Ron Paul supporters: The biggest threat to our liberty, is actually people just like us: passionate, knowledgeable, morally-conscientious, intelligent, and nonconformist. When the progressive movement (our greatest philosophical threat!) started in the late 1800s, it was was not started by large corporations, psychopaths, corrupt pharmaceutical companies, greedy bankers, or communists (although communist philosophy did play the biggest role overall, so yeah I guess it was started by communists).....It was started by people who wanted to make the country a better place to live in, and also people that wanted to liberate Americans and make life more free.
Yes their ideas about freedom and quality of life were (and are!) radical and arguably delusional, but so are ours. Social Progressives make the same arguments against us that we do against them, that libertarianism enslaves the people, empowers corporations, creates socio-economic corruption, promotes an idealistic, utopic, and ultimately unworkable system, that we are ignorant, naive, asinine, and are unwittingly attacking the very freedom we stand for.
We share most of the same core values with Social Progressives, and libertarians and progressives attack each other for upholding the same exact values, and yet we are at odds, because we are in disagreement over implementation. This is a very sad state of affairs, because we all want the same exact things, and yet we are unable and unwilling to compromise because of an ages-long disagreement that, you might be surprised to know, date backs to before this country was even born! (Research the strained relationship between Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, John Adams, and early social progressive Alexander Hamilton for more details on this, I'll write a post dedicated to this later on). We all want the same things, but because we disagree on implementation, we are natural political enemies to each other, each others' every action, belief, idea, and piece of rhetoric a direct attack on the others' crusade for a better America and brighter future!
What can be done to resolve this paradoxical and horribly divisive political conflict of interests? I honestly don't know, but the first step to understanding each other is to know why we don't understand each other. So understand this, loud and clear: We aren't much different from liberals, we are in fact almost exactly the same in every way! We have the same personalities, same intelligence, same self-awareness, same thirst for knowledge, same desire to make both our country and the world a better place, same basic attitudes about life, same individualism, same conviction, same love of liberty even. We have all of this in common, and the only reason we don't get along-- the only real reason at all has both nothing to do with any of those things, and everything: Implementation! This is the only thing we have that's really different from liberals and social progressives, and that is the cause of the conflict of interest that America has faced since before the country began, and that we face even more than ever before today!
Monday, April 16, 2012
A Truly Free Healthcare Plan!
Update: A friend of mine brought it to my attention that my healthcare plan had the reasons why it works, but didn't mention what the healthcare plan was!
The implementation is actually implied in the article, but it's so remarkably simple and obvious you probably didn't even see it. It's the healthcare plan almost everyone had before healthcare, and has been around since prehistoric times:
Take care of yourself! If you need to know how, there are plenty of books on plant biology, self-help, natural hygiene, and holistic medicine that work just fine, and all of which you can find growing wild. Everything we need for a healthy life has already been provided to us by nature!
1. My healthcare plan is completely personalized.
2. An unbeatable rate of $0 per lifetime, & requires no taxes or fees.
3. It's all-natural, and completely healthy.
4. It's additive and adulterant-free.
5. Doesn't fund corrupt pharmaceutical companies.
6. Doesn't rely on inefficient production and distribution systems.
7. Zero abuse and experimentation on humans or animals.
8. My healthcare plan has guaranteed coverage not dependent on a law, agency, system, company, or anything else for that matter.
9. My healthcare system encourages active awareness and knowledge of one's health rather than blind acceptance.
10. Ensures you have complete control over your healthcare.
The implementation is actually implied in the article, but it's so remarkably simple and obvious you probably didn't even see it. It's the healthcare plan almost everyone had before healthcare, and has been around since prehistoric times:
Take care of yourself! If you need to know how, there are plenty of books on plant biology, self-help, natural hygiene, and holistic medicine that work just fine, and all of which you can find growing wild. Everything we need for a healthy life has already been provided to us by nature!
I have an amazing healthcare plan, and unlike the so-called "free healthcare" that various countries around the world provide and American politicians are trying to enforce as law here, my healthcare plan truly is free.
Here are 10 reasons why my healthcare is far superior to Universal Healthcare:
1. My healthcare plan is completely personalized.
2. An unbeatable rate of $0 per lifetime, & requires no taxes or fees.
3. It's all-natural, and completely healthy.
4. It's additive and adulterant-free.
5. Doesn't fund corrupt pharmaceutical companies.
6. Doesn't rely on inefficient production and distribution systems.
7. Zero abuse and experimentation on humans or animals.
8. My healthcare plan has guaranteed coverage not dependent on a law, agency, system, company, or anything else for that matter.
9. My healthcare system encourages active awareness and knowledge of one's health rather than blind acceptance.
10. Ensures you have complete control over your healthcare.
Friday, April 13, 2012
Why I'm Libertarian Even Though It Doesn't Work; the Government/Society Divide
Credit to @John Shirley and @Joe Cosby for inspiring this post, which BTW is shamelessly copied from a Facebook comment thread, found here for those that would like it in context:
If you believe that Libertarianism is impractical, I would agree with you completely. But the fact is, if I were to choose between happiness and order, and freedom, I'll choose freedom without hesitation. I'm an idealist and frankly I don't believe in any government. Libertarianism is in many ways just a political movement, philosophical foundation, and intellectual rationale for anarchists to rally under. In many ways, most libertarianists are just a convoluted mix of anarchists who want to be taken seriously. Anarchy generally isn't taken seriously as a form of government by anyone but anarchists. Libertarianism on the other hand-- well, just look at the huge crowds Ron Paul drew!
I don't believe that the states should have the power either, this would just be a transitionary step to to a stateless society. Pretty much like Communism, but the opposite approach. Anarcho-Communism, if you will. There is a philosophy like it called "Anarcho-syndicalism", although it gets the same treatment you've given to Libertarian beliefs, as being unrealistic, and rightfully so, because it isn't. My unrealistic beliefs (and their benefits in comparison with the existing system) regarding this are here, if you're interested :-)
@John Shirley response: "If you like you can say idealistic. I have often said that anarchism would be good in a society of mature people. But mature, to me, also means relatively unselfish people who don't pollute the environment, who aren't easily biased against (non criminal) types of people. And I think we're at least a 1000 years from that society"
My response: I agree for the most part. I just believe that for the same reason (people are selfish) controlling people doesn't work each. So Anarchism breeds chaos and exploitation, and Strong government breeds FUD and corruption. Right now the best-case scenario would lie somewhere between the two, something that America had fairly consistently throughout the 19th century, but somehow most people "forgot" about after the (now supposedly-dead) American Progressivism Era. That kind of balance is what I believe America needs, and it would make for the best realistic compromise IMO.
@John Shirley's response: "I think a feeble government (as opposed to one that's healthily empowered, not undemocratically empowered, not oppressively empowered) is more likely to promote corruption and especially to allow people to prey on other people, in business, in labor, and so on. But once someone's got the toxic meme of "government is bad and scary" in their system it's difficult to get it out of them. They don't perceive good govt as what it really is: an extension of the will of the people. Government IS a social bond. Government is us, you and me, and people we appoint. Government is modulated by consensus. It varies in quality, it varies in democratic ideals, but actually it works far better than social spinelessness."I agree with you that a degree of robust regulation is necessary to ensure socio-economic fairness, my disagreement is that it should be done primarily by the government. To minimize corruption, the majority of affairs should be regulated and optimized by Society, with the government's role being as a supporting role and overseer, kinda like the archetypal husband-wife relationship.
If I am understanding you correctly, we are in agreement on all points but on which roles the actors take on. For you, the situation is reversed: Society is more intuitive (like a wife), and is thus best suited to the supporting and overseer role, rearing the children healthily while the husband (the government) has the final say and what the children can and cannot do, and what freedoms they are permitted. The government is more rational and effective at managing people, and so is more suited as the metaphorical head of the household that is America.
This makes a great deal of sense, and I am inclined to agree with you in sight of this relationship, except that at least in the last several years, the government has proven itself to be both less rational and more spineless than the Society supporting it.
If you believe that Libertarianism is impractical, I would agree with you completely. But the fact is, if I were to choose between happiness and order, and freedom, I'll choose freedom without hesitation. I'm an idealist and frankly I don't believe in any government. Libertarianism is in many ways just a political movement, philosophical foundation, and intellectual rationale for anarchists to rally under. In many ways, most libertarianists are just a convoluted mix of anarchists who want to be taken seriously. Anarchy generally isn't taken seriously as a form of government by anyone but anarchists. Libertarianism on the other hand-- well, just look at the huge crowds Ron Paul drew!
I don't believe that the states should have the power either, this would just be a transitionary step to to a stateless society. Pretty much like Communism, but the opposite approach. Anarcho-Communism, if you will. There is a philosophy like it called "Anarcho-syndicalism", although it gets the same treatment you've given to Libertarian beliefs, as being unrealistic, and rightfully so, because it isn't. My unrealistic beliefs (and their benefits in comparison with the existing system) regarding this are here, if you're interested :-)
@John Shirley response: "If you like you can say idealistic. I have often said that anarchism would be good in a society of mature people. But mature, to me, also means relatively unselfish people who don't pollute the environment, who aren't easily biased against (non criminal) types of people. And I think we're at least a 1000 years from that society"
My response: I agree for the most part. I just believe that for the same reason (people are selfish) controlling people doesn't work each. So Anarchism breeds chaos and exploitation, and Strong government breeds FUD and corruption. Right now the best-case scenario would lie somewhere between the two, something that America had fairly consistently throughout the 19th century, but somehow most people "forgot" about after the (now supposedly-dead) American Progressivism Era. That kind of balance is what I believe America needs, and it would make for the best realistic compromise IMO.
@John Shirley's response: "I think a feeble government (as opposed to one that's healthily empowered, not undemocratically empowered, not oppressively empowered) is more likely to promote corruption and especially to allow people to prey on other people, in business, in labor, and so on. But once someone's got the toxic meme of "government is bad and scary" in their system it's difficult to get it out of them. They don't perceive good govt as what it really is: an extension of the will of the people. Government IS a social bond. Government is us, you and me, and people we appoint. Government is modulated by consensus. It varies in quality, it varies in democratic ideals, but actually it works far better than social spinelessness."I agree with you that a degree of robust regulation is necessary to ensure socio-economic fairness, my disagreement is that it should be done primarily by the government. To minimize corruption, the majority of affairs should be regulated and optimized by Society, with the government's role being as a supporting role and overseer, kinda like the archetypal husband-wife relationship.
If I am understanding you correctly, we are in agreement on all points but on which roles the actors take on. For you, the situation is reversed: Society is more intuitive (like a wife), and is thus best suited to the supporting and overseer role, rearing the children healthily while the husband (the government) has the final say and what the children can and cannot do, and what freedoms they are permitted. The government is more rational and effective at managing people, and so is more suited as the metaphorical head of the household that is America.
This makes a great deal of sense, and I am inclined to agree with you in sight of this relationship, except that at least in the last several years, the government has proven itself to be both less rational and more spineless than the Society supporting it.
Why Having the Bible and Creationism in Schools Is a Bad Thing!
Kudos to @Cristina Chance for inspiring this post!
I have good reason for my opposition to teaching the Bible in schools, despite being a Christ-follower. It's a great sentiment, but it's only going to still up trouble. It's better than banning atheism (which would only create more pro-atheism sentiment), but still, they have to consider the social ramifications of their actions. That, and to be honest, I'm not pro-Old Testament, there's a lot of racism, war-mongering, nationalism, and other hateful crap. I'm pro-New Testament, and particularly pro-Gospels, but even then I don't think it should be taught in schools. A lot of parents don't want their children to read the Bible, and I know a lot of friends who have Christian parents and hated the Bible being forced down their throats. The Bible may be a good thing, but it should be shared lovingly, not integrated into something as broad as the public school system, that's what private school is for.
"It's also an elective so it's not mandatory" Well that is a relief (this helps prevent anti-sentiment backlash!) but it still encourages an approach to the Bible that no one (to my knowledge) who wrote the Bible intended: as a source of knowledge. The Bible has some great knowledge and insights in it, and can be a great source of historical knowledge and commentary, but it was originally intended as a collection of letters, written to various people to help them with their various roles in God's plan for them /etc.. While such a function could be made possible in a public school course, It's more likely that especially in light of the inevitable clash between Creationists and Evolutionists, such an approach to the Bible will be lost in translation even if it is used to teach the Bible.
Creationists will claim that the creation story / various reference of the Bible prove that God created the world, and evolutionists will claim the Bible is outdated and fallacious and that the theory of Evolution isn't just a theory, that it's backed by a mountain of evidence and is a rigorous science. The Bible being taught in schools will almost certainly generate controversy, and has more often than not been misused as a propaganda machine for people (such as teachers) to insert their own bias, commentary, and interpretation of what the Bible means into their material. So even for Christians and Bible lovers, this is a lose-lose situation, because even if the Bible is taught in its proper context (letters written to men and women of God, etc.), there is still a very high potential for abuse and bad odds of the Bible not being abused. I think this is a case of people looking at the potential benefits of the Bible being taught in schools (more awareness of God and his love for us), without looking at the many drawbacks and consequences of such. Sure is sounds like a great idea, but like many other great ideas (like that wonderful revolutionary idea "Communism"), some things are only great theoretically.
I don't personally agree with the theory of evolution, with its "evolved by accident" and "survival of the fittest" egocentric paradigms, although I do believe in the world evolving in God's image from a pattern he set in place, in a chaos theory/fractal fashion. I also have good reason to believe that the creation story actually supports my evolutionary beliefs more than traditional creationism.
But the problem with creationism being promoted by Christians as an alternative to evolution (or vice versa) is that they're not compatible: to begin with, the foundation is different- Creationism is based on Faith, while Evolution is based on fact. To quote Paul, "Faith is the essence of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." By contrast, all of natural science is based on empirical observation, which is based entirely and things that are seen. So really when people try to argue one over the other, they are completely missing the point. It's comparing apples and oranges. Evolution is supported by empirical evidence, and even if that evidence is only currently correlative when it comes to the evolution of man, it still is taken a lot more seriously by scientists than Creationism for obvious reasons: it's based on fact. Creationism is not, and so is naturally seen as nothing more than a stumbling block to reason, which most scientists view as faith's natural enemy (more accurately though, its faith's natural opposite and together these two forces promote Balance!
So the big problem with Creationists comparing their beliefs to evolution, is that you can't convincingly argue faith with facts- not only is this counterintuitive, but it makes Creationist arguments inherently fallacious and thus self-defeating. When Creationists try to present their arguments of biblical creation by using the Bible as a historical precedent and prophesy as proof of intelligent design, they more often than not alienate non-believers and make fools of themselves. Not only that, but they also prove that they themselves are completely missing the point, by presenting their faith in such a way that implies that it needs to be proved. If you have so great of faith, why do you have the need to justify your beliefs in the eyes of others. If there is no doubt in your mind, why should you have anything to prove?
When Creationists defend their beliefs so desperately and using such un-faith like methods, I have to wonder if they themselves doubt their faith. Why else would they need to defend their beliefs with something so spiritually inferior and sophistic as facts? Shouldn't Faith-filled Christians be above that rubbish? I don't think there really is any valid reason for anyone who's beliefs are based faith to try to justify them with facts, and even if there was, faith and reason are so different in their nature that trying to justify one with the other is just asking for trouble!
I have good reason for my opposition to teaching the Bible in schools, despite being a Christ-follower. It's a great sentiment, but it's only going to still up trouble. It's better than banning atheism (which would only create more pro-atheism sentiment), but still, they have to consider the social ramifications of their actions. That, and to be honest, I'm not pro-Old Testament, there's a lot of racism, war-mongering, nationalism, and other hateful crap. I'm pro-New Testament, and particularly pro-Gospels, but even then I don't think it should be taught in schools. A lot of parents don't want their children to read the Bible, and I know a lot of friends who have Christian parents and hated the Bible being forced down their throats. The Bible may be a good thing, but it should be shared lovingly, not integrated into something as broad as the public school system, that's what private school is for.
"It's also an elective so it's not mandatory" Well that is a relief (this helps prevent anti-sentiment backlash!) but it still encourages an approach to the Bible that no one (to my knowledge) who wrote the Bible intended: as a source of knowledge. The Bible has some great knowledge and insights in it, and can be a great source of historical knowledge and commentary, but it was originally intended as a collection of letters, written to various people to help them with their various roles in God's plan for them /etc.. While such a function could be made possible in a public school course, It's more likely that especially in light of the inevitable clash between Creationists and Evolutionists, such an approach to the Bible will be lost in translation even if it is used to teach the Bible.
Creationists will claim that the creation story / various reference of the Bible prove that God created the world, and evolutionists will claim the Bible is outdated and fallacious and that the theory of Evolution isn't just a theory, that it's backed by a mountain of evidence and is a rigorous science. The Bible being taught in schools will almost certainly generate controversy, and has more often than not been misused as a propaganda machine for people (such as teachers) to insert their own bias, commentary, and interpretation of what the Bible means into their material. So even for Christians and Bible lovers, this is a lose-lose situation, because even if the Bible is taught in its proper context (letters written to men and women of God, etc.), there is still a very high potential for abuse and bad odds of the Bible not being abused. I think this is a case of people looking at the potential benefits of the Bible being taught in schools (more awareness of God and his love for us), without looking at the many drawbacks and consequences of such. Sure is sounds like a great idea, but like many other great ideas (like that wonderful revolutionary idea "Communism"), some things are only great theoretically.
I don't personally agree with the theory of evolution, with its "evolved by accident" and "survival of the fittest" egocentric paradigms, although I do believe in the world evolving in God's image from a pattern he set in place, in a chaos theory/fractal fashion. I also have good reason to believe that the creation story actually supports my evolutionary beliefs more than traditional creationism.
But the problem with creationism being promoted by Christians as an alternative to evolution (or vice versa) is that they're not compatible: to begin with, the foundation is different- Creationism is based on Faith, while Evolution is based on fact. To quote Paul, "Faith is the essence of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." By contrast, all of natural science is based on empirical observation, which is based entirely and things that are seen. So really when people try to argue one over the other, they are completely missing the point. It's comparing apples and oranges. Evolution is supported by empirical evidence, and even if that evidence is only currently correlative when it comes to the evolution of man, it still is taken a lot more seriously by scientists than Creationism for obvious reasons: it's based on fact. Creationism is not, and so is naturally seen as nothing more than a stumbling block to reason, which most scientists view as faith's natural enemy (more accurately though, its faith's natural opposite and together these two forces promote Balance!
So the big problem with Creationists comparing their beliefs to evolution, is that you can't convincingly argue faith with facts- not only is this counterintuitive, but it makes Creationist arguments inherently fallacious and thus self-defeating. When Creationists try to present their arguments of biblical creation by using the Bible as a historical precedent and prophesy as proof of intelligent design, they more often than not alienate non-believers and make fools of themselves. Not only that, but they also prove that they themselves are completely missing the point, by presenting their faith in such a way that implies that it needs to be proved. If you have so great of faith, why do you have the need to justify your beliefs in the eyes of others. If there is no doubt in your mind, why should you have anything to prove?
When Creationists defend their beliefs so desperately and using such un-faith like methods, I have to wonder if they themselves doubt their faith. Why else would they need to defend their beliefs with something so spiritually inferior and sophistic as facts? Shouldn't Faith-filled Christians be above that rubbish? I don't think there really is any valid reason for anyone who's beliefs are based faith to try to justify them with facts, and even if there was, faith and reason are so different in their nature that trying to justify one with the other is just asking for trouble!
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
In Defense of Ron Paul Supporter's Knowledge
Before I begin, I would first like to debunk the claim the Occupy Wall Street protesters and Ron Paul supporters are sympathetic to each others' causes:
The two principle difference in values between OWS'ers and libertarians, are:
1. Occupyers expect the government to regulate corporations and banks to get rid of corruption and end exploitation.
Libertarians expect the government to end regulation of corporations and banks to get rid of corruption and end exploitation.
2. Occupyers expect the government to take from the rich and give to the middle class and poor via social programs such as universal health care and a progressive tax rate that funds said social programs.
Libertarians want the government to lower taxes, get rid of our debt, and get rid of social programs that help a few at the expense of the rest. But above all, we want the government to focus on what it was originally created to do: ensure order, a stable economy, and a domestic defense. All else should be afterthoughts.
So although Occupy Wall Street protesters may want some of the same basic things as Ron Paul supporters, their ideas about implementation are very much opposed!
___________________________________________
In regards to Ron Paul followers not being knowledgeable enough, I would agree. What I disagree with is that people who disagree with Ron Paul's policies thinking they are somehow more knowledgeable, or worse yet, "experts". We can never be too knowledgeable about a topic, as there is always more to learn.
Ron Paul supporters are not as knowledgeable about (for example) economics, because we don't really care about economics. The free market was developed by people who *were* knowledgeable about economics (the founder of economics, Adam Smith, was one of the biggest promoters of laissez-faire and biggest critics of government-caused inflation and currency devaluation!), so we don't need to be knowledgeable to know that liberty works. The only reason why Ron Paul supporters need to know more about economics, is because people who are so caught up in their knowledgeable ideas about the best economic system, that they end up completely missing the point:
Liberty!
Liberty!
Liberty!
That's what we're knowledgeable about: about the fact that America is being enslaved in debt, that our liberties are being stripped away from us on all fronts in the name of "national security" and the "common good", that America is no longer the land of the free and home of the brave, it is the land of the "you'll do just fine with you're willing to stay inside the government's walled garden"
I think that in that respect, Ron Paul supporters are a lot knowledgeable than supporters of the establishment (like Obama supporters), because we can see how nearly every single amendment of the Bill of Rights has been trampled on by the establishment, that we can no longer live our lives freely without worrying about what rules and regulations we might be inadvertently breaking, that we have to live in FUD of the day the government might break into our houses for protesting its totalitarian rule, that our houses might be demolished or repossessed due to "zoning changes", that the dollar will completely tank and we'll be running around with wheelbarrows of notes and worthless credit. Supporters of Ron Paul can see this all happening, and we are completely confounded at how asinine establishment-supporters can be to not even see it.
Progressives are very intelligent, very knowledgeable people, and the progressive movement was started by doctors, lawyers, teachers, bankers, and ministers. Progressives also created the most destructive reforms America has ever seen. You might be knowledgeable about economics, about sociology, and about the statistical benefits of universal healthcare, regulation, and the welfare state. But If you support the establishment that promises these "walled gardens" in exchange for your "cooperation", then you are either willing to give up your individual freedom, or utterly ignorant about Liberty! In the end, liberty is the most important thing to be knowledgeable about, and Ron Paul supporters will trump you on that front any day!
The two principle difference in values between OWS'ers and libertarians, are:
1. Occupyers expect the government to regulate corporations and banks to get rid of corruption and end exploitation.
Libertarians expect the government to end regulation of corporations and banks to get rid of corruption and end exploitation.
2. Occupyers expect the government to take from the rich and give to the middle class and poor via social programs such as universal health care and a progressive tax rate that funds said social programs.
Libertarians want the government to lower taxes, get rid of our debt, and get rid of social programs that help a few at the expense of the rest. But above all, we want the government to focus on what it was originally created to do: ensure order, a stable economy, and a domestic defense. All else should be afterthoughts.
So although Occupy Wall Street protesters may want some of the same basic things as Ron Paul supporters, their ideas about implementation are very much opposed!
___________________________________________
In regards to Ron Paul followers not being knowledgeable enough, I would agree. What I disagree with is that people who disagree with Ron Paul's policies thinking they are somehow more knowledgeable, or worse yet, "experts". We can never be too knowledgeable about a topic, as there is always more to learn.
Ron Paul supporters are not as knowledgeable about (for example) economics, because we don't really care about economics. The free market was developed by people who *were* knowledgeable about economics (the founder of economics, Adam Smith, was one of the biggest promoters of laissez-faire and biggest critics of government-caused inflation and currency devaluation!), so we don't need to be knowledgeable to know that liberty works. The only reason why Ron Paul supporters need to know more about economics, is because people who are so caught up in their knowledgeable ideas about the best economic system, that they end up completely missing the point:
Liberty!
Liberty!
Liberty!
That's what we're knowledgeable about: about the fact that America is being enslaved in debt, that our liberties are being stripped away from us on all fronts in the name of "national security" and the "common good", that America is no longer the land of the free and home of the brave, it is the land of the "you'll do just fine with you're willing to stay inside the government's walled garden"
I think that in that respect, Ron Paul supporters are a lot knowledgeable than supporters of the establishment (like Obama supporters), because we can see how nearly every single amendment of the Bill of Rights has been trampled on by the establishment, that we can no longer live our lives freely without worrying about what rules and regulations we might be inadvertently breaking, that we have to live in FUD of the day the government might break into our houses for protesting its totalitarian rule, that our houses might be demolished or repossessed due to "zoning changes", that the dollar will completely tank and we'll be running around with wheelbarrows of notes and worthless credit. Supporters of Ron Paul can see this all happening, and we are completely confounded at how asinine establishment-supporters can be to not even see it.
Progressives are very intelligent, very knowledgeable people, and the progressive movement was started by doctors, lawyers, teachers, bankers, and ministers. Progressives also created the most destructive reforms America has ever seen. You might be knowledgeable about economics, about sociology, and about the statistical benefits of universal healthcare, regulation, and the welfare state. But If you support the establishment that promises these "walled gardens" in exchange for your "cooperation", then you are either willing to give up your individual freedom, or utterly ignorant about Liberty! In the end, liberty is the most important thing to be knowledgeable about, and Ron Paul supporters will trump you on that front any day!
Saturday, April 7, 2012
Standardization and its Detrimental Effect on Academia
Philosophy is the precursor to science, and had the advantage of being independent of society. Because most people believed that philosophy had nothing to do with them, philosophers could freely think what they wanted without restraint of what people thought about what they thought, because the ignorant masses' opinions weren't relevant anyway. This meant that the great thinkers could be far less biased in their thought, and (more importantly) far more creative and innovative.
Every time a philosopher has been taken seriously by the populace, a science is formed. Such was the case with the first philosophies to become sciences, Issac Newton "natural philosophy" > natural science, Sigmund Freud "psychoanalysis" > psychology. Isaac Newton was originally just a knowledgeable philosopher and mathematician until people started taking his mathematical formulas seriously, and Freud was just another physician and dream sage until people started taking his dream interpretation techniques seriously. And the more seriously people take philosophy, the more philosophy dies ;-(
This is another reason I am opposed to progressivism. They wanted to modernize the scientific world by changing all epistemologically-relevant philosophies into sciences, for the betterment of mankind. This resulted in public awareness of most major philosophies, which in turn caused all philosophy to stagnate in the name of the standardization of knowledge. The more you try to control energy, the more energy is lost (entropy). This is one of the most basic laws of thermodynamics and more broadly of life.
I agree that progressivism has had somewhat of a positive of an impact on science in some respects (i.e. standardization allows for more effective transmission of knowledge), but then again, to a large extent progressivism created science, which makes me wonder what science would look like without progressivism. Of course I have a natural bias against progressivism because it attacks the liberty and individuality I stand for, and is based on this arrogant notion that you can accurately define knowledge and people by standardizing them and putting everything and everyone into proverbial boxes.
Since I believe that knowledge thrives most when it is free (for examples of what happens when knowledge is suppressed and controlled, you need look no further than the Dark Ages, dominated by Catholics suppressing knowledge in the name of God!) I believe knowledge should be completely free and unfettered by scientific bias, public opinion, or standardization. Sure the common people could not understand science as well then, but it's not like the common people understand science anyway! If anything, their knowledge of it is a grave misunderstanding perpetuated by an ignorant media and misconceiving public, and such a false "knowledge" is of no merit to anyone.
Due to the nature of knowledge and the pursuit thereof, people should only be aware of what knowledge that they are actually interested in understanding. The reason for this shows us the most crucial flaw in the standardization that progressivism perpetuates "in the name of science": prejudice. That is, because most people don't care about knowledge or science, their exposure to it only breeds prejudice and ill-conceived assumptions about how the world, people, etc. work. They believe they understand the science, but they don't. They think they know all kinds of things about science, but they don't, they only "know" what is convenient for them, the lot of which is built on a superficial understanding and a stack of fallacious assumptions that do not in any way do justice to the science they claim to understand.
In America this is especially apparent. with millions of Americans with college degrees which are utterly useless. I have a friend who have Master's degrees in communication studies from Stanford, an Ivy League-class university. You would think that journalism and the editing process would be easy to her. Yet when I gave her my novel to work on, she said she found the grammar too difficult to edit to a publishable format, and had spent the past few weeks trying to work on it. Of course, I only presented it unedited because I didn't care about editing, but personally I don't have hardly any formal education in editing. When when she told me how much trouble she had editing, I told her that it would be easier for me to edit it without looking at her edits, and with no effort at all I had the whole thing edited to a publishable format in a matter of less than 10 minutes. She wondered how I could do it so fast, and I could only wonder why she couldn't do it at all. I really think it's sad that even after he getting such a prestigious degree in the field, she could even efficiently edit such a simple thing as the grammatical quality of a chapter of a novel.
I have seen many more examples of such incompetence in nearly every major field of the educational system. I have had conversations with graduates of Computer Science, AI, Quantum field theory, Art History, Economics, Theology, and virtually every major field of education, and my conversations with them only demonstrated their ignorance of the field they claimed to be an expert in, that they had "worked hard" to become knowledgeable about. My knowledge about these subjects often topped theirs; even though my interest in these topics is merely sporadic and superficial, somehow I know more than them.
This is not to say that I am somehow I genius or "omniscient", to the contrary, it is saying that most college students and college graduates in America are hopelessly ignorant even in the fields they major in. It really is very sad, how they put all that time and money and effort into becoming knowledgeable, only to end up graduating with nothing more than superficial knowledge and "common sense", and perhaps the ability to regurgitate what their teachers, books, and curriculum taught them. Standardization and this idea of controlling education has created this pathetic state of stagnation, where people learn only how to discriminate in their knowledge and be prejudiced in their thoughts, to pretend to understand where they only regurgitate, to rationalize instead of innovate. In many way, College and the educational system have destroyed knowledge in the same way they "helped" it, through standardization.
Right now we live in a reality where everything is standardized, and that standardization is believed to be "common sense", and that belief is perpetuated by the same people who mistake "common sense" for being expertise. The illusion that standardization is a good thing and a necessary part of the knowledge exchange process is encouraged at the social level, giving only social outcasts and eccentrics reason to question the system. One such eccentric organization dedicated to education without standardization is UnCollege, but these movements are few and far in-between as the vast majority of people have accepted standardized education as the best and only legitimate means of transmitting academia. Our educational system is in a sad state indeed ;-(
Every time a philosopher has been taken seriously by the populace, a science is formed. Such was the case with the first philosophies to become sciences, Issac Newton "natural philosophy" > natural science, Sigmund Freud "psychoanalysis" > psychology. Isaac Newton was originally just a knowledgeable philosopher and mathematician until people started taking his mathematical formulas seriously, and Freud was just another physician and dream sage until people started taking his dream interpretation techniques seriously. And the more seriously people take philosophy, the more philosophy dies ;-(
This is another reason I am opposed to progressivism. They wanted to modernize the scientific world by changing all epistemologically-relevant philosophies into sciences, for the betterment of mankind. This resulted in public awareness of most major philosophies, which in turn caused all philosophy to stagnate in the name of the standardization of knowledge. The more you try to control energy, the more energy is lost (entropy). This is one of the most basic laws of thermodynamics and more broadly of life.
I agree that progressivism has had somewhat of a positive of an impact on science in some respects (i.e. standardization allows for more effective transmission of knowledge), but then again, to a large extent progressivism created science, which makes me wonder what science would look like without progressivism. Of course I have a natural bias against progressivism because it attacks the liberty and individuality I stand for, and is based on this arrogant notion that you can accurately define knowledge and people by standardizing them and putting everything and everyone into proverbial boxes.
Since I believe that knowledge thrives most when it is free (for examples of what happens when knowledge is suppressed and controlled, you need look no further than the Dark Ages, dominated by Catholics suppressing knowledge in the name of God!) I believe knowledge should be completely free and unfettered by scientific bias, public opinion, or standardization. Sure the common people could not understand science as well then, but it's not like the common people understand science anyway! If anything, their knowledge of it is a grave misunderstanding perpetuated by an ignorant media and misconceiving public, and such a false "knowledge" is of no merit to anyone.
Due to the nature of knowledge and the pursuit thereof, people should only be aware of what knowledge that they are actually interested in understanding. The reason for this shows us the most crucial flaw in the standardization that progressivism perpetuates "in the name of science": prejudice. That is, because most people don't care about knowledge or science, their exposure to it only breeds prejudice and ill-conceived assumptions about how the world, people, etc. work. They believe they understand the science, but they don't. They think they know all kinds of things about science, but they don't, they only "know" what is convenient for them, the lot of which is built on a superficial understanding and a stack of fallacious assumptions that do not in any way do justice to the science they claim to understand.
In America this is especially apparent. with millions of Americans with college degrees which are utterly useless. I have a friend who have Master's degrees in communication studies from Stanford, an Ivy League-class university. You would think that journalism and the editing process would be easy to her. Yet when I gave her my novel to work on, she said she found the grammar too difficult to edit to a publishable format, and had spent the past few weeks trying to work on it. Of course, I only presented it unedited because I didn't care about editing, but personally I don't have hardly any formal education in editing. When when she told me how much trouble she had editing, I told her that it would be easier for me to edit it without looking at her edits, and with no effort at all I had the whole thing edited to a publishable format in a matter of less than 10 minutes. She wondered how I could do it so fast, and I could only wonder why she couldn't do it at all. I really think it's sad that even after he getting such a prestigious degree in the field, she could even efficiently edit such a simple thing as the grammatical quality of a chapter of a novel.
I have seen many more examples of such incompetence in nearly every major field of the educational system. I have had conversations with graduates of Computer Science, AI, Quantum field theory, Art History, Economics, Theology, and virtually every major field of education, and my conversations with them only demonstrated their ignorance of the field they claimed to be an expert in, that they had "worked hard" to become knowledgeable about. My knowledge about these subjects often topped theirs; even though my interest in these topics is merely sporadic and superficial, somehow I know more than them.
This is not to say that I am somehow I genius or "omniscient", to the contrary, it is saying that most college students and college graduates in America are hopelessly ignorant even in the fields they major in. It really is very sad, how they put all that time and money and effort into becoming knowledgeable, only to end up graduating with nothing more than superficial knowledge and "common sense", and perhaps the ability to regurgitate what their teachers, books, and curriculum taught them. Standardization and this idea of controlling education has created this pathetic state of stagnation, where people learn only how to discriminate in their knowledge and be prejudiced in their thoughts, to pretend to understand where they only regurgitate, to rationalize instead of innovate. In many way, College and the educational system have destroyed knowledge in the same way they "helped" it, through standardization.
Right now we live in a reality where everything is standardized, and that standardization is believed to be "common sense", and that belief is perpetuated by the same people who mistake "common sense" for being expertise. The illusion that standardization is a good thing and a necessary part of the knowledge exchange process is encouraged at the social level, giving only social outcasts and eccentrics reason to question the system. One such eccentric organization dedicated to education without standardization is UnCollege, but these movements are few and far in-between as the vast majority of people have accepted standardized education as the best and only legitimate means of transmitting academia. Our educational system is in a sad state indeed ;-(
Friday, April 6, 2012
Analysis of the American Federal Reserve Conspiracy and its Roots in the Progressivism Movement
The often-cited reason justifying the creation of the Federal Reserve (to both regulate banks and prevent future financial panics such as you were talking about) were three actual major panics in 1873, 1893, and 1907. Part of the reason for these panics was greed opportunism, but to a great extent these panics were engineered by J.P. Morgan to create pro-federal sentiment. Of course, at this point such claims will be written off as conspiracy theories, but I believe that all of these things will be made apparent enough in due time ;-)
The interesting thing about these "panics" though, is that perhaps they were not even as big of panics as the history books (and Wikipedia, apparently), would tell us. For example, the "Long Depression", which is a term used to connect the first two panics into a single time period, is claimed to have been caused by America's switch to the gold standard for backing the dollar. However, William McKinley (whom incidentally I'm related to) was able to win the presidency by backing the gold standard. "he maintained the nation on the gold standard in a rejection of inflationary proposals."
William McKinley signed the Gold Standard Act in 1900, and was reelected later that year. Then at his 1901 inauguration, he was murdered by an "anarchist". He was then replaced by Theodore Roosevelt (1901-1909), who "conveniently" was a Progressive completely opposed to the gold standard and supportive of governments regulating commerce and inflating the dollar. "He is noted for his...leadership of the Progressive Movement"
I would like to note here that William McKinley's assassination coincides with the same year the Progressive Era began. In addition, just months after JFK (yes, John F. Kennedy) signed into law policies that would effectively dismantle the Federal Reserve via free market control of the dollar, he was assassinated too, and "conveniently" was replaced by a Progressive that rolled back all of his changes, and continued FDR-styled progressive reforms in the name of his so-called "Great Society". Incidentally, Chester A. Arthur (president 1881-1885), the successor in replacing the first president to be assassinated (James A. Garfield), was also an early Progressivist, dedicating the bulk of his term to reform and "civil rights".
From these facts we can garner three important correlations:
1. Every single U.S. president who has been assassination to date (with the possible exception of James A. Garfield) was assassinated for opposition to financial regulation and/or support of the gold standard.
2. Every U.S. president to be assassinated was replaced by a progressive, who inflated the currency of the people, creating civil rights programs and reforms to "help" them while at the same time progressively impoverishing them via higher taxes and increased inflation.
3. Two of the three "Great Panics" was during to term of a Progressive president: Ulysses S. Grant (1869-1977) was famous for his series of reforms and civil rights legislation, and Theodore Roosevelt (1901-1909), who was the very leader of the Progressive Movement, and did more unconstitutional and dollar-inflating reforms than any other U.S. president in history.
4. The other "Great Panic" was during the term of President Grover Cleveland (1892-1893, who was an active opponent of political corruption and got into office by opposing Free Silver (and inflationary device) and inflation. Incidentally, the panic of 1893 came too soon (just months after he came into office, and was caused by the "Free Silver" he was trying to get rid of.
http://en.wikipedia.org/
In response to the panic of 1893, Cleveland had "no choice" but to borrow $65 million in gold from then-Wall Street banker J.P. Morgan, to get America on the gold standard.
5. Enter J.P. Morgan:
http://en.wikipedia.org/
To solve the third "Great Panic" of 1907, Theodore Roosevelt called up a meeting with J.P. Morgan to solve the financial crisis, this time by infusing large amounts of cash from Morgan and over a dozen major banks and trust companies, including then-huge sum of $10 million from John D. Rockefeller, the wealthiest man in America at the time, into a trust fund called the "Trust Fund of America". Then at the infamous "Drama at the Library" 40-50 bankers and trust fund executives gathered together to deal with the crisis. (I believe it to be here where the initial plans for creating the Federal Reserve and supplementary Federal Income Tax began).
6. John F. Kennedy was killed just 5 months after issuing Executive Order 11110, which arguably could have dismantled the Federal Reserve (the information regarding this is questionable on both sides, will require further research to make an accurate evaluation).
Put all of these facts together, and we've got ourselves a solid fact-based Federal Reserve and the Progressive Movement conspiracy theory. You're free to draw your own conclusions (you probably already know mine!), but at the very least use critical thinking, and never take for granted that the reality fed to us by our society and government is accurate-- in fact, even without conspiracy theories like this, we should all know better by now than to trust our government!
The interesting thing about these "panics" though, is that perhaps they were not even as big of panics as the history books (and Wikipedia, apparently), would tell us. For example, the "Long Depression", which is a term used to connect the first two panics into a single time period, is claimed to have been caused by America's switch to the gold standard for backing the dollar. However, William McKinley (whom incidentally I'm related to) was able to win the presidency by backing the gold standard. "he maintained the nation on the gold standard in a rejection of inflationary proposals."
William McKinley signed the Gold Standard Act in 1900, and was reelected later that year. Then at his 1901 inauguration, he was murdered by an "anarchist". He was then replaced by Theodore Roosevelt (1901-1909), who "conveniently" was a Progressive completely opposed to the gold standard and supportive of governments regulating commerce and inflating the dollar. "He is noted for his...leadership of the Progressive Movement"
I would like to note here that William McKinley's assassination coincides with the same year the Progressive Era began. In addition, just months after JFK (yes, John F. Kennedy) signed into law policies that would effectively dismantle the Federal Reserve via free market control of the dollar, he was assassinated too, and "conveniently" was replaced by a Progressive that rolled back all of his changes, and continued FDR-styled progressive reforms in the name of his so-called "Great Society". Incidentally, Chester A. Arthur (president 1881-1885), the successor in replacing the first president to be assassinated (James A. Garfield), was also an early Progressivist, dedicating the bulk of his term to reform and "civil rights".
From these facts we can garner three important correlations:
1. Every single U.S. president who has been assassination to date (with the possible exception of James A. Garfield) was assassinated for opposition to financial regulation and/or support of the gold standard.
2. Every U.S. president to be assassinated was replaced by a progressive, who inflated the currency of the people, creating civil rights programs and reforms to "help" them while at the same time progressively impoverishing them via higher taxes and increased inflation.
3. Two of the three "Great Panics" was during to term of a Progressive president: Ulysses S. Grant (1869-1977) was famous for his series of reforms and civil rights legislation, and Theodore Roosevelt (1901-1909), who was the very leader of the Progressive Movement, and did more unconstitutional and dollar-inflating reforms than any other U.S. president in history.
4. The other "Great Panic" was during the term of President Grover Cleveland (1892-1893, who was an active opponent of political corruption and got into office by opposing Free Silver (and inflationary device) and inflation. Incidentally, the panic of 1893 came too soon (just months after he came into office, and was caused by the "Free Silver" he was trying to get rid of.
http://en.wikipedia.org/
In response to the panic of 1893, Cleveland had "no choice" but to borrow $65 million in gold from then-Wall Street banker J.P. Morgan, to get America on the gold standard.
5. Enter J.P. Morgan:
http://en.wikipedia.org/
To solve the third "Great Panic" of 1907, Theodore Roosevelt called up a meeting with J.P. Morgan to solve the financial crisis, this time by infusing large amounts of cash from Morgan and over a dozen major banks and trust companies, including then-huge sum of $10 million from John D. Rockefeller, the wealthiest man in America at the time, into a trust fund called the "Trust Fund of America". Then at the infamous "Drama at the Library" 40-50 bankers and trust fund executives gathered together to deal with the crisis. (I believe it to be here where the initial plans for creating the Federal Reserve and supplementary Federal Income Tax began).
6. John F. Kennedy was killed just 5 months after issuing Executive Order 11110, which arguably could have dismantled the Federal Reserve (the information regarding this is questionable on both sides, will require further research to make an accurate evaluation).
Put all of these facts together, and we've got ourselves a solid fact-based Federal Reserve and the Progressive Movement conspiracy theory. You're free to draw your own conclusions (you probably already know mine!), but at the very least use critical thinking, and never take for granted that the reality fed to us by our society and government is accurate-- in fact, even without conspiracy theories like this, we should all know better by now than to trust our government!
Laissez-faire and the American Dream: The Cake is a Lie!
A lot of people seem to think that I support the free market because I disagree with socialism, but this is far from the case. The first misunderstanding here is that it implies that because I support capitalism, I must be against the conflicting model of socialism. Not only is this wrong on a fundamental level (because I'm a perspectivist, I don't believe that my beliefs are any more valid than anyone else's), it's also a misnomer, in that while I do believe in the free market, I don't believe in capitalism.
What I stand for is absolute freedom, which in this case would be "Laissez-faire" trade, the exchange of goods and services unfettered by government involvement, either in support, suppression, or regulation of. I don't believe that our government's economic model should be either capitalist or socialist, it should be stop-interfering-with-my-livelihood. That's what a free market is today, not this wannabe government subsidized, somewhat regulated, and sometimes (such as is the case with the oil industry) supported with our tax money. The free market needs to be free, and that means no government involvement.
While socialism may seem to conflict with this philosophy, it really does not when you consider that true socialism should be implemented not at the government level, but at the cultural level: Society. That is, everything works a lot more efficiently (and far less corruptly) when people are conditioned by society to embrace the ideals of socialism, rather than having a government that forces them to follow a system that is unwittingly against the conditioning they were brought up in.
In America's current system, we are raised to believe in this supernatural freedom, which we call "The American Dream", the idea that we're going to get a great job doing what we love, meet a beautiful/handsome mate who would love us and take care of us, that we can pursue our passions and get rewarded for the fruit of our labor, and in "the land of opportunity" the potential for furthering oneness is virtually endless.
But this American Dream we are conditioned to believe in and live our lives by is not only at odds with reality, it's also often at odds with the supporting government infrastructure, and even the law. We can't sell whatever products or services we like (many products and services are illegal, including some of the most common ones), and even those products and services which are legal, are more often than not illegal to sell without a license, a store, and a plethora of other "health and safety" requirements in which they oppress your pursuit of happiness via "inspections"
The American Dream really is just a dream, which although it may be possible with enough dedication to fulfill, government agencies trample upon ruthlessly in the name of "regulation", which ignorantly self-righteous bastards which call themselves "Progressivists" trample upon. So long as there is interference with our (unfettered) right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, there is no American Dream. As the Internet meme goes, "The cake is a lie!"
What I stand for is absolute freedom, which in this case would be "Laissez-faire" trade, the exchange of goods and services unfettered by government involvement, either in support, suppression, or regulation of. I don't believe that our government's economic model should be either capitalist or socialist, it should be stop-interfering-with-my-livelihood. That's what a free market is today, not this wannabe government subsidized, somewhat regulated, and sometimes (such as is the case with the oil industry) supported with our tax money. The free market needs to be free, and that means no government involvement.
While socialism may seem to conflict with this philosophy, it really does not when you consider that true socialism should be implemented not at the government level, but at the cultural level: Society. That is, everything works a lot more efficiently (and far less corruptly) when people are conditioned by society to embrace the ideals of socialism, rather than having a government that forces them to follow a system that is unwittingly against the conditioning they were brought up in.
In America's current system, we are raised to believe in this supernatural freedom, which we call "The American Dream", the idea that we're going to get a great job doing what we love, meet a beautiful/handsome mate who would love us and take care of us, that we can pursue our passions and get rewarded for the fruit of our labor, and in "the land of opportunity" the potential for furthering oneness is virtually endless.
But this American Dream we are conditioned to believe in and live our lives by is not only at odds with reality, it's also often at odds with the supporting government infrastructure, and even the law. We can't sell whatever products or services we like (many products and services are illegal, including some of the most common ones), and even those products and services which are legal, are more often than not illegal to sell without a license, a store, and a plethora of other "health and safety" requirements in which they oppress your pursuit of happiness via "inspections"
The American Dream really is just a dream, which although it may be possible with enough dedication to fulfill, government agencies trample upon ruthlessly in the name of "regulation", which ignorantly self-righteous bastards which call themselves "Progressivists" trample upon. So long as there is interference with our (unfettered) right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, there is no American Dream. As the Internet meme goes, "The cake is a lie!"
Thursday, April 5, 2012
Anti-OPERA Einstein Fundamentalists Don't Understand Einstein
What crusaders for Einstein's sacred Special Theory of Relativity are "learning" from this is that Einstein's theory of
relativity is obviously right, and shouldn't have been questioned. But
this kind of mindset is fatal to the critical thinking and willingness
to question widely-held beliefs that has made science what it is today.
People often forget that Einstein's own theories conflicted with the universally accepted "infallible" work Newton did in the development of classical mechanics. Einstein dealt with the same type of controversy that the OPERA team did, because his work represented the same threat to Newton's physics as OPERA did to Einstein's.
So-called defenders of Einstein clearly did not know as much about Einstein as they do about his work; if they did they wouldn't attack OPERA so vehemently like they did for "attacking" Einstein's magnum opus. It's as if they saw Einstein as God and the suggestion of Einstein's fallibility was blasphemy!
What these scientific zealots didn't know apparently, is that Einstein himself encouraged people proving his theories wrong, as you can see with such words of wisdom as "If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts", "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong". If Einstein were wrong, it wouldn't mean a setup in science or even quantum mechanics-- on the contrary, it would only further bolster these fields.
Science is fueled by questioning the facts and putting to the test the commonly held to be true. It is cynicism with the consensus and the willingness to think outside the box of mainstream beliefs that scientific research thrives in!
If Einstein were alive today he would be more than happy to be wrong, because it would give him greater challenges to undertake, and more curiosity to satisfy! If Einstein were alive today he would be the first to undertake the CERN tests putting his own theory to the test, and encourage every last scientist with the resources to do the same.
If Einstein were witnessing how people are wrongfully exploiting his name to defend the Special Theory of Relativity, he would scold the lot of them good, and remind them that "Anyone who has never made a mistake has never tried anything new"; to imply that Einstein cannot have made a mistake is to insult the innovative thinking that made Einstein and science itself so profoundly great!
People often forget that Einstein's own theories conflicted with the universally accepted "infallible" work Newton did in the development of classical mechanics. Einstein dealt with the same type of controversy that the OPERA team did, because his work represented the same threat to Newton's physics as OPERA did to Einstein's.
So-called defenders of Einstein clearly did not know as much about Einstein as they do about his work; if they did they wouldn't attack OPERA so vehemently like they did for "attacking" Einstein's magnum opus. It's as if they saw Einstein as God and the suggestion of Einstein's fallibility was blasphemy!
What these scientific zealots didn't know apparently, is that Einstein himself encouraged people proving his theories wrong, as you can see with such words of wisdom as "If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts", "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong". If Einstein were wrong, it wouldn't mean a setup in science or even quantum mechanics-- on the contrary, it would only further bolster these fields.
Science is fueled by questioning the facts and putting to the test the commonly held to be true. It is cynicism with the consensus and the willingness to think outside the box of mainstream beliefs that scientific research thrives in!
If Einstein were alive today he would be more than happy to be wrong, because it would give him greater challenges to undertake, and more curiosity to satisfy! If Einstein were alive today he would be the first to undertake the CERN tests putting his own theory to the test, and encourage every last scientist with the resources to do the same.
If Einstein were witnessing how people are wrongfully exploiting his name to defend the Special Theory of Relativity, he would scold the lot of them good, and remind them that "Anyone who has never made a mistake has never tried anything new"; to imply that Einstein cannot have made a mistake is to insult the innovative thinking that made Einstein and science itself so profoundly great!
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
A Criticism of Regulation: On The Causes of Lobbyism and Politico-Corporate Corruption
Lobbyists are not so much the problem, as they are the evidence of the problem. Before regulation, there were virtually no lobbyists, as there was no need for them-- if someone wanted to do something, they would do it-- in the beginning, the U.S. government was largely uninvolved in economic affairs, making the very concept of kissing the government's ass for concessions or "consideration" ludicrous. Fast forward through over a century of self-righteous progressivism and we have a few generations of Americans born into a country so disgustingly saturated in lobbied interest that the necessity of lobbyists in the politico-corporate world has become common sense.
Regulation was a good system in theory, and that's the reason why progressivists are so in denial of how much of a failure its been. Progressivism have been from the very beginning a movement pioneered by doctors, lawyers, scientists, teachers, and bankers. A lot of intelligent and upper-class people pushed American Progressivism for the greater good, and still feel that it works because the theory is still solid.
However, just like Progressivism, Communism was great in theory too. In fact, from a social democratic stand-point, one of the only major distinctions between Communism and Socialism, is that whereas Communism is revolutionary, Socialism is progressive. Note here that in this context, "revolutionary" means "quick and abrupt change", whereas "progressive" means "slow and gradual change". So the primary reason why progressivists haven't noticed their system has failed, is because it *hasn't failed yet*-- because the system is progressive, the entropy of the system is *also* progressive.
So whereas the failure of Communism was perfectly obvious due to its revolutionary nature, the failure of Progressive Socialism never became obvious, because it's happened so slowly that most people don't even see things changing for the worse, they just see the "status quo". It's like trying to prove murder through Pine-Sol food poisoning (like in M. Night Shyamalan's "The Sixth Sense", versus being an eye witness to the beheading of a famous celebrity.
Getting back to lobbyists, as I said they're only the evidence of the problem. The root of the problem is in human nature, that human beings are selfish. This problem is amplified with psychopaths, who are more callous, and more likely to be in positions of power *because of that callousness* (which is viewed by society as favorable for emotionally-detached domains such as corporate business, the legal system, and the political world), and more broadly with the very nature of how wealth and power affects people (that is, these two things corrupt people in possession of them, as the maxim goes "Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely!"
But we can't change human nature, and regulation has proved itself to only further complicate things, while at the same time creating the impetus for lobbying activism, inefficiencies from regulatory overhead, and (most importantly) the regulation-caused market inequalities and subsequent widening of the gap between the rich and the poor, and between the competitiveness of small business in relation to larger corporations who unlike small businesses can afford lobbyists and to pay for often trivial and extraneous regulations.
Ayn Rand gave a solution to that, and it was so remarkably simple that I can't believe that so many people haven't grasped it yet: She called it "ethical egoism", and it goes like this: (quoting from Wikipedia for practical purposes) "Ethical egoism (also called simply egoism) is the normative ethical position that moral agents ought to do what is in their own self-interest". To sum this up for those of you who may have trouble applying that definition to this context, it's basically saying that if you leave people alone, they generally will do the right thing because it's in their best interests to.
Ayn Rand was in many ways a genius, and her ingenuity in the crafting of a philosophy based on ethical egoism, is the application of the free market system to the human Ego, so as to show that the free market system is the best economic model because it's in human nature to want to do the right thing, so as to prevent (for example) a moral "zero sum game".
I agree with Ayn Rand that because human beings are all to some extent motivated by a desire for some kind of personal liberation, Interference with that liberation (such as regulation and government intervention in the free market system, as was the case with the Federal Reserve and the Federal Income Tax) gives people more incentive to commit moral wrongdoing even from their own perspective. The reason for this is simple also: When "doing to right thing" doesn't produce self-liberation, we have a natural incentive to "do the wrong thing" in order to achieve the desired liberation that was not permitted (due to regulation) to be achieved in ways that are in everyone's best interest.
So ironic as it might seem given the bipartisan political consensus on the issue of regulation, the answer to getting rid of lobbyists, is largely to get rid of regulation. Yes there will still be a few psychopaths who will exploit the free market for their own again, But the moral incentive for such selfishness, both for psychopaths and for people in general, will be largely eliminated in lieu of a free market morality mentality.
Regulation was a good system in theory, and that's the reason why progressivists are so in denial of how much of a failure its been. Progressivism have been from the very beginning a movement pioneered by doctors, lawyers, scientists, teachers, and bankers. A lot of intelligent and upper-class people pushed American Progressivism for the greater good, and still feel that it works because the theory is still solid.
However, just like Progressivism, Communism was great in theory too. In fact, from a social democratic stand-point, one of the only major distinctions between Communism and Socialism, is that whereas Communism is revolutionary, Socialism is progressive. Note here that in this context, "revolutionary" means "quick and abrupt change", whereas "progressive" means "slow and gradual change". So the primary reason why progressivists haven't noticed their system has failed, is because it *hasn't failed yet*-- because the system is progressive, the entropy of the system is *also* progressive.
So whereas the failure of Communism was perfectly obvious due to its revolutionary nature, the failure of Progressive Socialism never became obvious, because it's happened so slowly that most people don't even see things changing for the worse, they just see the "status quo". It's like trying to prove murder through Pine-Sol food poisoning (like in M. Night Shyamalan's "The Sixth Sense", versus being an eye witness to the beheading of a famous celebrity.
Getting back to lobbyists, as I said they're only the evidence of the problem. The root of the problem is in human nature, that human beings are selfish. This problem is amplified with psychopaths, who are more callous, and more likely to be in positions of power *because of that callousness* (which is viewed by society as favorable for emotionally-detached domains such as corporate business, the legal system, and the political world), and more broadly with the very nature of how wealth and power affects people (that is, these two things corrupt people in possession of them, as the maxim goes "Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely!"
But we can't change human nature, and regulation has proved itself to only further complicate things, while at the same time creating the impetus for lobbying activism, inefficiencies from regulatory overhead, and (most importantly) the regulation-caused market inequalities and subsequent widening of the gap between the rich and the poor, and between the competitiveness of small business in relation to larger corporations who unlike small businesses can afford lobbyists and to pay for often trivial and extraneous regulations.
Ayn Rand gave a solution to that, and it was so remarkably simple that I can't believe that so many people haven't grasped it yet: She called it "ethical egoism", and it goes like this: (quoting from Wikipedia for practical purposes) "Ethical egoism (also called simply egoism) is the normative ethical position that moral agents ought to do what is in their own self-interest". To sum this up for those of you who may have trouble applying that definition to this context, it's basically saying that if you leave people alone, they generally will do the right thing because it's in their best interests to.
Ayn Rand was in many ways a genius, and her ingenuity in the crafting of a philosophy based on ethical egoism, is the application of the free market system to the human Ego, so as to show that the free market system is the best economic model because it's in human nature to want to do the right thing, so as to prevent (for example) a moral "zero sum game".
I agree with Ayn Rand that because human beings are all to some extent motivated by a desire for some kind of personal liberation, Interference with that liberation (such as regulation and government intervention in the free market system, as was the case with the Federal Reserve and the Federal Income Tax) gives people more incentive to commit moral wrongdoing even from their own perspective. The reason for this is simple also: When "doing to right thing" doesn't produce self-liberation, we have a natural incentive to "do the wrong thing" in order to achieve the desired liberation that was not permitted (due to regulation) to be achieved in ways that are in everyone's best interest.
So ironic as it might seem given the bipartisan political consensus on the issue of regulation, the answer to getting rid of lobbyists, is largely to get rid of regulation. Yes there will still be a few psychopaths who will exploit the free market for their own again, But the moral incentive for such selfishness, both for psychopaths and for people in general, will be largely eliminated in lieu of a free market morality mentality.
Obstacles to Implementation of Universal Healthcare in the U.S.A.
I've heard from some friends from Europe that Universal Healthcare works quite well there; they believed it was because in Europe they're more individualistic thus ensuring a corruption-free system (corruption can only thrive in a society of complacency).
However, I've seen Universal healthcare work well entirely in the private sector without any government involvement whatsoever-- this is the case in Japan, where the free market ensures competitive high quality healthcare for almost all Japanese people, and virtually all Japanese people living in non-rural areas (which the exception of course of the people who's income is derived from prostitution, loan sharking, and other illegal activities).
Considering that most Americans to a strong degree advocate some form of the free market, One would think that the Japanese system would work best. However, there are two important differences that work against us in this regard:
1. American people are far more selfish and individualistic than Japan.
2. The primary reason Universal Health Care works so well in Japan without government involvement, is that collectivist values and a relatively altruistic culture help ensure that healthcare in Japan works well irrespective of government involvement.
For the most part, Japanese government exists in the ideal libertarian fashion: to keep the peace and order, with some taxing for basic services, but very little else. Their government is in many ways far more efficient than our own. However, this is largely because Japanese society is highly sophisticated and remarkably mature, making the role of the government in ensuring "quality of life" here, a mere redundancy in Japan. Most of what is enforced legally here, in other words, is enforced on a societal level in Japan.
I don't know what implementation of healthcare (if any, I am personally disapproving of any universal healthcare system) would be bet for America, but it probably lies somewhere in-between the highly-socialistic healthcare systems of Canada and Europe, and the free market system of Japan.
In either case though, we need to ensure that the support for Universal Healthcare is imbued by our society and culture, *not* enforced by government, because the moment that a government feels the need to force anything as big as healthcare on their people "for the greater good", we have become no better than a self-righteous fascist state. Even the Nazis believed with all their heart that everything they did was for the greater good; we should no better than to blindly follow in their footsteps.
However, I've seen Universal healthcare work well entirely in the private sector without any government involvement whatsoever-- this is the case in Japan, where the free market ensures competitive high quality healthcare for almost all Japanese people, and virtually all Japanese people living in non-rural areas (which the exception of course of the people who's income is derived from prostitution, loan sharking, and other illegal activities).
Considering that most Americans to a strong degree advocate some form of the free market, One would think that the Japanese system would work best. However, there are two important differences that work against us in this regard:
1. American people are far more selfish and individualistic than Japan.
2. The primary reason Universal Health Care works so well in Japan without government involvement, is that collectivist values and a relatively altruistic culture help ensure that healthcare in Japan works well irrespective of government involvement.
For the most part, Japanese government exists in the ideal libertarian fashion: to keep the peace and order, with some taxing for basic services, but very little else. Their government is in many ways far more efficient than our own. However, this is largely because Japanese society is highly sophisticated and remarkably mature, making the role of the government in ensuring "quality of life" here, a mere redundancy in Japan. Most of what is enforced legally here, in other words, is enforced on a societal level in Japan.
I don't know what implementation of healthcare (if any, I am personally disapproving of any universal healthcare system) would be bet for America, but it probably lies somewhere in-between the highly-socialistic healthcare systems of Canada and Europe, and the free market system of Japan.
In either case though, we need to ensure that the support for Universal Healthcare is imbued by our society and culture, *not* enforced by government, because the moment that a government feels the need to force anything as big as healthcare on their people "for the greater good", we have become no better than a self-righteous fascist state. Even the Nazis believed with all their heart that everything they did was for the greater good; we should no better than to blindly follow in their footsteps.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)