Do Not Reigister with the Do Not Call Registry

Before I address the Do Not Call Registry I have a few other items I like to discuss.
Every week I attend the movie theater because I like motion pictures and I find it to be a small way I can relax at the end of the week. I also like to watch films as a mental exercise. I try to Objectively determine if the film is good, meaning whether or not it meets Objectivist standards; however, most films are not even remotely close to expressing Objectivist themes, so I usually try to rearrange the film or add to the film to make it better. In a way film provide me with enjoyment on two levels: (1) I find it relaxing (2) I find it to be a stimulating mental exercise.
This week the film I saw was Semi-Pro, which I give a whopping one star. Semi-Pro falls under the same category/genre of other Frat Pack comedies like Anchorman, Dodge Ball, Starsky & Hutch, Zoolander, Blades of Glory, Talladega Nights, 40 Year-Old Virgin, Knocked Up, etc. I find the majority of these Frat Pack comedies hysterical, but they are usually a hit or miss; there is never an in between or decent comedy. Semi-Pro was a miss for three major reasons. Firstly, the beginning was slow, the middle was slow, and the ending was at best a light jog. The reason Semi-Pro lagged was largely because much of the film was sappy and sentimental and only moderately funny. Sentimental and comedy also work against one another so it is difficult to incorporate both into a film. The reason Semi-Pro was too sentimental is because it took too much of a generic sports film approach, like Remember the Titans. In the beginning all the players are selfish; thus, the team never wins. However, the team members reform their ways, become selfless, and they win big. The win big at the end of the movie is actually a funny joke, but this generic sports idea of selflessness over selfishness is an annoying and disturbing fallacy. The film would have obviously been better if it poked fun at selfless teams, but it did not, it followed suit, so it was no good. The problem with selfless team members is that it is basically a lie, and just perpetuates bad life styles by adding to the monotonous droning demand of altruism is virtue. As I understand it everyone behaves selfishly anyway even when they say they are being altruistic; I just want people to realize that and embrace their selfishness because it is the more logical way to live one's life. In any event these players remain selfish because though they may pass the ball more they are really just behaving logically. People play sports to win; winning is the reward for controlling one's body well, and some people like disciplining their body to a sport. Therefore, by passing the ball the player is not being selfless he is just logically understanding the game. He sees that he can win if he gives the ball to a player closer to scoring a goal. Aside from lying Semi-Pro does not even show the team's alleged transformation from selfishness to selflessness. Not enough of their mistakes were shown before the transformation to contrast to their new playing ability. The second problem with Semi-Pro was the characters were not ridiculous enough. Frat Pack comedies always have over the top characters such as the entire news team in Anchorman, Ben Stiller and Rip Torn in Dodge Ball, Will Ferrell in Starsky & Hutch, etc. In Semi-Pro the somewhat ridiculous characters were Will Ferrell as Jackie Moon and Will Arnet as Lou Redwood; however, these characters did not even come remotely close to the ones I previously mentioned. The final problem with Semi-Pro concerned the female lead Maura Tierney as Lynn. In Anchorman, Christina Applegate as Veronica Corningstone played a huge role in the development of the plot. This is also true for Christine Taylor in Dodge Ball and Zoolander. Maura Tierney barely appeared in the film. He connection to the plot was limited. She was also in some strange sex scene with Woody Harrelson which did not develop the plot or comedy. The two highlights of the film, though only marginally funny, are the bear fight and the Flint Michigan Megabowl press conference.
Now the second order of business: my roommate moved out today leaving the dorm room all to me. I have actually had a series of roommates. My first roommate, I will call him Sven, I had in fall semester until the second week in spring semester when he moved down the hall into his friends room. This is not to say Sven and I did not get along well. In actuality Sven's philosophy was far closer to mine than anyone else's at my college. The only difference between Sven and I was that Sven appeared to be too concerned with power, which is actually just another form of dependency and self-loathing. My second roommate came from the room Sven was moving into. Sven's new room had Sven's friend and Sven's roommate, which I will call Stefan. Stefan moved into my room so Sven could move into his friends room. Stefan was my roommate from the second week of spring semester until today when he moved into his friend's room. Stefan's friend's roommate took a leave of absence leaving an empty spot for Stefan to move into. Thus, the empty spot was moved to my room. Stefan and I also got along well; however, our philosophies were far different; he was no Sven. Stefan is still trapped in the relativist altruistic philosophy. Sven and Stefan could have both moved out because they did not like me; I am actually not a friendly person, meaning I am not easy to become friends with. The reason for this is because after I graduated from high school and my girlfriend and I parted ways I really began to understand Objectivism. Therefore, when I arrived at college I was not interested in finding friends. I do not need friends like other people need friends. In high school I was like other people; I was self-loathing and I needed other people to affirm my exist or affirm I was a good person. After logically adjusting my life I now know I am a good person; therefore, I do not need other people to make me feel good about myself. I rationally like myself. In turn, I have increased the value of friendship by holding it to specific standards. Neither Sven nor Stefan nor anyone else at college thus far have met my standards, so I will not be friends with them. Friends are just icing on the cake. They are not necessary; however, they do make life more enjoyable. This is exactly why I hold such strict standards. If I lower my standards for certain people those people would not make me as happy as friends should. In any event, I now have my dorm room completely too myself. I have never liked the idea of colleges forcing multiple people to live in the same room because I think one should only live with people one likes. Of course I was willing to exchange this minor inconvenience for an education, but now it appears I have made out with a bargain. I do not have to pay extra money for a single room, there are no distractions aside from the ones I create, and I do not have to behave in such a way that equally shares ownership of the room with another individual. It is at my complete disposal, which actually only goes so far because the college owns it. I like to think that I am renting my room, now completely to myself. Therefore, I have some of the same ownership as someone who rents an apartment.
With the room news out of the way I can now address the horrible tyrannical problems with the Do Not Call Registry. Today I was sent an email from a relative of mine explaining that I should register with the Do Not Call Registry for cell phones. Apparently cell phone numbers are going "public" tomorrow. I was not aware they were secrets. Basically, people are registering their cell phones with the Do Not Call Registry before the numbers go public tomorrow and telemarketers can begin calling peoples' cell phones. Here is the problem with the Do Not Call Registry. The government, specifically the Federal Trade Commission, in accordance with an act from Congress has created a registry that people can sign. This registry is a list of numbers telemarketers are not allowed to call. If a telemarketer calls someone on the Do Not Call Registry the telemarketer can be fined by a federal court. I have chosen not to register for the Do Not Call Registry because I would be giving the government permission to initiate force against someone who has initiated no force against me. No one ever has the right to initiate force because all initiations of force or threats of violence are threats of murder, and no one has the right to illegitimately violate an individual's natural right to life. This is the fundamental problem going on here. By registering with the Do Not Call Registry one gives the government permission to violate an individual's natural right to life. Here is a clear explanation. You have signed the Do Not Call Registry, but a telemarketer calls you so you complain to the FTC. The FTC investigates brings the telemarketer to court and a fine is established. In other words, someone has to pay the government money, in addition to his taxes, because he called you. This telemarketer has initiated no force. He has not violated any of your natural rights. He called you on the phone. This is equivalent to someone speaking to you on the street, or even more similar your neighbor down the street, whom you have never met, calling you on the phone. It is the same thing; however, for telemarketers it is now a crime, but it is not a crime for them to speak to you on the street or for some stranger in your neighborhood to call you. However, this is not the major problem. In this hypothetical situation the telemarketer does not pay the fine. There is no reason for him to pay a fine. He has not violated any one's natural rights. He does not nothing to warrant any use of force against him. So he does not pay the fines. He will probably receive a few letters until the police arrive to investigate. Aside from the blue uniforms, the badge, and the guns the police are just people to use force against those that have used force against others. That is what the police are for; the legitimate use of violence. However, this individual has not initiated any force. The police should not be looking for him. In other words, these men are strangers trying to kidnap him. If he had initiated force it would be arrest, but he initiated no force so it is kidnapping because the police are initiating the force. It is the police who are using force illegitimately in this case. Consequently, this innocent individuals resists and tries to escape. The police try to subdue him. The individual fights back. Violence continues to escalate. The individual is trying to kill the police now because the police are trying to beat him or kill him. Remember every use of violence or force is the threat of murder. The individual is not at fault. He is being completely logical. Strange men are using force against him, possibly trying to severely injure him or kill him, so he is trying to kill them. He is using force legitimately as a counter to the initiation of force. Eventually the police shoot and kill this man because this man is rationally trying to kill them. A man is killed because he made a phone call. By registering with the Do Not Call Registry you give permission to the government to kill certain people who call you. Firstly, you do not have the right to give anyone the permission to initiate force against anyone else. No one has that right, but Congress gave that authority to you. This is not a reason to use it. To use it is irrational. Anyone registering with the Do Not Call Registry has not considered what it means. The Congressional Representatives who voted for this bill should be voted out for creating such an evil power for the people. However, this is still not the larger problem. Everything so far is certainly a problem and a very severe one at that, but there is a bigger more disgusting issue at work. The people being called by telemarketers are claiming to be victims. This is incredibly perverse. People who receive calls from telemarketers claim to be victims even though no one has violated their natural rights. It is like saying I am a victim because a stranger spoke to me on the street or someone I do not know called me. Even more disturbing is that the telemarketers are the actual victims; they are the ones who must pay cause their is a gun to their head. The telemarketers are the ones who are having their rights violated, but the people they call are the ones claiming to be victims. This would be like if I shot a man I don not know who talked to me on the street or called me on the phone, and then I claimed to be the victim. The whole situation is incredibly perverse, and the most disturbing thing is that this is not an isolated case. In different forms the government and people are making the same mistakes. I cannot claim that what I have just argued is completely my own. I originally heard this argument made by Stefan Molyneux on Freedomain Radio about a similar set of circumstances for a completely different issue.
There is a serious problem with the way the government operates. Unlike Stefan Molyneux I am not an Anarcho-Capitalist; I believe some incredibly limited form of government is necessary, but American government has been perverted. The reason for this perversion is utter irrationality. People are not using their reason. People are choosing to be ignorant, one of the greatest vice. In order to correct one's logical fallacies I would recommend listening to Freedomain Radio available as a free podcast. Stefan Molynuex also has several books, which I have not yet read, but from his radio show I would recommend them. I would also recommend Ayn Rand's Anthem, The Fountainhead, and Atlas Shrugged. In order to live happier lives, which involves correcting and limiting the government, one must live consciously. The mediums I recommended will help in understanding how to live consciously.

Technology Bashing and Altruistic Business

Last night, as with every Wednesday night, I attended my Political Literature class, which is always interesting. In actuality I do find some of the class discussions truly interesting; however, in this particular case I am using interesting in a somewhat sarcastic manner. This is not to say the class is usually boring; this is to say the class discussions show me how wrong everyone is. For example last night the class discussion concerned the second half of Mark Twain's A Connecticut Yankee at King Arthur's Court. The first interesting point of the conversation was when the some members in the class, but mostly the professor, bashed modern technology.
Before I discuss how wrong my professor was for bashing modern technology let me state this is the professor I highlighted in my previous post. I like this professor and I have him for two classes (the essay in the previous post was for the other class); however, his bashing of technology confirms he is just a little "o" objectivist not a big "O" Objectivist.
Now to point out the fallacies in identifying technology as the bane of the earth scourging the well being of man kind. This is just simply not the case. I will admit many people do not appear to truly understand why technology, or anything is created. The favorite argument is that new technologies are invented to better humanity. Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. New technologies are invented because an individual wanted to create it. Every technology is born from the selfish desire to create it. No man created something he did not want to create. One could argue that some inventions are created with bettering humanity in mind. This is true, but the person with that in mind would not have created it if he hated doing everything he needed to do to create. For example I am going to make up a fictional disease called relativtitis. Finding a cure for relativtitis would certainly benefit humanity. According to Dr. Paquin W. Stevens, he is trying to find the cure for relativtitis to help humanity; however, Dr. Paquin W. Stevens enjoys chemistry, science, and whatever else one needs to work with and know to find the cure for relativtitis. If Dr. Paquin W. Stevens loathed every element of science he would not be trying to find the cure for relativtitis. Since Dr. Paquin W. Stevens enjoys working to find a cure for relativtitis the cure is born from selfishness.
However, what is more important is how new technologies are used. This is the real problem I had with the class. My professor was arguing that technology had made man less happy and a worse being. According to my professor man is less intelligent and lazy; therefore, unhappy. I agree ignorance and laziness make man unhappy, but this is not technology's doing. His example for his argument was a calculator. With a calculator the user does not need to understand mathematics very well; therefore, he is unintelligent and too lazy not to learn math. This is not the case. Personally, I hate math, but I can understand how a calculator would make a mathematician extremely happy. Since the calculator can solve problems faster than a man the mathematician now has more time to continue with his work or research. Furthermore, even a high school student using a calculator is not stupid or lazy. In order to understand the information the calculator is providing the student must understand something about math. Also, the calculator allows for more homework problems and for math lessons to move faster; therefore, math students are not lazy. Of course the high school math student does not work for my next point because high school students are forced to learn math and is not really learning it because it makes him happy. So, I am going to speak about technology in general again. Technology is used because it makes the user happy. The problem is the user does not readily know that, which only proves that man needs to be more concerned with living a conscious life. Now I will go back to an example this time the Internet. I use the Internet quite often, and I use it because it makes me happy. Using the Internet makes me happy because whatever I want to learn I can learn in minutes. Without the Internet if I wanted to know the history of the Freemasons I would have to spend time going to the library and finding books until I could finally read and gain the information I was seeking. The Internet allows me to know more because I save time and can spend the saved time looking up knew things or using the information I found in my work. Therefore, technology is also used out of selfishness.
The other interesting point discussed in class concerned altruistic business, which is clearly an oxymoron and, in turn, illogical. The specific topic discussed in class was outsourcing of jobs to Vietnam and China, which lays off people in the United States. There were two problems in this discussion. First the obvious being, American businesses should be more concerned with making America better before making China and Vietnam better. The retort to this points out the other fallacy being, it is selfish for an American business to only be concerned about America since the people in Vietnam and China need those jobs more. Both of these groups are wrong because the business, and all individuals, should operate selfishly not altruistically. The business owner should not keep jobs in American just to make life better for Americans. The business owner should also not send jobs to Vietnam and China to make life better for the Chinese and Vietnamese. What the business owner should do is send jobs wherever his business is going to be most helped, and in turn earn him more money. That is how the business owner should operate, and I like to think most business owners operate that way. As for the potential workers in America, Vietnam, and China these people are not applying for jobs with American businesses to benefit humanity. Every individual worker whether American, Vietnamese, or Chinese is acting selfishly. Every individual worker applies for a job to make himself happy. Either the individual likes the job, or the salary will make his life more comfortable. Both selfish reasons.
Imagine I am not even halfway through the semester. I am sure this class will offer plenty of other interesting topics that need addressing.

A Discussion with My Professor

I was pleasantly surprised today when I visited my Political Theory professor to discuss my essay due within the next few days. The essay I asked him to review concerned Plato's The Trial and Death of Socrates, which warns against the dangerous moral relativism of democracy. In turn this led to a discussion between my professor and I about the general dangers of moral relativism. This surprised me because on a college campus, the breeding ground of relativism, my professor was an objectivist. As you may have noticed I used objectvist with the small "o" not the big "O" Objectivist because I am not sure if he understands truth in the Ayn Rand sense. However, regardless of whether or not he was an Objectivist it was refreshing to find someone at college who was not an amoral relativist. Furthermore, I got the sense that he was not a religious objectivist, but an objectivist through the use of human reason, which is even more refreshing seeing as how I went to a Catholic high school.
Before I continue let me clarify what I mean be refreshing. Some people may interpret refreshing as comforting meaning that I felt more security or safety in my own beliefs by discovering someone else who thought similarly to me. This is absolutely not the case. I do not need other people to affirm my thoughts. If I did have that dependence then my thoughts could not be that close to the truth. If one's thoughts are correct, then he should be sure of it without the affirmation of other people. I know my understanding of truth is solid. My professor provided me with no affirmation of my own thoughts because my own reason did that for me. What I mean by refreshing is that I found it enjoying to speaking with someone who had a similar understanding of truth. Speaking with a relativist is just disturbing and disappointing, there is no pleasure in it at all. I have had to deal with this on a few occasions in the past few months, but I rarely speak to people, mostly because they are relativists, so I have not had to endure any real ordeal.
In any event my professor and I discussed a few issues.
Firstly, I explained my frustration in not being able to understand why people choose to be relativists. The only consolation I could ever offer myself is that actually using reason requires work; therefore, by choosing to be ignorant, choosing to be relativist, is much easier. In other words, relativists are just lazy. I still think this is part of the case. However, my professor pointed out that relativists also believe that their amorality is tolerant, or more correctly appears to be tolerant. I would have to agree this is true because relativists often argue that in order to be a good person one must understand, value, and respect all cultures. Clearly, this is hypocritical because a relativist cannot believe in good and bad people since good and bad do not exist in their minds. However, that is what they say and in order to analyze the rest of what they are saying I will let it slide. Understanding cultures is fine. It is like history. If one understands history and/or culture one can see good and bad in action, and then quickly identify good and bad in the future. For example Nazi culture thought it was virtuous to kill Jews and many other minorities. Understanding that, and knowing that it is bad, one can identify a future Hitler immediately. In actuality though understanding cultures is not important, for if one uses his reason he can still identify good and bad immediately. The last part of the relativists' statement is fantastic. Valuing and respecting all cultures is ridiculous. Nazi culture is not valuable and not respectable. This also applies to several tribal cultures, slavery, Islamo-fascism, communism, oh the list goes on. However, relativists do not see this glaring problem. The reason returns to my first point, they are lazy thus ignorant. By being ignorant they also misunderstand tolerance, which actually means not to initiate force against those that may have different ideas. For example relativists and I differ; however, I tolerate them by not beating them for how ignorant they are. It is their right to choose to be ignorant; therefore, I tolerate it. I would also tolerate someone who argues all Jews must killed; however, I would stop tolerating him once he initiates force against a Jew.
Secondly, my professor explained how disturbed he was that moral relativism appeared so prevalent. He stated that he had only been working at the college I am going to for the past year and he was surprised to see how many relativists were actually at college. I have long accepted college to be a breeding ground for relativism, but my professor explained that I should question any relativist as to why he was at college. I immediately saw the contradiction between the purpose of college and the fact that it was a breeding ground for relativism. Someone who is a relativist does not believe in truth, there is no right and wrong, there is no ignorance and intelligence. My professor was exactly right. There is no reason a relativist should be at college because college is supposed to be a placed of continued learning, primarily the search for truth. A college should go directly against the beliefs of a relativists; however, they are the stereotypical modern day college student. These blatant contradictions in relativist behavior just indicates how little they actually think.
As a side note I am currently reading Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand, and one of the several themes in the story is that there is no such thing as a contradiction, if one finds a contradiction he should check his premises. I am not sure if this is a proper explanation for all the relativists contradictions, but it may simply be the theme I have beat home in this blog: relativists do not think. Since relativists do not think they cannot avoid making contradictions. Of course I need to consider this point more to properly address it.
As a final point this conversation with my professor was far better the conversation I had with my Academic Writing professor last semester. I had written an essay on politics that opened with the line, "Neither Democrats nor Republicans know how to manage the government." My Academic Writing professor explained the whole essay was too belligerent, especially the first line, which anyone can see is not belligerent at all. My Academic Writing professor explained that I needed to value and respect all sides of the argument. Once again the relativist call to arms enters the college class room. I explained that did not make sense because then no one would be wrong. She replied by saying as she gets older she believes less in right and wrong, and now sees the world more as better and less better. The statement is chilling. No relativist, except her, that I have met has made that final jump. The speak as relativists but once they are questioned as to whether or not they believe in right and wrong they stop as deer in the headlights. It is as if they see their own fatal flaw. I cannot say my former professor unconsciously or subconsciously sees the fatal flaw with her statement; therefore, she is even more detached from reason than student relativists. It is as if she has decayed over time. I believe it is statements like that, which capture a serious evil people are not aware of. I can clearly imagine some other student, an ignorant relativist, hearing my professor's claim of no right and wrong but only better and less better, and actually nodding his head in approval as if he was just graced with some pearl of wisdom. This is what I am most afraid of.