Happy (a tip of the hat to the Americans of yore)

I saw the following video at Renee Katz's blog, Adventures in Existence.

Disney's Reason and Emotion is one of the most moving works of art which I have seen in a while. It's not often that I get to see something which captures my values so well; I couldn't believe it as I watched it. I was getting choked up.

I was moved by the fact that a generation of people DID exist who not only could have received the ideas in that video, but also valued them enough to pursue and win a war. The fact that a society of people could exist with even that level of respect for reason was a big inspiration. Sometimes the state of public discourse in America gets me feeling pessimistic and I wonder if reversing the trend is possible. That video proves that it's possible to be better than what we've got now. Do we see inspirational cartoons inciting us to fight the irrational religious horde of the Middle East? Not yet.

They earned the title of The Greatest Generation.

Sad (The 2008 Presidential Candidates)

In one week we will elect a new president. I can't believe the offerings which the two major parties have put on the table for us to accept this year. I was going to vote for John McCain, prior to the Republican party's nomination of Sarah Palin. It's quite clear that they nominated her for two reasons: depth of experience and firm grasp of the issues.

lol.

What is not funny, is what her nomination represents for the GOP. It was a clear-cut ploy for the religious vote. The Republican Party has made the Faustian bargain permanent: they'll push the religion-in-government in agenda, if that's what gets them into power. Disgusting.

McCain was pretty bad, even before that. His notion of America is fundamentally fueled by the notion of 'service to country,' not freedom and individual rights. So many of his stump speeches included such gems as "serving a cause greater than one's self" or the flesh-crawling "going after the drug companies." The amount of apathy I've witnessed in people, who are now voting for Obama solely on the basis of the mind numbing, nebulously populist concept of 'change' is amazing.

I've been doing a lot of thinking about what will get the country back on track the quickest. I think a key point to consider in this hypothesis is the fact that we have a two party system. Any idea adopted by one party makes the opposite party the advocate of that ideas antithesis, by default.

Democrats are clearly the party of "more state control." A sad coincidence is that this makes the GOP the party of "free markets," even when their policies are clearly anything but. For decades now, the Republicans have given a half-assed, apologetic defense of capitalism. What has this done to the notion of capitalism in people's minds? Every failure of Republican policy is blamed on free markets. So, for decades, Capitalism and freedom have been eroded since "it clearly doesn't work." What actually doesn't work is compromise, but most people aren't aware of that yet.

Probably the most brilliant example of the effects of compromise is happening right now. If you search through the articles dealing with the origins of the finance fiasco, nearly every article blames the problem on "decades of Reaganomic Ayn Randian Greenspired deregulation." Very little mention of Fannie, Freddie, Community Reinvestment Act, Greenspan's ludicrous lowering of interest rates, or the idea that bad investments should be paid for by those who made them.

Greenspan's testimony, blaming the "failure of self-interest" as the root cause of the financial mess, was a tragically dishonest thing. For two decades now his role at the Fed has given him a lot of notoriety and he's been regarded as some kind of mystical fiscal guru, partly due to his association with Rand. The testimony he gave will be used by the advocates of state control as a license to dance on the grave of Capitalism, declared dead by its supposedly foremost chief representative. Because of the importance with which most people respect his opinions, his testimony has done an unconscionable amount of damage to the idea of free markets in the minds of Americans. Rand's concept of the compromiser doing more harm to The Good than its outright enemies can is really coming home for me.

That said, I think it will be a great thing if Obama gets in office and the Democrats have a majority in both houses of congress. Why? Because I think in the long-term, and in the long-term, I want dividends. And by dividends, I mean THAT SWEET PREFERRED STOCK: FREEDOM. Allow me to explain with the aid of a diagram.

As you can see, we expect that The Magnitude of Suck will increase much more quickly under Obama due to his faster imposition of state control in our lives. Since the country will degrade at a faster clip, people will become pissed off at a much faster rate. The ocean of Suck will deluge us, and it will be as swift and painless as death-by-hammer-and-sickle can be. Time and forgetfulness will not accrue for people, apathy will not even be able to set in, and memories of "the way it was before Obammunism" will be much more fresh in people's minds. A Democratic party which openly advocates statism and which has control of the white house and congress will make it far easier to blame the policies of statism for The People's Woes. And hopefully, shit won't completely crash down before Objectivists can get the ideas out and have them play a major role in the swing back to Awesome.

Using my logic, you think I'd vote for Obama since A VOTE FOR OBAMA IS AN INVESTMENT IN FREEDOM! (I will castrate you if you quote that out of context).

..... But I still couldn't bring myself to do it (I already voted with an absentee ballot). I just couldn't. He's everything I hate about the left. I voted for Bob Barr, for two reasons.

1) I think it was the best way to actively repudiate both parties by showing up in the polls as a "more freedom in government" voter and,

2) I could be confident that Barr wouldn't get into office and misrepresent the ideas worse than McCain and Co.

So that's what's sad: that I'm ready for full-on delicious-crazy leftism, because I'll benefit from it in 4? 8? I don't know how many years.

But at least we are saving the polar bears

I live in Atlanta, Georgia. Last weekend, I drove to six gas stations before finding one that had gasoline.

http://www.wsbtv.com/automotive/17578885/detail.html

I love how the article blames the governor, but finds no fault with restrictions from the EPA. When we disregard the principle of Separation of Economy and State, the results will be the same, no matter what continent we are on. Bread lines in Russia and gas lines in The United States.

- Justin

Ugly Societal Barometers, Pt. 1.

Every once in a while I stumble across an editorial or news article that is so flagrantly disturbing, I have to save it in a website folder of horrors which I've dubbed "Ugly Societal Barometers."

Today, we have a piece from the website of Newsweek. It seriously attempts to answer the question, "How will black Americans ever cope if Obama isn't nominated?"

http://www.newsweek.com/id/161214

I was dumbfounded by the article, and that was even before reading some of the quotes in it. All I could do was wonder, "What the hell kind of mentality do you have to possess in order to ask that sort of question?" You really have to believe that black people have a tribalistic mentality which does not permit them to be individuals. You have to assume that they reject their personal identity in order to conform to some sort of black collective, rendering themselves incapable of thinking independantly and forming their own values. You have to assume that they value "race identity" more than their own independance. You have to assume that they have so little pride in themselves, that they peg their happiness on the career of a politician with a particular pigmentation.

Racism is making judgements about people based on characteristics wholly unrelated to their character. This is the most racist thing I've witnessed in years.

I suppose that I should not read more into this than the fact that it illustrates the primitive mentality of the Newsweek readership. But jesus effing christ America. Wake the hell up. Racism will NEVER end if we keep thinking like this.

- Justin

A 25 Year Old's Attempt to Preempt Pain

The subject of 'failed healthcare' in America is worth addressing.

Indeed, American medicine is in a sad state, and needs fixing. What is the root cause of the failure of medicine in America? The platitudes being bandied about would have us blame 'market failure' and would have us regard socialized medicine as a necessity. To save ourselves, we must surely toss the healthcare industry into the hideous maw of complete governmental regulation. But the popular plans of politicians are best known for promising us the moon for free and letting future taxpayers work out the details of the bill. A simple consideration of voting demographics suggests why politicians are very fired up right now about giving you "free health services (for higher taxes)"... The ponderous population known as the baby boomers is getting fairly long in the tooth, and many of them worry about the infirmity of their aging bodies. Old people vote in disproportionately high numbers already, but the unscrupulous elders will be especially willing to vote for candidates who promise them a fountain of youth, overflowing with socialized medicine. In other words, the 'solution' of socialized medicine being offered by politicians is pure political pandering for votes. I guarantee the politicians worry more about voting demographics than the studies which truthfully detail the costs and missed opportunities resulting from a government healthcare system.

As a 25 year old who will suffer the consequences of regulations placed on healthcare now for the rest of his life, I must take issue with the idea of socialized medicine in America. In a just world, the sins of the father should not be visited upon the son. But that will be the way of it with socialized medicine, for future generations will suffer the consequences of our mistakes regarding healthcare policy now. Once medicine is socialized, a very strong constituency entrenching the bureaucracy will develop. This constituency will ensure that the bureaucrats associated with regulation of medicine will retain their jobs. We need only to look at the lobbying clout of the municipal employees labor unions and teacher's unions for examples of these powerful, entrenched special interests. To be sure, these special interest groups, once they develop in medicine, will not be lobbying to provide you with better healthcare at a cheaper price. Any changes back to a freer market in medicine we wish for in the future will be very hard to achieve, once we relinquish our freedom of choice in medicine.

And so, the big-government barbarian horde claws at the gates. The horde is demanding MORE regulation of a healthcare industry which is already burdened by mountains of regulation. Many folks do not seem to notice the direct correlation between centralization and stagnation. Industries infected by burdensome regulations just aren't as vibrant as those markets which are more free. Regulation in healthcare has been increasing for decades. Tax codes have resulted in insurance schemes which have all but severed the beneficial payment/service relationship between patient and doctor. It is the tax code which led to expensive employee-sponsored health insurance programs, as well as the increasing tendency for insurance to have to cover ALL maladies -- whether the insured wanted coverage for the specific malady or not. Costs forced onto insurance companies only drive up the cost of health insurance. Behold, the reason why many of those 47M Americans are uninsured: the government regulation made it too expensive for them, duh!

When the U.S. census bureau tells us that 50% of every dollar spent on healthcare comes from federal, state, and local government, but only 27% of the populace is insured under their schemes, we should rethink the idea that the government will make healthcare cheaper. Perhaps we should not be so quick to accuse the private sector for the flaws of the system, when the pitch of our screams has been proportional to political involvement. A historical perspective, showing the facts which prove that it is government regulation which has led to the ruin of American healthcare are detailed in this wonderfully informative article: ( http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2007-winter/moral-vs-universal-health-care.asp ). This email is just a double-barrelled blast of reality into your eye sockets. But that article is the napalm bomb of truth, ignited by the fire of justice. All of the weak undergrowth supporting the false arguments for rationed healthcare is incinerated by it. Take heed, if you support socialized medicine and choose to read that article, please prepare to have your dreams exposed for the nightmares they actually cause.

Proponents of socialized medicine believe costs can be whisked away to never-never land. If they didn't think they would get more out of the system than they were putting in, they would not promote it. But imagine that: proponents of socialized medicine hope to gain MORE from the system than they put into it... It is bad enough to promote a system of law in which you hope to benefit at somebody else's expense, but it's even worse to promote it under the artifice of an altruistic plan to 'help others.'

There was a time in America when those who wanted to help others reached into their own wallets.

Insurance companies are the special target of the proponents of socialized medicine. And insurance adjustors especially are villified as some of the most 'greedy, heartless' employees on earth. Why is it moral for an insured patient to claim what his contract guarantees, but immoral for an insurance company to pay what the contract guarantees? The adjustor is simply the person who ensures that the company will not be bankrupted by fraudulent claims. Ridiculing insurance companies for this behavior is irrational; every business faces the necessity of controlling costs. Getting emotional over Michael Moore's movie won't eliminate that fact, or the fact that it's the only thing which can prevent health insurance costs from spiralling out of control completely. It will be interesting to see what happens if we eliminate the evil, bean-counting insurance adjustors entirely. Surely a glorious day will result when we eliminate the only thing reigning in health insurance expenditure. As P.J. O'Rourke said, "If you think healthcare is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it is free."

The blanket accusations of insurance company's dishonest thievery are tantamount to the ridiculous racist scare tactics of the past. "Insurance company employees are out to rip off unhealthy people." That implication underlies seemingly all of the media 'news' stories which I've read about healthcare. This is nothing more than scapegoating populism. Hitler said the same sort of things about the Jews. It is precisely this blanket disrespect which has led to DECADES of legislation piling up on insurance providers -- which has only increased the cost of insurance to consumers (refer to that article). What has happened to the defense of freedom of association, voluntary trade, and the sanctity of contract? It is only competition and a judicial system protecting contracts which will eliminate any ACTUAL frauds from the healthcare industry.

Did you know that an elderly person in Canada can wait two or three years for a knee or hip replacement, while Canada's free market in pet healthcare can get their dog a new hip within a week? Funny, if it weren't true. Wake up, America. This is not something we can promote simply because 'We feel it would be nice' if everybody had 'free healthcare.' This is a matter of life and death. The amount of suffering, waste, and pain which will occur under a nationalized healthcare system will be stunning for those who have to suffer from it. How will the benevolent bureaucrats learn when they've made a mistake in rationing us our portion of The People's Healthcare? When people start dying, of course. The following is a quote from the "Canadian Medical Association Journal" (CMAJ):

"During the 1999 election campaign, the New Democrats promised to keep cardiac surgery programs operating in both hospitals. However, attitudes changed when people on the waiting list started dying — there have been 11 deaths since 1999 — and both the Liberals and Conservatives demanded Chomiak's resignation. The last straw appears to have been the death of Diane Gorsuch, 58, who died in February after spending more than 2 years awaiting surgery. Thirteen days after she died, the review was announced."

The bureaucrats learned their lesson a little too late for Ms. Gorsuch. And why not? Politicians and bureaucrats in a democracy only really have to worry about pleasing the majority -- who do not need the care that she did. That is the cold, simple explanation for why patients in nationalized healthcare systems have such miserable access to specialized services. Quite a few more gorey details about the Canadian healthcare system are in that linked article above. Ahh yes, but why should we bother worrying about Ms. Gorsuch? We've got pretty ideas about a free healthcare utopia to implement, don't we?

Her case is just one specific example of how governments fail to allocate services as efficiently as the free market can. How could we have known that cases such as Ms. Gorsuch's would happen? It's not like it wasn't predictable, it's basic economics. When bureaucrats direct the industry instead of prices, they'll inevitably fail at their jobs:

"The significance of free market prices in the allocation of resources can be seen more clearly by looking at situations where prices are not allowed to perform this function. During the era of the government-directed economy of the Soviet Union, for example, prices were not set by supply and demand but by central planners who sent resources to their various uses by direct commands, supplemented by prices that the planners raised or lowered as they saw fit. Two Soviet economists, Nikolai Shmelev and Vladimir Popov, described a situation in which their government raised the price it would pay for moleskins, leading hunters to get and sell more of them: 'State purchases increased, and now all the distribution centers are filled with these pelts. Industry is unable to use them all, and they often rot in warehouses before they can be processed. The Ministry of Light Industry has already requested Goskomsten twice to lower purchasing prices, but the "question has not been decided" yet. And this is not surprising. It's members are too busy to decide. They have no time: besides setting prices on these pelts, they have to keep track of another 24 million prices.'" -- Thomas Sowell, Basic Economics.

If thousands of healthcare industry workers are only able to deliver healthcare to us out from under a mountain of regulation at the prices we pay today, what makes us believe a few elected saviors can carry us off to a utopia of free healthcare? Socialized medicine in America: I hope you are as excited as I am to hurry up and wait in those healthcare rationing lines. Rationing is the only way governments can reign in costs for any industry they monopolize. Waiting lines are going to happen to us, just as they did in Russia for all commodities, just as they're happening right now in every country with national healthcare.

I hope I will be able to survive the wait.

I'm here to tell any reader who promotes socialized medicine: implementing the grandeur of your vision is not worth the cost of Diane Gorsuch's life. She was forced to pay taxes all her life to support a system which permitted her death. They failed. She died. The results will be no different, once these 'dreams' are implemented here and we start suffering their nightmare effects. It is high time for the aspiring healthcare dictators to answer the most important question:

What really matters: the perceived nobility of your vision? Or actual human well-being?

Athletes Shrugged

The Olympics, and all that it celebrates, cometh. Huzzah! I thought I’d use this opportunity to get satirical, and apply some of today’s subjectivism to the event. Here we go!


The idea of wealth redistribution must be extended. We should get the scientists working on wealth redistribution's physiological counterpart: health redistribution. What good is wealth if you don’t have the health to enjoy it?

It’s commonly accepted that the amount of health is fixed. The health possessed by athletic individuals is health that cannot be possessed by others. The total health available is static and it should be more fairly distributed; those who have large amounts of health owe a portion of their health to the less fortunate. This is true because most people believe it to be true.

Singular examples of athlete dishonesty (such as doping) only further prove that enforced, draconian regulation of all athletes is necessary to curb their inherent greed for health. No matter what the costs of these regulations are, they are justified. These regulations will, of course, eliminate all future dishonesty. The regulators will also, of course, be free from all temptation to dishonesty and corruption. One wonders why we have not created regulatory commissions to eliminate every human's imperfection before now. Athlete dishonesty is further displayed by their unfair access to superior training plans from the world’s top coaches. This is known as the practice of “insider training.” After a successful season of training, windfall displays of superior ability are not uncommonly observed in the lives of these athletes. These cases should not be interpreted as providing an inspirational vision of successful accomplishment for people. It is precisely at these times of windfall performance that we should be taxing these athletes for all the health we deem justifiable.

However selfish athletes may be, it is clear that the health created by our domestic athletes should be protected from the vicious competition which they might be exposed to, if they had to compete with foreign athletes. While we might not be able to tax health abroad to even the playing field worldwide, we should do what we can to protect our domestic athletes by instituting health taxes on foreign athletes competing in this country.

Addressing the specific instances of the vices of these athletes won’t do. Athleticism needs to be addressed fundamentally – the spirit of athletic competitiveness is an attitude which is inherently against society’s interests.

Athletes must be taught about the common duty that everyone owes to society. Athletes are egoistic and selfish – all their efforts are aimed at personal improvement. Do they ever consider that the lives of other members of society are threatened by a lack of health? It’s thinking like an athlete which would cause anyone to suggest that they have an inviolable right to their health. There are people who need health, and these athletes have more than they need! One person’s claim of a need for health is sufficient justification for defrauding another person of his health! When it’s almost universally accepted that this is true, how long shall we continue pretending these greedy athletes have a right to hoard all that health for themselves!??!

These Olympic games are a sickening display of the inequalities in health distribution. While these athletes cavort about, reveling in the notion that they have ‘earned’ their excessive level of health, the majority of the world’s population languishes in relative mediocrity. And we revere and celebrate these selfish people! Appreciating imperfections is what will make mankind great, not reverence for personal achievement.

Athlete’s extremely competitive natures are anti-social. What about people who try to compete, but come away beaten? Has anyone thought of them? A fair plan of health redistribution can progressively tax the health of athletes, to the degree of their ability… This will not only result in a fair distribution of health but will also ensure that no one’s victory results in someone else's feeling inferior! A fair society is one that taxes the able to construct false realities for the less able.

Some might say, ‘But don’t athletes earn their health through hard work and dedication?’ Lies! How silly is it to suggest that health was “earned” by the athletic! Without society, athletes wouldn't be capable of producing health, so it's really society that creates health. Some individuals just get lucky in receiving it. It is time that we teach the athletic that they have to give back.

Some might say, ‘They didn’t really earn their health at my expense… Just seeing their performance is an inspiration to me!’ Why talk of inspiration and personal motivation when people are suffering?

Some might say, ‘How long will we last, when virtues which result in achievement and promote life only earn contempt and robbery?’ We needn’t consider that… As long as athletes do not shrug!

The Olympics are nothing less than a festival which celebrates a goal-driven individual effort maintained across years of someone's life to achieve an unprecedented level of athletic performance. How should we respond when we see such behavior?

I'll be cheering. ;-)

Osama's Reasoning

A friend of mine has recently been trying to convince me that the terrorist attacks of 9/11 were justified because America has been "meddling with middle easterner's affairs." My friend's opinion is that Osama bin Laden's reason for attacking us was, "he wants his people's freedom back." From what I saw, Ron Paul's stance was similar to this. Today, my friend recommended I read the book where he got this idea: "Good Muslim, Bad Muslim: America, the Cold War, and the Roots of Terror," by Mahmood Mamdani. While formulating a response, a point occurred to me which proves that my friend's position is actually quite wrong -- Osama doesn't really want freedom for his people. Here is the email I wrote:



"Regarding that book, I suspect it will only reinforce the stance I already took... We've no right to permit our government to interfere with the lives and governments of foreigners unless we've been harmed by them in some way. This is a rational foreign policy, and it's not the foreign policy that America has been practicing. Regardless of our errors, we DO have a moral right to the defense of our own lives, and a military response to 9/11 was entirely justifiable.

I did do some brief reading up on Osama's convictions, via transcripts of his media statements. Osama is a theocratic thug who dreams of a world ruled by sharia law. He also believes that those who don't comply with Allah's will should be killed. Osama does not fundamentally want us out of the middle east because we are "violating his rights." That assumption is committing two errors. 1) It ignores his militantly theocratic ideology and 2) It is an attempt to mask his ideology by believing that he's promoting OUR belief in an individual's right to freedom.

He does not want us out of the middle east so he can "have his freedom back." He wants us out of the middle east so that he can force sharia law on the Muslims of that region -- and he is willing to declare jihad on the Muslims who deny him this goal. It's really this absurd: he wants the "arrogant, imperialistic Americans" out of the lives of middle easterners.... so that he can move in and force sharia on them. His mentality is straight out of the dark ages, when people were slaughtered for being heretics while monarchs clashed for territory in order to subjugate more poor human beings. So: even if Osama has a case for criticizing our foreign policy, he is NOT doing so on correct moral grounds. In this scenario, I'll even make this qualified statement: I can't imagine how any support we have provided in the past to any democratic, rights respecting nations in that region could have been worse for the people there than what Osama is offering. The qualification for that statement is my foreign policy stance: we shouldn't even be there, unless they attacked us. (And I'm aware that we've supported theocracies in the past; remember I'm not trying to justify our policy, I'm trying to suggest a correct policy).

Socialism died when the Soviet Union collapsed. Multiculturalism died when The World Trade Center collapsed. In our era, I sincerely hope that there won't be a more violently concrete reminder of how necessary it is to recognize that some cultures respect human life more than others. My idea of a rational foreign policy relies on the necessity of protecting people's right to live their lives freely... More innocent people will die if we rationalize the behavior of those who value Allah's will over the lives of humans. The author of that book is distracting us from these crucially important points."

- deexma

The Importance of Philosophy

I have a family reunion in a few weeks. We've typically published a collection of writings from family members at each one of these reunions, which occur every four years or so. Last reunion, we all wrote biographies. This reunion, the topic was wide open, and we could choose to write about whatever we wanted to. While arguing my points on the email list comprising this side of my family, I frequently encountered what seemed to be a disdain for firm principles and philosophy in general. I firmly believe that the fundamental ideas addressed by philosophy are what guide the course which societies, cultures, and all of humanity is taking. Philosophical ideas are crucial, so I chose to write my essay about "The Importance of Philosophy." It was a long essay, but I'm going to share it, in its entirety here. Here it is:



Not Castles in the Sky. Ivory Towers, on Earth.

Who needs philosophy? I'd like to use (quite) a few pages to make the case that philosophy is pretty darn important, for anyone. I suspect that there are many on the family email list that dismiss my arguments as ivory tower notions which have minimal validity, and even less practical application in reality. It's this disparaging attitude toward abstract ideas which I want to counter. I wanted to use this space to emphasize that philosophy is important, no matter your political views. In fact, it's actually a person's personal philosophy which determines his political views. More on that later.

Philosophy is the study of the "biggest ideas," the widest abstractions, possible to our minds. Philosophy is divided into three main areas of study: metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics. Metaphysics is the study of the nature of existence (example: is the thing which is in front of me right now a person?). Epistemology is the study of our mind's methods and ability to interpret existence (how am I able to know that what is in front of me is a person?). Ethics describes the proper way for people to live their lives, given the facts and nature of existence (what is the proper way to interact with the person in front of me?).

No human being could survive without some form of philosophy to guide him. Everyone reading these pages has a philosophy of some sort. Many people hold their philosophical ideas implicitly; many people get along quite well without holding explicit ideas on these subjects. Most people adopt these ideas from the people they have the most interaction with (parents, friends, teachers, etc.)... However it is that people acquire these ideas, people have them, and people rely on them for very important choices in life. Philosophy is crucially important because:

Ideas have consequences.

Philosophical ideas are the ultimate motivation for human action. Thus, they give rise to the most serious debates about the course which humanity is taking. This is why we can not regard philosophy as the province of silly academics, playing ivory tower mind games that have no relevance in reality (and it is why we should be concerned if this accurately describes what the philosophers of today are actually teaching!)... People's convictions with respect to metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics motivate critically important decisions. The ideas which a person holds with respect to these subjects will change a person's fundamental approach to life.

When a person says, "There's no truth in saying God exists without evidence of his existence," that person is making a statement reflecting his metaphysical convictions -- his view of reality. Another example: our family email disputes, which originate in our differing views of ethics. Ethics heavily influences opinions on the proper purpose of government. Examples: when a person says, "Universal health care is a legitimate activity for government," one is making a statement based on his view of ethics. Similarly for the statement, "If Iraqis achieve their freedom, then the loss of American soldier's lives is justified," or, "Legislation banning abortion is just." All of these statements deal with current political debates... but an individual's stance on these issues is determined by his ethics, explicit or implicit.

But you might be thinking at this point, "Well that stuff is all well and good for academic debates. But why should I really bother with clarifying what's right and wrong in ethics, epistem-a-whatever, and that other one? It's far more practical for me to just be good at whatever I care about, like my job, and taking care of my family." People's views on ethics and morality do not just influence their conclusions about politics! People's chosen morality (their ethical system) is what determines what they will pursue in life: their values. Choices made regarding family, friendships, career, hobbies, and numerous other areas of life are chosen based on a person's morality. Morality and ethics are what answer the questions, "How should I live my life? What values should I pursue? Should I be friends with this person? Do I value having a family? On what basis should I choose a career? What do I feel justified in purchasing with my money? Does the will of God override my desire to sleep in on Sundays?" The morality we choose determines how we answer these questions.

Philosophical conclusions influence specific, concrete, day-to-day choices.

If we choose and achieve values which truly enhance our lives, our livelihood and happiness will be increased, and that is what I want to emphasize in this essay… A good philosophy can help you live a full and rewarding life. Great ideas have great consequences.

If you are with me thus far, you might think, "Hooray, this philosophy stuff might not be so boring after all; especially if it turns out that it could be a gnarly tool to help me live a bodacious life. So I'll just go out and get one." But -- where to start? There are many different philosophies to choose from and study. By what standard should you choose? How do you know if the ideas being espoused by a certain school of philosophy are worth adopting?

Philosophy is not different from any other field of knowledge: our job is to identify the concepts which best match the facts of reality. Philosophical concepts which clash with reality will not help anyone to live a good life! Just like any other endeavor, mistakes are possible, because humans are fallible. If the wrong philosophical ideas are adopted, disastrous consequences can occur; bad ideas have bad consequences. A person with a morality which permits valuing heroin will achieve different results than a person with a morality that values an enjoyable, productive career, and a stable family life which he or she really enjoys. In other words: what should be the ultimate value upheld by a proper philosophy's morality? As we'll see, this "ultimate value" has big consequences for the life of the individual who adopts it.

Historically, there have been two dominant schools of philosophy. One was religion, which was man's first attempt to answer philosophical questions. Religion held that the universe is the creation of God and is subject to His rules (metaphysics), truth (epistemology) is to be derived from "His word," and His edicts are how we should live (ethics and morality). The second broad philosophical school was subjectivism. It is the philosophy which has been dominant in academia (and our culture) for many decades. Subjectivist philosophy typically rejects God and derives philosophical ideas, particularly ethical and moral standards, from one of two sources: society or the individual. In "personal subjectivism," truth and morality are matters of personal opinion. "Whatever's right for me is whatever I choose. What's right for you, is whatever you choose." In "social subjectivism," truth and morality are determined by social convention; a moral behavior is whatever behavior agrees with and serves "the common good/the will of the majority/other-collectivist-slogan." I've said that philosophy can help you live a full and rewarding life. Will these traditional approaches to philosophy help you achieve that end? What is the "ultimate value" which these two schools regard as being paramount in morality?

Let's start with religion. To be truly moral, a religious person's choices must be in line with "God's will." This must be the ultimate authority and value for this person with no exceptions, if he is truly pious. But what if you discover some values which you think could improve your life measurably, but pursuing them would require defying God's commandments? Religion answers: your happiness and quality of life are not as important as God's plan; if you defy His word, you are immoral. Example: consider almost any iconic religious figure from history. Rejection of worldly pleasure in God's name, and consequent worldly pain, is almost always a virtue for the heroes of most religions. As we know, some religions call for even more than the sacrifice of specific worldly values which could increase your joy in life... Some religions call for the outright sacrifice of human life itself for the furtherance of God's wishes. Rejection of worldly joy is a hallmark of the pious religion man. This isn't unpredictable. This is the logical result of replacing the ultimate value of your own well-being with "God's will." Religion results in a life burdened by unnecessary anxiety resulting from living to standards created with little regard for human well-being on Earth... It appears that religion's axiom of "God's will before all," renders it incapable of satisfying our need to live satisfying, joyful lives.

Perhaps subjectivism holds the answer? How about this "personal subjectivism" stuff? If my goal is happiness, personal subjectivism tells me: "I should pursue whatever makes me happy. Therefore, whatever actions I take which make me happy are morally justified, simply because I want happiness." But what if my personal "happiness" was achieved by robbing banks, or if I feel "happiness" only when I am high on cocaine? Self-destructive or masochistic behavior of any kind becomes moral, if personal subjectivism is applied consistently. Personal subjectivism is a whim-ridden philosophy which no amount of reason can reign in. If it were truly adopted widely, it would lead to anarchy. Crooks, murderers, and rapists justify their actions personally by saying, "My actions were right -- to me." One cannot live a life of greatness via theft, murder, or rape; but personal subjectivism sanctions these behaviors by saying, "It was right -- for you." Personal subjectivism is a scary thing!

Religion demands the sacrifice of our worldly joy if it contradicts God's wishes, and personal subjectivism justifies horrific behavior. We're running out of options for guidance here. What about the purported last option, social subjectivism? Perhaps philosophers have found a set of ideas which could guide us in making good lives for ourselves, via social subjectivism. Social subjectivism is primarily a feature of ethics and is very similar to religion... Instead of regarding "God's will," as the ethical standard, it simply employs "the will of the people." Social subjectivists grant primacy in ethics to social norms. It is also similar to personal subjectivism in this way: instead of "Whatever I feel is right for me, is right," social subjectivists believe "Whatever the people/the minorities/the master race feel is right for them, is right for them." How does one interpret “the will” of this collective? The practical political answer to this question is: a majority opinion, or a dictator who alleges to know “what’s best for the people.” Social subjectivists bow to this authority and worse: they will make others bow to it against their will, since they believe the collective has primacy over the individual.

On a personal level, social subjectivism fails just as badly at furthering your life when compared to religion and personal subjectivism. Similarly to religion: what if something you value, which could legitimately improve your life, defies “the common good?” An example: what if a college freshman really enjoys her introductory engineering courses, but her sociology teacher tells her that “The truly moral people of the world ‘help people.’ Only selfish people pursue careers in industry. Industries are parasites on society and obviously their selfish behavior defies ‘the common good.’” What if the girl sacrifices a career she would have loved in order to ‘help people’? I personally know people who are now finding themselves in this position. They have already earned a college degree which did not teach them useful skills for the career they ignored -- because their teachers taught them, and they accepted, that it is their duty to “help people.” Their opportunity to get into a career they would have liked is gone, because they realized too late that social subjectivism fails to provide a life-promoting morality for the same reasons as religion and personal subjectivism: it replaces the ultimate value of your life and happiness with: the life of anyone but yourself.

It is worth commenting on the social implications of a wide application of social subjectivism because it is widespread today; it permeates most people’s morality, and is not even debated in politics. Today, slogans such as the “common good” are relied upon by social subjectivists with relative ease... These slogans are commonly accepted, unquestioned, and most importantly: are undefined and can mean anything to anyone. These catchphrases of the social subjectivist movement can therefore be thrown around to show that you agree with what most people agree with and are therefore “part of the crowd,” even though “what most people agree with” hasn’t even been defined. These slogans are always used to justify the position that beliefs which are “commonly accepted,” override the rights of individuals; “Individual rights are good, unless they infringe upon the common good.” In place of “common good,” a social subjectivist will insert whatever values he feels are worth getting – at the expense of his neighbor.

Many people today (and thus much of politics) are motivated by the morality of social subjectivism. The central virtue which is commonly accepted by most people today, and which allows social subjectivism to take its course is: altruism. Altruism is what not only allows the sacrifice of lives and liberty, but demands it. This virtue, the sacrifice of your interests to serve others, is ingrained into our culture, deeply. Both parties accept it, and can pass legislation which infringes rights by relying on a passive populace which believes, in some way, that it is their duty to sacrifice for the interests of others.

“The interest of others.” “Others” can take the form of God, King, tribe, dictator, or “the common good.” No one stops to ponder that sacrifices are immoral, that a just and ethical society wouldn’t require them, or that acceptance of the necessity of human sacrifices was what allowed every atrocity in history to occur. There were times when sacrifices to God, King, tribe, or dictator resulted in the slaughter of millions. The current slogans of the social subjectivists, who appear to have learned nothing from the millions of deaths resulting from societies built on altruism, still are willing to sacrifice their neighbor’s freedoms for "the common good." It is no longer God, King, or dictator which is used to justify the marginalization of individual freedom: it is "the common good," or "the little guy," or, "the poor." No definition for these terms, but it’s your duty to sacrifice to their interests.

It is important to note the methods which social subjectivists promote to achieve their ends. What they call for is not voluntary assistance in their cause. That would be inconsistent with the principles of social subjectivism: that would be saying that the "common good" does NOT have primacy over the individual. If they were asking for voluntary assistance, the individual could choose to NOT support "the common good,” and his right to freedom would be taking precedence over “the will of the majority.” Social subjectivists truly believe that the will of the majority has primacy over the individual, and they put this belief into political practice. They are not satisfied with donating their own time or money to their causes. They are not satisfied with reasoning with people to raise funds for their causes through voluntary philanthropy. What they want is political action. Political action fulfills two needs for the social subjectivists. One: it validates their motives; if they can obtain a majority vote in support of their cause, they have what vindicates any action for them in politics: a majority that agrees with them. Two: politics allows them to use the force of law to force non-compliant individuals to support their plan. They suffer no ethical qualms with this: to them, a majority has ethical primacy over any puny, insignificant individual. Some religionists and some personal subjectivists also are willing to employ force of a political or of a more immediate and personal nature to achieve their means at the expense of others… But the most damage stems from the force employed by the practitioners of the most widely adopted philosophy, which is social subjectivism.

The history of evil committed in social subjectivism’s name, the list of communities which sacrificed the lives and freedom of their fellow men to their “societal norms,” is long. The majority of human history is barbarism. The majority of human history is slaughter and rape justified by, “our tribe is superior to yours.” Less than a century ago, Germans justified their machinations for global dominance with this same reason. There was an era when whole towns of people agreed that it was okay to kill people, based on accusations of witchery coming from teenage girls. Within the last half century we have witnessed the utter collapse of socialist nations. The results of this ‘social experiment,’ were piles of corpses on top of which socialists erected the banner of the “common good”… Yet our politicians and my family members still justify their goals with these same exact words. There was an era when the majority in this country thought that it was right for blacks to be slaves. The philosophy of social subjectivism has blood on its hands. The atrocities committed in its name cannot be washed away by, "the community agreed it was okay," or, “we had the best intentions!” Especially now. Socialism is the most recent and popular variant of social subjectivism. Socialism is also, as a philosophy which promotes human well being, dead. The regimes founded on its principles collapsed because those principles did not respect what man needs to survive: freedom. Millions of lives were lost so that we could learn that lesson. Clearly: social subjectivism does not supply us with better principles to run our lives – not when social subjectivism has permitted more crimes against the lives of humans than any religionist or petty crook ever could.

As you know, the ridiculous philosophy of subjectivism gets me mighty worked up, and it terrifies me that it is still so rampant in our culture. I’ve adopted a philosophy which holds the improvement of life as its central value and it is hard to mask the emotions incited by the number one violator of that value. Like the fat kid at the pool who unsuccessfully hides his obesity with a t-shirt, I fail at hiding the rage I feel against the barbarism of subjectivism; and the ludicrous fact that it’s proponents state “it’s for the common good!”

Ok, I’m done now. So, assuming we do not live among people who regard us, our lives, liberty, and our well-being as their means to whatever ends they choose: how do we employ philosophy to make our lives better?

Subjectivism and religion have been shown to be not-so-efficacious in promoting our well-being, since they explicitly place something besides our well-being in the place of our “ultimate value.” One important thing to note about religion and subjectivism (personal or social) is that they cannot even be adhered to consistently, even if we were to adopt them. People have varying degrees of commitment to whatever morality they adopt. An individual's integrity exists on a spectrum. If his life is his ultimate value, then his life will benefit to the degree of his integrity. If his morality upholds anything besides the betterment of his life as his ultimate value (pick your poison: religion or subjectivism), his life will suffer to the degree that he adheres to this morality.

If a religious person were to put God's interests before his own life in all matters, he would quickly die from a lack of attention to his basic requirements for survival. Similarly painful results would occur for the social subjectivist (who sacrifices the values which could have promoted his life for "the good of the community" instead of "God"). And a personal subjectivist can choose to adhere to whatever ideals he wants -- but he won't survive long if he doesn't recognize that there are facts demanding that his survival requires he live in a certain way. If there are facts related to how we can survive, and possibly even thrive, as human beings -- could this be the starting point for another form of morality?

What if, instead of saying reality is a plaything of a God, or that being moral is what most people agree it to be, we formed a philosophy based on facts. A morality which doesn't clash with the facts of human nature could be mighty powerful in promoting our life! In short: to better our lives, we must uphold our own lives as the paramount value -- and recognize the facts which promoting our life requires. Our lives will benefit if we actually do what it takes to promote our lives -- not when we irrationally uphold the whims of God, self, or majority.

First: if we recognize in metaphysics that reality is an absolute, then all entities - everything within reality - has a specific nature. The nature of the entities, their specific attributes, determine both what the entity is and how it behaves. Examples: a pillow’s material makes it soft, while steel is stiff. The attributes of the pillow determine that it cannot behave like steel, and vice versa. Entities have a specific nature, and cannot behave differently. Humans, as entities within reality, can be no different -- we have a specific nature, and our requirements for survival are facts of nature. Well then, what attribute do humans possess that allows them to survive, and even thrive?

Living creatures all have varying actions they must engage in, in order to survive. In order to survive, birds fly. Their nature demands that they do so, or they will perish. Fish swim. People -- must think. People must use their minds to create all the values which allow them to survive, on any level of subsistence. From the most rudimentary hut and food gathering method, to iPods and space flight, everything we have and use in order to survive was the product of thought. Our very nature, the facts which make us what we are, are the proper starting point for a decent, life-enhancing morality. At the base of this life-improving morality, we already recognize the importance of the mind in man's survival; we see that the primary virtue a moral human who values his life must practice is the exercise of his mind. This primary virtue, the method by which our minds perform the process of identifying and integrating the facts of reality is: reason. The ability to use reason in order to form abstract thoughts is what makes us human; therefore it is reason which is at the foundation of a rational epistemology.

By the standards of a morality validated by reason, a successful person is someone who employs reason to pursue values which enhance his ultimate value: his life. Virtuous actions are those which serve to enhance your life. The choice of specific values for a rational individual is a matter of personal choice and varies widely for individuals… But to live successfully, the values a rational individual selects must be chosen with respect to the facts of his existence – his values can’t change the fact that he has to use his mind to create the values he needs to live. The “happiness” of a drunkard, who numbs the mind that could have allowed him to achieve true happiness, is most certainly not the same as the happiness of the people who choose values which bring them true happiness… True happiness is the result of living a productive life, by achieving values which you enjoy and which do not contradict life.

When you hold these values explicitly, for reasons you can define, the meaning of your life will be strengthened. Your achievements will be enriched by reinforcing the fact that you have gained what you chose to pursue. By holding values explicitly, you will be more capable of identifying what it is that you need to do in order to achieve your values. No sacrifices will be necessary, if you can define your values in a hierarchy. A good philosophy can also help you remedy your mistakes in a more expedient manner. When most people will just be able to say "I’m a little uncomfortable with the situation I am in right now," a person who has an explicit philosophy will be able to more readily define what it is that is bothering him about the situation. Then, he can either modify his ideas if he had faulty ideas to begin with, or correct his behavior so he can succeed. As I said, you can get by without considering philosophical questions... But when your life is motivated and directed by your fundamentally chosen values, why wouldn't you want to give philosophy and morality some consideration?!!? In short, you'll be in far better control of the direction you will take your life if you live a rational philosophy, and choose viable values by a process of reason.

But this philosophy smacks of a word which most people recoil at, and that word is: "selfishness." The philosophy I promote is selfish – if selfishness is defined as "in your own interest." But the term "in your own interest," does NOT imply any moral evaluation! The problem with the word selfishness is the negative connotations that most people associate with the word... And here we have an example of social subjectivism in action! The commonly accepted virtue of altruism HAS resulted in an implied moral evaluation of the word ‘selfish,’ in most people's minds. Because so many people hold altruism and self sacrifice to be a virtue, it is commonly accepted (social subjectivism...) that altruism's opposite - selfishness - is inherently evil. Living implies selfishness; everyone must take action for themselves in order to survive. How long can a society last, when it tells people that the virtue which allows them to survive and achieve happiness by living "in their own interest" is evil!?!?!

"In your own interest," does not imply deceitful, irrational, backstabbing thievery, or any of the other negative connotations of the term... The philosophies that are truly irrationally selfish are the militant religionists, and their complete misnomer subjectivist counterparts: the politically active "do-gooders.” What could be more "selfish" than what they politically advocate: forcing their neighbors to fund their ideals, and then forcing them to live by them? THEY are the ones who aren't respecting people, deny their rights, and infringe on people's lives to achieve their own ends. The philosophy I promote is one of justice, one of fairness. It does not allow some to benefit at the expense of others against their will. It results in a society based on free association, where coercion is banned. Free communication and trade rule the day, not violence and repression. The philosophy I promote does not permit sacrifice of the lives or rights of some to others; it rejects altruism on principle and will not allow it to take its violent course when it is applied to politics.

Mankind's promotion of reason has a long and tortured history. Aristotle was the first to promote it, the religion of the Dark Ages repressed it with consequences for people’s quality of life during this era, The Renaissance reinstituted a worldly approach to philosophy and we are still basking in the afterglow of the era of the age of reason, The Enlightenment. Our nation's birth during this era is why Americans hearken back to these principles so much. The most recent consistent advocate of the effectiveness of a rational morality based in reason which could promote human life was the philosopher Ayn Rand.

My concern lies not with those who don’t concern themselves with the seriousness of philosophy. For the intellectually honest, please consider the ideas I've addressed here. Is morality a matter of personal whim, God, or a polling of the masses? Or can the facts of reality suggest what is best for our lives? When considering advice, whose justifications can be trusted? And, just as importantly, who is most likely to correct their mistakes if they have erred? Is it those who state, "DO it. Because GOD says so." Or those who say, "DO it, because I said so!" Or perhaps those who claim, "DO it. Because SOCIETY says so!"??

How about considering the philosophers who are now saying, "Well, what do the facts warrant?" I am excited to say that there ARE philosophers who DO live by that last question. They could represent what might turn out to be another prominent step forward in man's history -- a step forward, towards a future where fewer people will suffer the results of futile attempts at defying reality.


Guarding the Tower

The philosophy I advocate has, as the goal of its morality, the promotion of happiness and human life. A wonderful life is possible, if the right ideas are adopted! A good philosophy will result in a better life for those practicing it; but what can prevent the people who have adopted a philosophy from putting it to practice?

There are ethical implications for the importance of reason in man's life. If a man were on a desert island and wanted to survive, he must be able to use his mind to create the values he needs for survival. The necessity of using his mind to survive does not change when he is surrounded by a society of people, either. Even those who survive on handouts rely on those who did think and did create the values necessary for life. The ethical question then is, "What could prevent people from being able to use reason to create the values they need to live?" Whatever it is that stops people from being able to live by reason, it must be banned from society. Society itself would not be possible if reason was infringed upon; reason alone enables the people of a society to survive in the first place.

There is only one thing which can stop a person from being able to use his mind: physical force. Reason is the opposite of force and the latter negates the former. Brute force does not heed logic, it smashes it without ever having heard an idea at all, and therefore force obliterates life. Reason is the method of civility, force is the method of barbarism. A man cannot live among people who employ force against him. The ethical and political implications of the importance of reason to man's survival (and force's threat to it) are straightforward: the initiation of physical force should be banned between human beings.

If government were in line with man's nature, it would be moral. Man’s nature requires protection from force, and thus government's moral role is to ensure that people are protected from physical force. Government legitimately should have a monopoly on the use of retaliatory force against those who defy the rights of other citizens. Force comes in many forms; fraud, laws which violate his rights, robbery. The valid government institutes which can defend law abiding citizens according to objective laws are the police, military, and courts.

Property rights are also a natural extension of the importance of reason. It defies the facts of nature to suggest that humans could survive solely by thinking. If that were the case, we could be locked away with no sustenance, but be able to survive simply by thinking hard enough. Without being able to keep the products of their thought, humans would perish. This is why an individual’s property must be protected in a just society; and slavery is the name for political systems which deny this.

It's desperately important that our society recognizes that people need freedom in order to survive. We need freedom in order to live our lives guided by our minds. Our minds can only be used successfully when they are free. It is the evil of physical force that is what really gets me so fired up – and the casual attitude which most people take in electing officials to achieve their grandiose social engineering plans against the will, and at the expense of, others. I’m here to remind every one of these social engineers that they’ve dropped all pretenses at civility; none of them has called for voluntary association to achieve their ends… No: in true social subjectivist form, the proponents of these plans justify their plans by saying, "It's for the common good, and if the majority votes for it, then our actions are justified." They suffer no ethical qualms when faced with the fact that, in order to bring their visions about, the freedom and property of flesh and blood citizens has to be sacrificed. The metaphysics of these social subjectivists is even revealed by their stance; they disregard reality and substitute the will of the majority: "Who cares about freedom and property rights? I don't care if humans need them to survive, I've got a noble vision and the majority on my side, and the majority determines what is right!"

As I've detailed in innumerable emails, it is only in the last several hundred years that many Western nations adopted the idea that the government's proper role is the protector of individual rights. It is no coincidence that man's rise in living standards occurred in these centuries and in these countries alone. When it is reason that reigns in man's relationships (not political and religious barbarism), peaceful communication and life-promoting trade is the result. Social subjectivism and religion are dead philosophies, as far as they relate to actually promoting human welfare. The downfall of all the regimes in history based on these philosophies illustrates this. And we could be next. We still accept the altruistic collectivist premises which led to these society’s downfall. Our political leaders simply follow the fact that we have passively accepted this morality which has led to so much pain and death in the past.

The people who chose (and are now choosing) to disregard man's nature and form political systems around the goal of the "common good," actually achieve its opposite: "common death, slaughter, and starvation." Check the history books for the numbers of millions who died of starvation or were murdered outright by the regimes which forced “the common good” on the people. Death is the expected result when people deny man's nature: his need for freedom, so that he may use his mind to better his life.

The problematic results of implementing an impractical morality are strewn all across the world in macroscopic and microscopic form -- the political landscapes of various countries and the quality of life for their citizens, the troubled lives of individuals attempting to live lives which clash with what is required for their happiness, the whole history of humanity is a testament to ideas, to philosophy. As the widest of all of humanity's intellectual endeavors, it is expectedly that sweeping in its consequences. Hopefully, I have conveyed that it is critical for each one of us to employ reason in order to enhance the ultimate value of a rational morality: our lives. But before people can be expected to pursue the values which fill a great life, we also must recognize that people need the freedom to do it.

Rules of Engagement; an Exercise in Futility?

I want this blog to be a repository for my ramblings, but there's a chance that people will stumble across it and take issue with what I've written here. In an effort to circumvent unproductive debate, I want to make the case for trying to restrict debate to something as close to productive, thoughtful as possible.

Ideas are important. Humans rely on them for everything and they'll ultimately save or ruin us, depending on which ideas we adopt. I'll have great respect for anyone who wants to seriously question what I've written about on this website. Hopefully, we'll edify and correct each other. If we take this rational approach to debate, we'll come away with ideas which will more successfully ensure that humanity continues to improve! If you are someone who wants to seriously discuss ideas, please comment away!

Now it's time to address the other 99.9% of the denizens of the blogosphere. There are rules in debate which ensure that it stays as emotionally impartial, rational, and productive as possible. Here are some ways to stop good conversation dead in its tracks, which may help to explain why I did not respond to you, and which might explain why your comment didn't contribute anything useful to the debate:

1. Stay on topic. Stunning: the number of comments I've seen on thoughtful blog posts which do not address the blog's content.

2. No emotional ad hominem attacks. Please address the ideas, not the person presenting them. Statements such as, "Anyone who thinks that is dumb," or, "You are heartless for saying that," etc. contribute nothing to supporting a counterpoint. Arbitrary emotional assertions do not unseat a logically constructed argument. I encourage you to employ logic to prove me wrong! I'd appreciate being shown why I am in error so that I can correct myself. What I promise to ignore is baseless name calling. Name calling isn't a debating victory; it's intellectual cowardice and forfeiting the engagement before its even begun!

3. No "ad philosophem" attacks. While I espouse a specific philosophy, I won't countenance comments which reject my arguments based on their origin -- which will typically be rooted in the principles of Objectivism. An accusation of, "Dogmatist!" is not a refutation of ideas; it is simply ignoring them. "Ad philosophem" attacks are particularly ineffective at refuting an idea because: good arguments stand against weaker ones, regardless of their origin.

4. Please do not color your comments with partisan assumptions. If I argue a point and you interpret it as a conservative stance, accusing me of being a god-damn-dirty-neo-con does not prove me wrong. If I take a stance that you feel is liberal or progressive, labelling me a bleeding-heart-communist-hippie hasn't trumped my position. To prove your point to me, just prove your point to me! Name calling won't further anyone's cause or edify either of us in any manner.

This list will probably expand.

- deexma

The Core Principles

Throughout my posts, I'll be relying on certain fundamental ideas. My arguments will all ultimately reduce to these specific principles. I haven't found them to be wrong; that's why they are principles! These principles will primarily deal with ethics, since most of my writing will deal with ethical issues. First, some primaries which play a key role in validating the ethics I'll employ in later writing:

Brief Metaphysical and Epistemological Points

A metaphysical axiom: Aristotle's law of identity, "A is A." An entity (an object, something in reality) cannot simultaneously be one thing and another. A pillow is not a rock and these objects cannot behave in the same manner; they have separate and unique identities. An entity has a specific identity which determines what it is and how it behaves when interacting with other entities. Humans are no different and their identity determines how they must act in order to survive.

An epistemological fact: human's unique trait is their ability to think conceptually. It's what sets us apart from animals. Conceptualization is essentially grouping specific entities according to similarities in their attributes. The unique thing about concepts is that we drop the specific measurement of the attributes comprising the concept. For example: a table. The concept "table" includes objects of many sizes, shapes, materials, seating capacities, means of support, etc... But they all share certain common attributes -- just in different magnitudes. Some tables seat two people. Some tables seat 8. Some tables aren't meant to seat any people at all, but can still fit your conceptual definition of "table." Some tables have four legs, some are supported by being fixed to a wall. The material a table is made of is another 'conceptual variable': wood, plastic, stone, etc.

Thus: an instance of a concept can possess attributes in any magnitude, while reality dictates that an entity that is a specific instance of the concept must possess that attribute in a specific magnitude (A is A!).

From Metaphysics and Epistemology to Ethics

By employing reason, humans can deduce concepts which do not contradict the facts of reality. We can even learn things which aren't directly perceivable by our senses. Logic, the art of noncontradictory identification, is what lets us check our conceptual knowledge against the facts of reality. Through reason, we can form an amazingly abstract and useful set of ideas to enhance our lives... But our knowledge will only serve to help us so long as the concepts we form do not defy the facts of reality! Humans are quite capable of making mistakes. The majority of my blog posts will deal with errors we have made, particularly in social policy, and how we should correct ourselves so we are living more in harmony with the facts of our nature and identity as human beings -- the facts we need to respect if we are to build a fundamentally humane society.

Three facts about concepts. 1) Concepts are the products of human conclusions. 2) We rely on concepts to make choices and take action, and 3) As the product of humans, concepts are capable of being made in error -- they can defy the facts of reality if we aren't careful. A human being must employ reason and logic to succeed, and he must carefully validate his knowledge against the facts of reality. A mistake in social policy is just as disastrous as a mistake of a more immediate nature (such as an engineering error in the design of a bridge, leading to failure). Social policy directs the course our nation is taking and given the tax code of today, it also directs where a significant amount of our incomes (taxes) is being directed. It's crucial that we analyze social policy critically and carefully. I'll be using this blog to demonstrate the disastrous ideas which are leading to the unnecessary waste and pain in this world. Bad ideas have bad consequences, but good ideas have good consequences!

Ethics

Facts relevant to ethics:
1. Humans have a specific identity (A is A, from above).
2. Aspects of human identity: the ability to form concepts and use reason (epistemological facts, from above)
3. Humans must use reason and be productive in order to survive.
4. Well defined individual rights are what permit people to use reason and are what allow productivity to flourish.
5. Force (physical force or fraud) is the opposite of reason. Force is the opposite of mutual agreement; it destroys productivity and peace and pays no heed to reason and logic.

From these five facts, a set of guiding principles for a just, rational society can be formed:

An individual's exercise of reason is what permits him to produce the values he needs in order to survive -- a just society must defend the individual rights which allow him to think and act freely. The moral purpose of government is then this, and this alone: protect individuals from the initiation of physical force, since it is only physical force which can rob people of the tool they use for survival: reason. Governmental force cannot be used to favor some at the expense of others. This would defy the fact that individuals need freedom in order to survive -- that would be immoral, by the facts of man's existence. For all the reasons I have listed, laissez-faire capitalism is the most moral politico-economic system devised, to date. So long as the government's only role is to ensure voluntary association, then physical force and fraud are barred from occurring between individuals -- a just society. I will be approaching the problems of today's social policy from the moral foundation of a Capitalistic society under a constitutional republic -- the only system in man's history that defends the requirements of man's survival, to the extent that it is implemented.

What I have just outlined is the philosophy of Objectivism, and it's what I will primarily rely on when making my arguments in this blog.

First Post; a Modest Forward

I've ideological ventings and arguments which need formalization, and recording.

I've spent years fuming in emails against my family members, exhorting them with reason, logic, facts, and every other trick in my bag. But the religious rapture with which they revere their ideals is impervious to such things. A greater tragedy in this familial debate is that years of my carefully crafted epistles have been lost in the digital dumpheaps of my family member's email trash cans. I was quite passionate and thorough when writing many of these emails and now they are largely gone. A thoughtcrime, if there ever was one!

At the very least, I'd like my ideas to be stored, and this blog will serve that purpose. I see an "Edit Posts" button at the top of this webpage. If possible, I hope to continuously revise posts to include more supporting facts and arguments... This will hopefully save me time in the future; if I wish to make a certain point or express my view about a topic to someone, it's my hope that I can just send them a hyperlink to my blog post dealing with "topic." It'd be quite exciting if this blog enabled me to create an Encylo-of-my-brainia, with detailed entries of "what I think of this," for any given topic which I'm interested in writing about.

Perhaps, contrary to the debates which I've had with my family, this blog will enable me to reach those who do not willfully deafen their ears. Perhaps I will meet and gain some allies in the war of ideas, through this medium! I suspect that politics, government, ethics, and life fulfillment will be the main topics I'll be writing about. I've spent several years studying philosophy and I am now shifting my reading to a study of American and world history. If the philosophy is as good as promised, these two should be in agreement. Principles should not violate practice. I am excited about learning and writing about these things.

And happy fourth of July!