
O search for your motive power,
your self-interest, your righteous desire.
To live in this land you must be a man
of action and feed your own fire.
O preserve, protect, defend freedom
as set forth by the law of this land.
Restore to her founding with anthems resounding
to God, as we make our last stand!
Response to poli-nate regarding Ayn Rand
In order to become such a fan of Atlas Shrugged, et al, I. of course, had to square it with my religious beliefs. But let me start with the indefensible. Adultery and fornication; restraining passions, etc.; yes, Ayn Rand takes leave of reason in those cases. And in the interest of brevity, 'nuff said.
Regarding religion and subordinating one's will to a higher power, three things: 1. I like the quote of Thomas Jefferson, "Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." I think it's okay to not just accept everything at face value and to actually search, ponder and pray to gain personal understanding of statements by church leaders and in the scriptures. 2. Ayn Rand never attended my organized religion. And having attended several others myself, I can understand her trepidation, her rebellion against what she referred to as mysticism. 3. Extreme altruism. There is a notion held by many, if not most church members, that he who gains the least and in fact hurts himself the most in his self-sacrifice in the service of others, wins. I've been taught this idea in some form, at varying levels of intensity, all my life. And I don't think it's correct doctrine. Sacrifice is the giving up of something good for something better, e.g. a portion of your income for heavenly blessings.
The pursuit of happiness or blessings or anything good for oneself has become evil. Well, I've a challenge for you. Go and try to engage in some form of service for which you'll never be compensated in any way. You can't do it. It's impossible. In service, there's always that immediate rush of well-being, that thrill of pure joy. Boom! You just got paid. Then there's the growth of character and spirit and the enhancement of capacity that comes from your obedience and righteousness. Boom! You got paid again. Then there are the treasures you're laying up in heaven. And I've failed to mention any other blessings that may come through 'carma' or whatever. But I think you get the picture. We're astoundingly overcompensated for whatever service we give. And I refuse to accept that service is somehow compromised if we happen to get a paycheck for it. I believe all of the above still applies, even if we get paid.
I actually think even the Savior gained from His ultimate sacrifice. I believe He inherited eternal life and was glorified; and He gained the possibility of a lot of company in what would've been a pretty lonely eternity. In addition, like the main characters in Atlas Shrugged, albeit at a much higher and nonfictional level, He enjoyed the expression of his full powers. He stood up to an impossible challenge, at the absolute limit of His strength, and He did it! He succeeded. You missed a major theme of the book if you think Hank Reardon invented his amazing metal just for the money. He and the others most enjoyed taming the earth, doing what no one could, sacrificing, giving years of blood, sweat and tears, failing repeatedly only to ultimately succeed. "I can do it." is Fransisco's axiom; again, the joy in the expression of one's full powers, talents, abilities. That was their "motive power."
You mention "liberty of the most extreme variety" as of that's a bad thing. I guess that's the crux of what separates you as a conservative from me as a classical liberal (read: libertarian.) I have all of the same feelings against the immorality to which you refer. I just don't think anyone should be forced, via law, to do what you and I think is right. We don't force anyone to attend our church. We don't force anyone to not drink or smoke. I've never heard of an elder's quorum raid on a house where we suspect adultery or fornication. Yet it's somehow okay for the govt to force people when it comes to drugs, prostitution, gambling, marriage, etc. Utah isn't exactly a bastion of "fiscal conservatism" and we're what, 70% Mormon? My whole premise is an absolute intolerance for the initiation of force. I'm not perfect. I'm a hypocrite in some ways. But force is for defense, only. If someone is doing something bad but which is hurting no one; no one's individual unalienable rights are being threatened or violated, I say, live and let live. Maybe try and persuade him to stop but not force him. Think of D & C 121. And remember who it was that wanted to destroy man's agency.
You make an excellent point about the freedom to which the atonement leads us. I just want the maximum freedom for all, now and always. I believe I address all of these things much more comprehensively elsewhere in this blog.
Again, as to "subjecting our minds to (our Father's) will," yes, you have a point. And she messes up here. She assigns the use of force where it's utterly absent. The Lord forces no one. But I view it the way I view sacrifice...the good for the better (best.) And remember, all of our dealings with the Lord are voluntary exchange. The weird thing is, He seemingly gets the short end of the stick since He gives so much more than He gets. Although He gets us; and to Him, that's the highest value. So...
Her morality is simply to give value for value in free exchange. No force or fraud; and need is not a valuable medium of exchange. But if you read "The Virtue of Selfishness" you see she's okay at least with the sacrifices of a parent for a child; the voluntary. She just takes the forced sacrifices of socialism to the extreme and comes off seeming to say that no one should charitably give to anyone. But her heroes in Atlas give to others charitably. She just disguises it by emphasizing what the giver feels he's getting out of it.
There may be a lot more to say and I've said most of it in this blog. To summarize, see my monkey post about the true virtue of selfishness. Truly, in service to others, we gain the most.
Regarding religion and subordinating one's will to a higher power, three things: 1. I like the quote of Thomas Jefferson, "Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." I think it's okay to not just accept everything at face value and to actually search, ponder and pray to gain personal understanding of statements by church leaders and in the scriptures. 2. Ayn Rand never attended my organized religion. And having attended several others myself, I can understand her trepidation, her rebellion against what she referred to as mysticism. 3. Extreme altruism. There is a notion held by many, if not most church members, that he who gains the least and in fact hurts himself the most in his self-sacrifice in the service of others, wins. I've been taught this idea in some form, at varying levels of intensity, all my life. And I don't think it's correct doctrine. Sacrifice is the giving up of something good for something better, e.g. a portion of your income for heavenly blessings.
The pursuit of happiness or blessings or anything good for oneself has become evil. Well, I've a challenge for you. Go and try to engage in some form of service for which you'll never be compensated in any way. You can't do it. It's impossible. In service, there's always that immediate rush of well-being, that thrill of pure joy. Boom! You just got paid. Then there's the growth of character and spirit and the enhancement of capacity that comes from your obedience and righteousness. Boom! You got paid again. Then there are the treasures you're laying up in heaven. And I've failed to mention any other blessings that may come through 'carma' or whatever. But I think you get the picture. We're astoundingly overcompensated for whatever service we give. And I refuse to accept that service is somehow compromised if we happen to get a paycheck for it. I believe all of the above still applies, even if we get paid.
I actually think even the Savior gained from His ultimate sacrifice. I believe He inherited eternal life and was glorified; and He gained the possibility of a lot of company in what would've been a pretty lonely eternity. In addition, like the main characters in Atlas Shrugged, albeit at a much higher and nonfictional level, He enjoyed the expression of his full powers. He stood up to an impossible challenge, at the absolute limit of His strength, and He did it! He succeeded. You missed a major theme of the book if you think Hank Reardon invented his amazing metal just for the money. He and the others most enjoyed taming the earth, doing what no one could, sacrificing, giving years of blood, sweat and tears, failing repeatedly only to ultimately succeed. "I can do it." is Fransisco's axiom; again, the joy in the expression of one's full powers, talents, abilities. That was their "motive power."
You mention "liberty of the most extreme variety" as of that's a bad thing. I guess that's the crux of what separates you as a conservative from me as a classical liberal (read: libertarian.) I have all of the same feelings against the immorality to which you refer. I just don't think anyone should be forced, via law, to do what you and I think is right. We don't force anyone to attend our church. We don't force anyone to not drink or smoke. I've never heard of an elder's quorum raid on a house where we suspect adultery or fornication. Yet it's somehow okay for the govt to force people when it comes to drugs, prostitution, gambling, marriage, etc. Utah isn't exactly a bastion of "fiscal conservatism" and we're what, 70% Mormon? My whole premise is an absolute intolerance for the initiation of force. I'm not perfect. I'm a hypocrite in some ways. But force is for defense, only. If someone is doing something bad but which is hurting no one; no one's individual unalienable rights are being threatened or violated, I say, live and let live. Maybe try and persuade him to stop but not force him. Think of D & C 121. And remember who it was that wanted to destroy man's agency.
You make an excellent point about the freedom to which the atonement leads us. I just want the maximum freedom for all, now and always. I believe I address all of these things much more comprehensively elsewhere in this blog.
Again, as to "subjecting our minds to (our Father's) will," yes, you have a point. And she messes up here. She assigns the use of force where it's utterly absent. The Lord forces no one. But I view it the way I view sacrifice...the good for the better (best.) And remember, all of our dealings with the Lord are voluntary exchange. The weird thing is, He seemingly gets the short end of the stick since He gives so much more than He gets. Although He gets us; and to Him, that's the highest value. So...
Her morality is simply to give value for value in free exchange. No force or fraud; and need is not a valuable medium of exchange. But if you read "The Virtue of Selfishness" you see she's okay at least with the sacrifices of a parent for a child; the voluntary. She just takes the forced sacrifices of socialism to the extreme and comes off seeming to say that no one should charitably give to anyone. But her heroes in Atlas give to others charitably. She just disguises it by emphasizing what the giver feels he's getting out of it.
There may be a lot more to say and I've said most of it in this blog. To summarize, see my monkey post about the true virtue of selfishness. Truly, in service to others, we gain the most.
Friday, March 23, 2012
Read Atlas Shrugged, you monkeys!
I wrote this in response to someone who tried to refute Rand's 1000s of pages with 2-3 of his own:
Rand addressed one man's finite life as the ultimate measure and value, which it is. She spoke of thriving, not surviving. What? A man who doesn't reproduce has lead a life bereft of value? You came close to capturing Rand's thesis in that stmt, (that according to the theory of evolution, animals exist to reproduce, not to survive, live or thrive) just replace reproduction with production (meaning: man exists to produce or create, to thrive, to fully express his potential, as expressed by the characters in Atlas Shrugged). I think I get you. In a nutshell: you refuse to accept the reality of absolutes in life and you envy a mind able to create a philosophy so you try and fail to poke your miniscule holes in that philos.
Objectivism can be confirmed in the scriptures. there's nothing wrong with it; except abortion (oh, and adultery and fornication...it's an exciting book, you really should read it, but not for THOSE things -insert emoticon here-), which can be wholly maligned with objectivist theory. (An unborn baby is entitled to all unalienable rights enjoyed by us all, including life and property. His mind and body are his property, just like mine are mine. He is no more helpless or un-viable than he is immediately after he's born. A thin layer of muscle, fat, skin and tissue belonging to his mother notwithstanding. She has no more right to murder him than I, if he wanders onto my property, even if circumstances dictate that I must keep him for 9 months, at considerable danger and hardship to myself and against my will. What if I lived somewhere that was snowed in routinely for 9 months out of the year and someone dropped him off on my front porch the day he was born, corresponding with the first day of the snow-in? Well, that's what you call a tangent. But I'm sure Ayn Rand has been convinced of the error of her ways by someone on the other side, by now. Anyway...)
Selfishness IS virtuous. The most selfish thing you can do; what you should do if you want to do yourself the most good and gain the most possible is to follow God's commandments; e.g. serve others. Serve as many people as you can in the best way you possibly can with your best ability and talent..you will gain more than any you serve. My mission to Brazil taught me that. To call it "enlightened self-interest" is just semantic.
Please take the time to read and listen to "Fransisco's money speech" and "the story of the twentieth century motor company," both available on youtube and taken from Atlas Shrugged. It'll take you 15 min. each. Pony up, you wuss. I've read the whole book 3 times and I'm no genius. Plus, I have the attention span of the proverbial, easily distracted gnat.
And please don't try to elevate yourself, your mind, by denigrating a mind with which you're not worthy to share oxygen. It's obvious you think you sank her with your paltry points and you didn't come close. Remember, "Thou shalt not covet...anything that is thy neighbor's" including her mind.
Likely, your gripe is mostly with capitalism, per se. Freedom (aka capitalism) creates a situation where the best in each field matriculate to the top. And, to you, that feels unfair. Different abilities lead to different outcomes and results. God gave all of us talents. But we value some over others. Each of us does this by choice, under capitalism. Otherwise, we're forced into our choices. I suck as bball. Should the other players be deprived of limbs so I can compete?
Life as the ultimate value is evidenced by the life we assume or imagine is lived by Our Father in Heaven; eternal life. It's about the fullest expression of one's power. The characters in Atlas Shrugged enjoyed their money, sure. But moreso, they enjoyed taming the earth and using their minds and bodies to create, to do the things that "can't be done;" to invent. Not just to have an idea, but to bring it to life, to make it happen! That's life, living, thriving; THE ultimate value.
Rand addressed one man's finite life as the ultimate measure and value, which it is. She spoke of thriving, not surviving. What? A man who doesn't reproduce has lead a life bereft of value? You came close to capturing Rand's thesis in that stmt, (that according to the theory of evolution, animals exist to reproduce, not to survive, live or thrive) just replace reproduction with production (meaning: man exists to produce or create, to thrive, to fully express his potential, as expressed by the characters in Atlas Shrugged). I think I get you. In a nutshell: you refuse to accept the reality of absolutes in life and you envy a mind able to create a philosophy so you try and fail to poke your miniscule holes in that philos.
Objectivism can be confirmed in the scriptures. there's nothing wrong with it; except abortion (oh, and adultery and fornication...it's an exciting book, you really should read it, but not for THOSE things -insert emoticon here-), which can be wholly maligned with objectivist theory. (An unborn baby is entitled to all unalienable rights enjoyed by us all, including life and property. His mind and body are his property, just like mine are mine. He is no more helpless or un-viable than he is immediately after he's born. A thin layer of muscle, fat, skin and tissue belonging to his mother notwithstanding. She has no more right to murder him than I, if he wanders onto my property, even if circumstances dictate that I must keep him for 9 months, at considerable danger and hardship to myself and against my will. What if I lived somewhere that was snowed in routinely for 9 months out of the year and someone dropped him off on my front porch the day he was born, corresponding with the first day of the snow-in? Well, that's what you call a tangent. But I'm sure Ayn Rand has been convinced of the error of her ways by someone on the other side, by now. Anyway...)
Selfishness IS virtuous. The most selfish thing you can do; what you should do if you want to do yourself the most good and gain the most possible is to follow God's commandments; e.g. serve others. Serve as many people as you can in the best way you possibly can with your best ability and talent..you will gain more than any you serve. My mission to Brazil taught me that. To call it "enlightened self-interest" is just semantic.
Please take the time to read and listen to "Fransisco's money speech" and "the story of the twentieth century motor company," both available on youtube and taken from Atlas Shrugged. It'll take you 15 min. each. Pony up, you wuss. I've read the whole book 3 times and I'm no genius. Plus, I have the attention span of the proverbial, easily distracted gnat.
And please don't try to elevate yourself, your mind, by denigrating a mind with which you're not worthy to share oxygen. It's obvious you think you sank her with your paltry points and you didn't come close. Remember, "Thou shalt not covet...anything that is thy neighbor's" including her mind.
Likely, your gripe is mostly with capitalism, per se. Freedom (aka capitalism) creates a situation where the best in each field matriculate to the top. And, to you, that feels unfair. Different abilities lead to different outcomes and results. God gave all of us talents. But we value some over others. Each of us does this by choice, under capitalism. Otherwise, we're forced into our choices. I suck as bball. Should the other players be deprived of limbs so I can compete?
Life as the ultimate value is evidenced by the life we assume or imagine is lived by Our Father in Heaven; eternal life. It's about the fullest expression of one's power. The characters in Atlas Shrugged enjoyed their money, sure. But moreso, they enjoyed taming the earth and using their minds and bodies to create, to do the things that "can't be done;" to invent. Not just to have an idea, but to bring it to life, to make it happen! That's life, living, thriving; THE ultimate value.
Friday, February 24, 2012
My rebuttal to poli-nate.blogspot.com
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)