I think it's abhorrent that while special interest groups and whiny individuals like Sandra Fluke (and the women she represents) somehow "need" contraception insurance coverage, somehow I don't need medical or pharmaceutical services of any kind.
If I get injured, I clean myself up and repair or treat my own injury using whatever I have on hand. If I get sick, I utilize whatever natural herbs I see growing wild, and most of the time I don't do anything at all-- I just sleep it off and take extra good care of myself until I get well. If someone attacks me, even beats me to a bloody pulp, I don't go to the hospital, not even to have some doctor give his or her opinion. I take care of myself, regardless of the circumstances.
You might believe that you deserve special treatment, that you are "entitled" because you are a woman, because you are disabled, because you are a minority, because you have some unusual debilitating condition or simply because you feel like playing the victim. If you, like Sandra Fluke and other welfare state advocates, feel it's the duty of taxpayers to accommodate this spoiled need for "special treatment", there is one thing you're entitled to: your opinion.
But there's no way I'm going to pay for your special treatment, because I believe it's selfish, immoral, and it's fundamentally against my moral stigma towards insurance of any kind, health or otherwise.
I spent my entire adolescence in the system, with everything being provided to me by the welfare state. Those were the most wasted years of my life. You might claim that it's "selfish" for us to not "help" to those in need through compulsory legislation, but at least from my own experience these "good intentions" are only hurting people by making them complacent, dependent on a corrupt system, and motivationally crippled from actually living life.
You may believe that universal healthcare and welfare services are "helping" people, but I know from experience that it is quite to the contrary. Even if it did actually help people to be successful in life and actually make something of themselves, what good does it do when every single person being "helped" has their individuality stolen from them in the name of socialist ideals? Now everything is public.
Parents no longer rear their children (we have daycare and preschools for that), and they no longer teach their children (we have public schools for that), People no longer take care of themselves (we have health care for that), they no longer defend themselves (we have the police for that), they no longer think for themselves (we have society for that), we no longer hold our own beliefs (we have religion for that), we no longer invest our own money (we have banks and investment firms for that)....The list goes on and on!
At this rate, there will no longer be anyone to help, there won't be any "one" at all, there will only be the collective state, and those remaining few who still have the courage to refuse to go along with this irresponsible madness
I think it's disturbing that we live in a world where it's selfish to not want to encourage selfishness, self-righteous to not condone self-righteousness, unsympathetic to support freedom and independence from corrupt systems, close-minded to have an opinion at odds with the consensus or norm, and cold-hearted for asserting that everyone should be happy just to be alive, that we're not entitled to any more than that.
In a comment to the above statements, people stated how they felt my opinions were at complete odds with my self-summary: "I believe in living a life of Oneness manifested through Selfless Love, and it is my mission to find a way to get rid of all the selfishness in the world, along with the misunderstandings, prejudices, and misled self-righteousness that it fuels."
That is, they felt that my more recent posts represent me as being selfish, self-righteous, unsympathetic, close-minded, prejudiced, and cold-hearted. Believe me, if I was, I would probably not post any of this type of content-- I would just post content people wanted to hear, game the system to get the maximum amount of influence, and leverage that influence to my own corrupt ends. So being the minority in my beliefs, I just think it's a bit absurd that I could even be accused of such things-- an absurdity that sadly reflects the "norm" of the modern world :-(
Monday, March 5, 2012
Argument For a Return to a "Gilded Age" Government
With how big and diverse of a nation America is, we would be far better off as a federation of largely autonomous states, which is precisely how America was in our golden age, historically known as"The Gilded Age".
"In United States history, the Gilded Age refers to the era of rapid economic and population growth in the United States during the post–Civil War and post-Reconstruction eras of the late 19th century.The Gilded Age is most famous for the creation of a modern industrial economy. During the 1870s and 1880s, the U.S. economy rose at the fastest rate in its history, with real wages, wealth, GDP, and capital formation all increasing rapidly. For example, between 1865 and 1898, the output of wheat increased by 256%, corn by 222%, coal by 800% and miles of railway track by 567%. Thick national networks for transportation and communication were created. The corporation became the dominant form of business organization, and a managerial revolution transformed business operations. By the beginning of the 20th century, per capita income and industrial production in the United States led the world, with per capita incomes double that of Germany or France, and 50% higher than Britain.
The Gilded Age saw the greatest period of economic growth in American history. Eventually, the United States produced over one third of certain international goods such as steel and oil. After the short-lived panic of 1873, the economy recovered with the advent of hard money policies and industrialization. From 1869 to 1879, the US economy grew at a rate of 6.8% for NNP (GDP minus capital depreciation) and 4.5% for NNP per capita. The economy repeated this period of growth in the 1880s, in which the wealth of the nation grew at an annual rate of 3.8%, while the GDP was also doubled. Real wages also increased greatly during the 1880s."
The Gilded Age was followed by the "progressive era", which was dominated by FUD (fear uncertainty and doubt), and socially progressive (which translates to naive and ignorant) measures-- stuff like the "Prohibition", socialist feminism (which has done more to destroy American morality than just about anything IMO), and "reforms" in virtually every aspect of life, and every business industry-- which incidentally culminated in the Federal Reserve, the hallmark of the Progressive Era. What the important thing here is that "progressives" then (and now, from the looks of it) got off to fixing government policies that weren't broken, and expanding the government's power to cover areas that people were happy and prosperous without such interference.
The Progressive Age effectively destroyed the prosperity of America through the expansion of government in the name of, ironically enough, "eliminating corruption" (pot calling the kettle black much?) Politicians started utilizing war (starting with the Spanish-American War, and later with such wars as World War I) to force the states to unite against a common enemy, and exploited the FUD(fear, uncertainty, and doubt) in the nation to insert pieces of nationwide legislation which, were it not for the wars (and other engineered socio-economic crisis's such as the two "Great Panics") would be condemned by the states and people as unconstitutional. Things have been becoming more and more corrupt in America since then, and our national debt and high rates of crime/other disturbing trends reflect that.
"In United States history, the Gilded Age refers to the era of rapid economic and population growth in the United States during the post–Civil War and post-Reconstruction eras of the late 19th century.The Gilded Age is most famous for the creation of a modern industrial economy. During the 1870s and 1880s, the U.S. economy rose at the fastest rate in its history, with real wages, wealth, GDP, and capital formation all increasing rapidly. For example, between 1865 and 1898, the output of wheat increased by 256%, corn by 222%, coal by 800% and miles of railway track by 567%. Thick national networks for transportation and communication were created. The corporation became the dominant form of business organization, and a managerial revolution transformed business operations. By the beginning of the 20th century, per capita income and industrial production in the United States led the world, with per capita incomes double that of Germany or France, and 50% higher than Britain.
The Gilded Age saw the greatest period of economic growth in American history. Eventually, the United States produced over one third of certain international goods such as steel and oil. After the short-lived panic of 1873, the economy recovered with the advent of hard money policies and industrialization. From 1869 to 1879, the US economy grew at a rate of 6.8% for NNP (GDP minus capital depreciation) and 4.5% for NNP per capita. The economy repeated this period of growth in the 1880s, in which the wealth of the nation grew at an annual rate of 3.8%, while the GDP was also doubled. Real wages also increased greatly during the 1880s."
The Gilded Age was followed by the "progressive era", which was dominated by FUD (fear uncertainty and doubt), and socially progressive (which translates to naive and ignorant) measures-- stuff like the "Prohibition", socialist feminism (which has done more to destroy American morality than just about anything IMO), and "reforms" in virtually every aspect of life, and every business industry-- which incidentally culminated in the Federal Reserve, the hallmark of the Progressive Era. What the important thing here is that "progressives" then (and now, from the looks of it) got off to fixing government policies that weren't broken, and expanding the government's power to cover areas that people were happy and prosperous without such interference.
The Progressive Age effectively destroyed the prosperity of America through the expansion of government in the name of, ironically enough, "eliminating corruption" (pot calling the kettle black much?) Politicians started utilizing war (starting with the Spanish-American War, and later with such wars as World War I) to force the states to unite against a common enemy, and exploited the FUD(fear, uncertainty, and doubt) in the nation to insert pieces of nationwide legislation which, were it not for the wars (and other engineered socio-economic crisis's such as the two "Great Panics") would be condemned by the states and people as unconstitutional. Things have been becoming more and more corrupt in America since then, and our national debt and high rates of crime/other disturbing trends reflect that.
Monday, February 20, 2012
Lessons to Learn from the Jewish Holocaust
I think that death of any kind is a tragedy, but I think the preoccupation with any ethnic group is completely missing the point. The real lessons we should be learning from the Jewish Holocaust should be the real issues that affect us all as humans:
* The Danger of Fascism and its Destruction of Civil Liberties
* The Consequences of Ethnic Pride
* The Terrible Reality of War
* The Manipulative Power of the Mass Media Organizations
* The Corruption of the Banking System as a Contributor to War
* The Vulnerabilities of the Collectivist Mindset
* The Importance of a Balanced Political Knowledge and Awareness
* The Detrimental Effects of Self-Righteous Foreign Policies
These are lessons that we should have learned, but due to the scapegoating of the Germans and the Nazi regime, and the plethora of sympathy for the Jews, the vast majority of the world has learned virtually nothing from this great tragedy! Stop sympathizing with the Jews who clearly have not learned from the holocaust, and start honoring the dead by learning from our mistakes of the past!
* The Danger of Fascism and its Destruction of Civil Liberties
* The Consequences of Ethnic Pride
* The Terrible Reality of War
* The Manipulative Power of the Mass Media Organizations
* The Corruption of the Banking System as a Contributor to War
* The Vulnerabilities of the Collectivist Mindset
* The Importance of a Balanced Political Knowledge and Awareness
* The Detrimental Effects of Self-Righteous Foreign Policies
These are lessons that we should have learned, but due to the scapegoating of the Germans and the Nazi regime, and the plethora of sympathy for the Jews, the vast majority of the world has learned virtually nothing from this great tragedy! Stop sympathizing with the Jews who clearly have not learned from the holocaust, and start honoring the dead by learning from our mistakes of the past!
Thursday, February 16, 2012
My Views on Climate Change, and its Effects on Civil Liberties
First, I would to clarify to both sides of the argument of climate change that I neither believe, nor disbelieve in global warming. so who believes that I am a conspiracy theorists or in any way against the current focus of scientific studies, rest assured I believe that any field of scientific inquiry, whether valid in its assumptions or not, is acceptable so long as it does not infringe on the inalienable rights of individuals. Which brings me to my pain point:
I am not so much against climate change, as I am against the lack of transparency in the scientific community surrounding it, the corruption and lobbying efforts on *both* sides of the argument, and (most importantly) I am against any government exploiting science (whether valid in its arguments or not) to generate FUD and use climate change as a reason to expand the size and scope of the federal government.
The reason why I think there is a strong possibility of the government-sponsored investigations being corrupted, is _because_ they were government-sponsored, and furthermore, the two countries involved in the investigations have a long history of using "facts" to mislead the public, and using the mainstream media as their strong arm to push a liberal agenda of government expansion. It has nothing to do specifically with climate change, except in that climate change has enough evidence backing it for the government (and the U.N., which has also become corrupt) to use it as an excuse to expand its powers.
In conclusion, I would like to remind everyone that there are three types of untruths: lies, damned lies, and statistics. So at the very least, the "evidence" of climate change is built on a very unreliable foundation indeed, as its "legitimacy" is almost wholly grounded in statistics, and the interpretation thereof.
But there's at least one site, founded by the discoverer of Climate change, which at least provide transparency. Now that's progress! http://www.realclimate.org/
I am not so much against climate change, as I am against the lack of transparency in the scientific community surrounding it, the corruption and lobbying efforts on *both* sides of the argument, and (most importantly) I am against any government exploiting science (whether valid in its arguments or not) to generate FUD and use climate change as a reason to expand the size and scope of the federal government.
The reason why I think there is a strong possibility of the government-sponsored investigations being corrupted, is _because_ they were government-sponsored, and furthermore, the two countries involved in the investigations have a long history of using "facts" to mislead the public, and using the mainstream media as their strong arm to push a liberal agenda of government expansion. It has nothing to do specifically with climate change, except in that climate change has enough evidence backing it for the government (and the U.N., which has also become corrupt) to use it as an excuse to expand its powers.
In conclusion, I would like to remind everyone that there are three types of untruths: lies, damned lies, and statistics. So at the very least, the "evidence" of climate change is built on a very unreliable foundation indeed, as its "legitimacy" is almost wholly grounded in statistics, and the interpretation thereof.
But there's at least one site, founded by the discoverer of Climate change, which at least provide transparency. Now that's progress! http://www.realclimate.org/
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Wake Up America- Iran is Not A Threat!
Wake up America. Iran is not a threat. Israel is the one stacking up nuclear warheads, Iran is just enriching uranium and creating nuclear fuel rods. Why is it that the threat of the radical Zionist country Israel is completely ignored, and all of the FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) is being dumped on Iran, for which despite decades of espionage and sabotage operations, there never beenany evidence of Iran producing nuclear arms. This preoccupation and pissing contest with Iran is absolutely ridiculous!
Ok people, let's look at this in a logical fashion. Iran has an extremely imbalanced economy. Petroleum accounts for 80% of its exports. With oil prices being so volatile, and the overall demand for oil actually leveling off, this kind of situation is an economic nightmare To top it all, all the FUD from Israel, the United States, and other world powers is sanctioning trade with Iran all over the place, so let's put things into perspective:
Iran needs to develop nuclear power to balance its currently impoverished and unstable economy. Considering the political environment of the middle east, Why would Iran develop nuclear weapons,especially when they already know Israel already has nuclear arms and the means to deploy them,not to mention a military force so good at what they do, that they are the preferred partner for the U.S. to train our soldiers?
For once, instead of taking the FUD approach, let's be logical and insert a little rational, Occum's razor in there. Think you can do that? If so, that would be greatly appreciated!
http://rt.com/news/iran-nuclear-program-achievements-411/
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Saturday, December 31, 2011
The Benefits of Political Diversity
I'm libertarian (meaning I think the government is a necessary evil, and should be implemented to the absolute minimum necessary), so I propose that all government be localized (no Federal or State government, just municipal/county-wide governments. like each mayor is a mini-president. Sounds like the ravings of a naive political idealist, does it? Well consider the following benefits, which if such a style of government, would certainly develop as a result:
1. This would eliminate the need for a military (since there's no country, there's no political identity to defend), the country would actually be stronger owing to a far greater political diversity (instead of one government for terrorists/foreign powers/Al Kaida/ aliens from outer-space to target, they will have tens of thousands on their hands to deal with). As the economist' maxim goes, "don't put all your eggs in one basket"; our country should learn from this, and shed their identity in favor of diversity, which has already proven itself to be an evolutionarily favorable trend. Any military threats could then easily be handled by on-call volunteer militia, and local police forces.
2. Because the people's budget is controlled by more people, corruption will be minimized, as dubious budget plans and special interests agendas will be harder and harder to hide, owing to the superficiality caused by the given political diversity.
3. Because the government is smaller and more localized, the people will have far more say on the government's decisions, and the government official will most often make decisions that benefit the areas governed, because the localization ensures it (with the exception of trade agreements with other areas, government decisions would not impact the socio-economic climate of areas outside its own jurisdiction).
4. A localized government would have a comparably minimal budget, with whatever money that is taxed being spent in a way that is optimized for the people residing in that area, and in such a manner that is best suited for the predominating cultures of the given area.
5. Owing to the profound diversity of government, the outsiders (misfits, protesters, rebels, counter-culturalists, individualists, and any other people dissatisfied with the existing societies/governments) can just leave and go to another city/area that shares a greater affinity with their beliefs. Thus, greater diversity of government would largely eliminate insurrection, because the very concept of insurrection would be rendered obsolete by virtue of that diversity. Civil war, political unrest, and most other political issues would be transcended by diversity.
6. Political diversity would permit an anarchist's wet dream: To establish one's own autonomous community filled with like-minded individuals. Without the interference of federal and state government, establishing one's own autonomous region will become remarkably painless, because the lack of a federal government will result in a great deal of free land cropping up that is unaccounted for. As a result, even for those that cannot conform sufficiently to any local society or culture, they can always create their own!
1. This would eliminate the need for a military (since there's no country, there's no political identity to defend), the country would actually be stronger owing to a far greater political diversity (instead of one government for terrorists/foreign powers/Al Kaida/ aliens from outer-space to target, they will have tens of thousands on their hands to deal with). As the economist' maxim goes, "don't put all your eggs in one basket"; our country should learn from this, and shed their identity in favor of diversity, which has already proven itself to be an evolutionarily favorable trend. Any military threats could then easily be handled by on-call volunteer militia, and local police forces.
2. Because the people's budget is controlled by more people, corruption will be minimized, as dubious budget plans and special interests agendas will be harder and harder to hide, owing to the superficiality caused by the given political diversity.
3. Because the government is smaller and more localized, the people will have far more say on the government's decisions, and the government official will most often make decisions that benefit the areas governed, because the localization ensures it (with the exception of trade agreements with other areas, government decisions would not impact the socio-economic climate of areas outside its own jurisdiction).
4. A localized government would have a comparably minimal budget, with whatever money that is taxed being spent in a way that is optimized for the people residing in that area, and in such a manner that is best suited for the predominating cultures of the given area.
5. Owing to the profound diversity of government, the outsiders (misfits, protesters, rebels, counter-culturalists, individualists, and any other people dissatisfied with the existing societies/governments) can just leave and go to another city/area that shares a greater affinity with their beliefs. Thus, greater diversity of government would largely eliminate insurrection, because the very concept of insurrection would be rendered obsolete by virtue of that diversity. Civil war, political unrest, and most other political issues would be transcended by diversity.
6. Political diversity would permit an anarchist's wet dream: To establish one's own autonomous community filled with like-minded individuals. Without the interference of federal and state government, establishing one's own autonomous region will become remarkably painless, because the lack of a federal government will result in a great deal of free land cropping up that is unaccounted for. As a result, even for those that cannot conform sufficiently to any local society or culture, they can always create their own!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)