Easter

Last Sunday was Easter, an especially horrible holiday for an especially horrible religion. Of course, this is not to say there are good religious holidays or good religions. All religions are a scourge and bane upon man; however, in this particular post I will be addressing Easter specifically the atrocious lesson it teaches, and the trauma it instills in children.
In order to understand how astoundingly terrible the Easter lesson is one must understand what it actually celebrates. First I will explain the Easter celebration in Catholic terms, then I will expose the truth, which actually is not that different from what the church says. Basically, Easter celebrates that God, the Father, sacrificed his only son, Jesus Christ, to forgive man for his sins. It is also important to note that Catholicism argues that the Father and Jesus and the Holy Spirit are the three parts that compromise God; therefore, God essentially sacrificed himself, meaning let himself be tortured and killed, in order to pay for man's sins. Something else important to note is that "man's sins" compromises all of man's sins that have ever been committed and will ever be committed. However, this is not to say that man is free of sin, for man is still born with original sin and still commits sins daily according to the Catholic church. Basically, since God died for man's sins man can now go to heaven. This means any decent person that died before Jesus was sacrificed did not go to heaven. These people also did not go to hell. They lived in a strange non-existence between heaven and hell, which was also not purgatory. This is the reason why Easter is celebrated as told by the church. It still really does not make sense, which is most likely due to the fact that it starts with a false premise: that there is a God.
In any event now I shall explain what this holiday is really celebrating. It is celebrating that the greatest human being that had ever existed and will ever existed let himself be tortured and killed so a whole bunch of people he never even met would not be responsible for their actions and could eternally exist in a paradise after they died in this less important life. Easter celebrates that the alleged greatest man every, who is in reality not that great just influential, committed the ultimate vice, altruism, in order to remove responsibility from everyone. This is an absolutely horrible event to celebrate. It also teaches an equally horrible lesson. The basic lesson of Easter is that people should do what Jesus did. Therefore, a great person, a person with amazing abilities, skills, and reason should not live for his own fulfillment but for the fulfillment of others. In actuality the person does not even have to be great. People of mediocre or poor abilities, skills, and reason should not live for their own life but for the lives of others, according to Easter and Catholicism. This is the essence of altruism and the true vice of altruism is best captured in Easter because Jesus does not just give money to the poor or work at a soup kitchen in his free time Jesus allows other people to kill him, Jesus allows his life to be destroyed for others' lives. There are a few important aspects of Jesus' death and motive for choosing death, that is correct Jesus chose to die, that must be addressed. First, according to the Bible, Jesus was not simply killed like beheading or hanging. Jesus was certainly also not simply shot in the head because they had not invented guns yet. This argument is not to say that death is good; however, one can establish a hierarchy of death based upon how much damage is done to the human body intentionally. The more intentionally and the more excessive the damage is, the worse the death is not just in the amount of pain but in what the motives of the killers, or in this case victim, were. According, to the Bible, Jesus basically had the shit beat out of him. He was wiped and beaten with leather straps that had thorns in them. He then had to wear a crown of thorns. He also had to carry his own cross to the place he was to be killed. In modern terms that could be equated to a man carrying the electric chair to his own execution site, or loading the gun that would kill him. Furthermore, there are painful intricacies involved in crucifixion. The individual is nailed to wood through the hands and feet. The cross is then lifted to stand in the hot son for a long period of time, so dehydration and hunger play a role in the torture. Also, being nailed through the hands and feet does not necessarily cause enough blood loss to die; however, I must admit I am not a doctor but just from common knowledge I know there are no major arteries or veins in the palms of hands or centers of feet. The true cause of death when being crucified is I believe exfixtiation. Basically, what happens is the cross provides no back support; therefore, the individual must keep his back aligned by his own strength. Mind you this person has lost some blood, this is especially true in the case of Jesus because he was tortured prior to being crucified. Of course, the Bible could be a lie, but for this is an example following the alleged truth of that story. Anyway, as stated before that person is also dehydrated and hungry, and in Jesus case he had to carry his own cross to his execution site. There is only a limited amount of time any individual can maintain the alignment of his back. Eventually what happens is the upper torso begin to press down on the lower torso, which makes it difficult to breath. Again I am not a doctor, but I did go to Catholic school and this is the one time the religion class used science. I really should not believe them, but I am just going to accept what they allege in order to make my point.
Now that it is understood the amount of pain in suffering the story claims Jesus experienced it is important to remember Jesus chose to do this so other people could get into heaven. This is the truly horrifying nature of altruism. As stated before Jesus did not just give money to the poor or work in a soup kitchen he surrendered his life and body to the complete and utter control of human beings. This is what Easter teaches. One's body and life is not for one's own self, one's body and life is not for one's own happiness, one's body and life is to be sacrificed, to be tortured, to be murdered for the sake of others'. Basically, what Easter and Catholicism and many religions teach is that no one has a life or body, individualism is a lie, and no one has the natural rights to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and property. This is a sick and horribly twisted perversion. More importantly, Jesus did not die for someone he valued. Of course, Jesus claimed he valued everyone, even people he never met, equally. My argument is that Jesus did not die taking a bullet for his wife or friend. A wife and friend are distinctly different from everyone else in the world because one has chosen a wife and friend as more valuable as everyone else. Jesus chose to be tortured and murdered for everyone, for people he never met, for people he never had the chance to evaluate and choose to value. Therefore, the lesson of Easter is even more perverted. Easter does not teach that one's body and life exists for one's friends. Easter does not teach that no one has a life or body, individualism is a lie, and no one has the natural rights to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and property amongst friends. East teaches this as an absolute because everyone exists for everyone else. There is absolutely no one that has a life or body, individualism is absolutely a lie, and there are absolutely no natural rights to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and property. Easter is an absolutely chilling holiday.
Now I will address how Easter traumatizes children. Like Christmas, Easter's traumatic element is two fold because Easter employs both God and the Easter Bunny like Christmas employs both God and Santa Clause. Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, and God are all exactly the same. They are all incomprehensible omniscient beings. They are all lies poor authority figures employ to control children. The concept with Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, and God is that a child is told these beings exist; however, these beings are too complex for any human mind to understand. Basically, the authority figure just told the child to stop thinking, which is another enormous problem. Obviously, the authority figure does not want the child to think because then the child will reason that these beings are lies and then the lies will no longer have the desired affect: control. This is the second half of these fictional beings roles. Aside from too complex for the human mind to understand these beings see everything the child does. These beings also give the child rewards for behaving well. Of course, the reward from Santa, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy are distinctly different from that of God, but they all reward the child and they all see everything the child does. Thus, the authority figure employs these lies to control children. They are always being watched, every one of their actions is being accounted for; therefore, if they mess up in any way, meaning if they disobey the authority figure in any way, then the child is not rewarded. See here is the true sinister element of these lies. They are lies. They do not actually exist. Santa, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, and God are all extensions of the authority figure. These beings provide no reward because they do not actually exist. The authority figure provides the reward. Therefore, these beings do not have a judgment independent of the authority figure. It is not like Santa is an Objectivist and the authority figure is an altruist. In this case the authority figure would continue to say the child is bad for being selfish; however, then receives presents from Santa. In turn the child would understand the authority figure is actually wrong and he is actually right. Since these beings are just extensions of the authority figure the authority figure determines what is the truth. Basically, the authority figure ignores that fact that truth exists independent from man's desire and control, and thus defines truth as obedient. The truth then becomes the child must do whatever the parent says or else he will not be rewarded. The child is not being taught to what is right or wrong, but just being taught to obey. This only reinforces the earlier emphasis on not thinking. The child is taught that thinking is not necessary only obedience is necessary. Therefore, taking this to the extreme, if an authority figure orders an individual to kill and innocent man, killing the innocent man is not wrong because it is being obedient. In reality it is wrong to kill the innocent man regardless of whether or not an authority figure ordered it to be done because an innocent man initiates no force.
Another way Easter traumatizes children is that it teaches children not to be honest. Of course, on occasion lying is fine; however, one should never lie to someone he cares about. Easter teaches the opposite. Inevitably the authority figure will teach the child to always be honest. However, the authority figure creates all these false beings, in this particular case the Easter Bunny. This is not to say that God is a true being, He is absolutely a lie; however, the problem with this lie is people continue to believe it past their youth. The Easter Bunny is eventually exposed as a lie. Thus, there is a contradiction. The authority figure tells the child to be honest, to always tell the truth; however, then the child eventually finds out the authority figure lied to the child about these beings like the Easter Bunny. Then the child learns that being honest is not important, especially if one is in the position of authority. In reality the exact opposite is true.
The final traumatizing element of Easter returns to its religious aspect. In addition to being told several lies such as altruism being a virtue, one should value friends and strangers equally, and that one has no body or life, individuality, or natural rights to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and property, Easter also traumatizes a child by teaching him that he is guilty for existing. When explaining Easter to a child one states that the greatest man that has ever lived and will ever lived died because he was born. Easter only reinforces the lie of original sin. Eastern continues to beat into the child's head that he is inherently evil. He, like every other human being, is so inherently evil the greatest man that had ever lived and will ever lived had to die. This makes the child assume he is bad, it will cause the child to feel depressed not immediately but later in life. The child also adapts a poor way of life based on being humble and disliking himself. The child is basically sent down the path of self loathing. Additionally, the child could feel he has to follow this man. Clearly, if the Bible's account of the event is true, Jesus was a fool. He should have never chosen to die for everyone's sins. First, his death has no bearing on anyone else's responsibility. Second, altruism is a vice. However, death, sacrifice, are very powerful regardless of the reasons behind them. This is especially true for a child who does not have the greatest grasp on his reason and has already been traumatized by his authority figures in other ways. As a child may see it, the greatest man that has ever lived and will ever live died for him. In order to in essence pay back this man he has never met the child may start to blindly follow this man. Of course, as stated before this man, part of God, is a lie. Jesus did exist, but he was not God. Also as stated before God is just an extension of the authority figure. He is only employed to control the child, to cause the child to be obedient. Therefore, this essence of Easter is just a second front to instilling that control.
As in some of my other posts I cannot except full responsibility for my argument. Many of my points are based on similar arguments made by Stefan Molyneux of Freedomain Radio. Specific episodes related to this argument are 1020 and 1009.

My Philosophy Part 1: Human Nature

Looking back on what I have written so far I have found that people who do not understand my philosophy may be confused with my arguments. I also believe it would be a good idea for me to write out my philosophy just so that I can personally understand it as best I can.
I call myself an Objectivist; however, I make a distinction between my philosophy and Objectivist philosophy. Even though they may both be very similar, or exactly the same, I like to claim my philosophy, my understanding of truth, as my own and not the ideology of some group. Though I do follow most of the tenets of Objectivist philosophy I do not follow them just because I have proclaimed myself an Objectivist. I follow Objectivist philosophy because I understand it to be the truth. I have worked through its understanding on my own. Therefore, the following is My Philosophy and not the Objectivist Philosophy I choose to follow just because I am an Objectivist.

In order to understand how to construct government, or even if people need a government, and in order to understand how to act virtuously one must understand human nature. Specifically, one must understand what man is naturally entitled to; what are man's rights.
Firstly, begin with one person. What can a person do? A person can think, judge, sense, move, etc. A person has complete control over his mind and body. No one other person can control that person's mind and body. Sure he can throw a rock at that person and the impact of the rock will cause that person to move a little bit; however, in order to move that person force was necessary. The rock thrower cannot just move that person's body as simply as he can move his own body. Nor can he do the same thing for that person's mind. Therefore, that person is independent.
Of course, this is not much different from an animal. All animals have autonomy over their mind and body. All animals are independent. However, animals are not equal to humans, for if this were true animals would have the same rights as man. There is a distinct difference between man and animal. Man has the ability to reason. Animals do not have this ability. Animals are shackled by instinct. They only behave as how their genetics program them to behave. Even when an animal learns a parlor trick only its instincts are responding. Its instincts positively respond to conditioning in order to survive. It is just another form of adaptation. Man, however, can reason, meaning he can choose. Man does not just react to situations as instinct dictates. This is of course true in some circumstances, but instinct does not order man how to use a microwave. Instinct does not order a man to choose the color red over the color blue. Instinct does not indicate to man the difference between virtue and vice. These are all products of reason. With reason comes learning, creating, producing, and choosing.
Additionally, a person is also unique. No man is not exactly the same as any other man. Not even twins. On the shallowest level no person, except possibly twins, looks exactly the same as another person. However, on a deeper level, on that even distinguishes twins, no person has the exact same likes and dislikes as another person. Therefore, every man is truly unique, every man is an individual.
Independence, reason, and individuality are the starting points. Since each man has these three elements each man has specific rights.
Firstly, independence means an individual's life is his own, no one else can control it. Individuality means an individual's life is unique from all other individuals' lives. Also, reason allows an individual to determine the actions and behaviors of his own life. Therefore, man has the natural right to life. He has the right not to be killed by any other man. That is unless he gives up that right, which can only be done if he illegitimately kills another individual.
Secondly, reason allows an individual to make choices. His independence means his choices are controlled only by himself, no one else has the ability to make choices for him. Also, his individuality is evident in the choices he makes and purposes for his choices. Therefore, man has the right to choose, the natural right of liberty.
Thirdly, an individual has different likes and dislikes from other people. A person's likes and dislikes are unique to him. Being independent means that only the individual can make himself happy. No other individual can control his happiness. Reason allows the individual to discriminate, to choose what makes him happy and unhappy. Consequently, man has the natural right to pursue happiness. This is obviously very different from the right to happiness. By having, individuality, independence, and reason an individual is responsible for his own happiness. If man had the right to happiness then he could control or demand that other people make him happy. The man would be dependent not independent. The man would be of a collective not and individual. This is why the 'pursue' is placed before happiness. In order to clarify the confusion.
Finally, an individual's labor is an extension of his self. An individual's labor is independent of all other individuals. As stated before no individual can cause another individual to move without force. An individual's labor follows reason. The individual has a purpose for why he is working. Also the individual's labor is unique, or individual. On the shallowest level he labors in a different fashion from others. On a deeper level his reason for laboring is different from others. Therefore, by laboring one extends himself, one creates property. In the wild, on unowned land, a man who labors picking up apples and acorns legitimately acquisitions those apples and acorns. His labor extends his self to the apples and acorns. The apples and acorns become his property. When laboring as part of a job, one exchanges his labor to earn money. Money is nothing more than a symbol of one's labor. These symbols of labor can then be exchanged for items. Money developed as society developed because one individual does not have the time to not only learn how to do everything but actually do everything. For example, in modern society there are computers, houses, cars, food, beds, bikes, bags, televisions, radios, counter tops, clothes, shoes, etc. An individual does not have the time to learn how to make all these things, from scratch mind you, nor does he have the time to actually make all these things and more, from scratch mind you. Therefore, money is created, symbols of labor, to exchange one's labor for items. In essence, money is just another step to extending one's self. Consequently, this means man has the right to property. Of course, this requires clarification. One must actually earn other property. For example, when a baby is born he is not immediately given a computer because he has the right to property. The right to property means the individual has the right to earn or own property. Meaning once the individual extends his self through labor and acquires property whether it be money or a computer no one can take it away.
This is my understanding of human nature. This in turn will lead an individual to understand if government is necessary, and if so what government is best. Also, it leads to understanding virtue and vice.

Three Short Film Reviews

Looking at my previous Friday post one will see that I did not review a cinematic release. Since I am on my spring break my schedule is somewhat different this week. Instead of watching one film on the silver screen on Friday I have watched a few cinematographic medias whenever I wanted.
Before I begin there will be spoilers.
Firstly, I will briefly review a 1981 film entitled Absence of Malice. I give this film a four stars. It stars Paul Newman as Michael Gallagher the son of bootlegger and possible mob insider, and Sally Fields as Meghan Carter a journalist for the local newspaper in Miami. I find that the film captures the love-hate relationship between citizen and newspaper. The government, specifically some organized crime task force, gives Carter some information under the table which implies that Gallagher is under investigation. Gallagher, however, is not under investigation because though his family is connected to the mob he is a straight guy. Carter publishes the story, and the task force hopes it will put pressure on Gallagher to give them evidence on the death of Joe Diaz. Of course, Gallagher does not have this information because, one again, he is not involved in the mob. Obviously, Gallagher gets a little pissed this story is in the paper and that Carter will not reveal her source. Later in the film, after Gallagher's friend commits suicide for some personal information related to the case is published in the paper by Carter. Gallagher then exacts his revenge against everyone by making it look like he is bribing the District Attorney, causing the paper to publish the story and then become embarrassed when it finds out no one is being bribed. As one can see the newspaper provides a check on government; however, in some cases false information or personal information causes people to hate the newspaper. Another great element to the film is Wilford Brimley as Assistant U.S. Attorney General James A. Wells who is only in the film for about fifteen minutes. He arrives in Miami to hold a meeting between Gallagher, carter, the District Attorney, and the task force. Basically, Wells is the only good government employee. He lets Gallagher go and admires his intelligence in dealing with the matter. He tells Carter he can't stop what she is doing because it would be wrong for the government to do so, but he also points out that doesn't mean what she is doing is right. He then tells the District Attorney he wasn't careful enough and he might consider resigning. Finally, he fires the man in charge of the task force. If more people like Wells were running the government there would probably be fewer problems.
The second film I watched was Wes Andersen's latest film The Darjeeling Limited about three brothers who abandon the miserable elements of their lives so that they can go on enjoying it. I gave it three stars because it seemed this film was more disjointed than his previous ones. However, I am considering moving it up to three and a half stars because I really liked the themes. The movie basically attacks the family, which can be a great institution but can also be incredibly destructive. Though the film never shows the funeral the characters speak about their father's funeral and how their mother did not attend. This strange event appears to cause a rift between the brothers causing them to lie and steal from one another. Eventually, they visit their mother who first tells them not to visit, and once her sons are there she leaves the next morning. It is at this point the brothers decide to stop being concerned with their mother because she doesn't care about them, and they decide to forget about their father's funeral because the absence of their mother has been addressed. One of the great symbolic elements of the film is the father's luggage. The father has this personalized luggage that the brothers carry with them everywhere on their spiritual journey, but when running to board the last train they drop their luggage in order to run faster and get on board.
Finally, I would like to briefly review this Internet show on crackle called Mr. Deity. Crackle is the same website that shows Penn Jillette's Internet show entitled Penn Says. Mr. Deity is a comedy that pokes fun at religion and God; however, I think it goes about it in an interesting way. Many times when comedy pokes fun at God it is done offensively, which I have no problem with. However, I also do enjoy a more light hearted take on the subject, which is the way Mr. Deity goes about it. Mr. Deity doesn't try to call people idiots for believing in God, which is true and fine to say, but Mr. Deity causes someone to laugh and then question why would a God do certain things. For example the first episode is about Mr. Deity deciding what he will and will not allow to happen on earth. He decides people can't hurt one another with just their thoughts but then he allows holocausts, torture, down syndrome, natural disasters, and Lou Gerick's Disease.
One more piece of information. I watched the first episode of the HBO miniseries entitled John Adams. I have to admit I am skeptical about the program. I understand it is trying to show some of the vicious acts the American revolutionaries committed. For example, like tar and feathering innocent men. However, it would be a real drag if the whole program was about all the vicious acts of the revolutionaries and nothing about their incredibly virtuous actions, or the incredibly vicious acts of the British Empire. It would be like one more step down that road of political correctness, which is not politically correct in most cases because it just chooses something new to make look really bad.

Spring Break

My spring break began on Friday, and of course, everyone has asked me if I am going down to Florida or some place like that. Apparently, these people are completely clueless as to who they are speaking too. I am not against having a break from college, but I am against "celebrating" spring break as the stereotypical college student does. However, once again let me clarify that I am not going to tell people what to do. If someone wants to go down to a beach with a horde of other students, drink inordinate amounts of alcohol, take an inordinate amount of drugs, and sleep around that is his damn business. That is his choice, and he has a right to make that choice. I actually argue that he should be able to choose each one of those elements without fear of being attacked by the law. However, I find a problem with this stereotypical spring break because it is riddled with collectivism and irrationality.
I would argue that both of these elements of the stereotypical spring break are pretty easy to understand, but the easiest might be the collectivist part. Every television shot of a spring break includes an enormous horde of people, and the living arrangements for the spring break duration also includes mobs of people packed close together. This would not be so bad if all these people were friends because they would have chosen to be together. However, most of these people are strangers. Of course, no one is forcing all these strangers to live closely together they do choose it themselves, but one should be concerned as to why these strangers like being close together. This is the collectivist aspect. People like this cannot make themselves happy. These people are not truly independent and thus they are not truly individualistic. In order to be happy they need to be around a whole mass of people. They depend on others to make them happy instead of being responsible for their own happiness. One may argue that my argument also attacks friendship. This is not so. Friendship is based on selfishness not dependence like the spring break horde. In friendship an individual chooses another individual because he values the person more than all other individuals. A friend is chosen because the friend meets the chooser's standards, and the chooser recognizes the friend as better than other people. Spring break is distinctly different. The individual who goes to the stereotypical spring break chooses to be crammed into a mob of hundreds of people he does not know. He does not subject the individuals of this horde to any standard. He openly accepts them and rarely assigns a selfish value to any of them. The individual depends on the collective to make him happy instead of making himself happy by choosing a friend he values more than all other people. In essence what occurs at the stereotypical spring break is an individual becomes part of a collective. In a friendship one individual selfishly chooses another individual, and other other individual selfishly chooses the choosing individual. In friendship individuality and independence are maintained, in the stereotypical spring break the individual becomes dependent and adopts the collective identity to be happy.
I believe the purpose of life is to be happy; therefore, it would appear I would be in favor of the generic spring break because people are just making a capitalistic exchange to be happy. However, I would argue that these people are not truly happy. A person that must depend on others to be happy is not happy. A person who engages is such activity is also self-loathing. Since the person is hates himself he searches for other people who like him in order to make himself feel better. In other words, the individual needs others to affirm his existence instead of affirming his own existence himself. This is also present in sleeping around. Obviously, sleeping around is of a collectivist nature because the individual assigns little selfish value to his own body and in turn shares it with several people. The selfish and proud individual is extremely selective as to who he sleeps with because he assigns a high value to his own body; therefore, he only sleeps with people he values highly. Thus, sleeping around is just the same as the rest of the collectivist activities at spring break. The person who sleeps around dislikes himself and dislikes his body; consequently, he seeks other people to sleep with him in order to make him believe he is a good person and his body is not as bad as he believes it is. Once again the individual depends on others to affirm his existence instead of affirming his own existence.
This is clearly all extremely irrational; however, the most irrational element is the inordinate amount of drinking. Drinking alcohol is not like drinking water, or juice, or soda. Of course, alcohol affects one's mental capacity in a certain way, but that is not what I am talking about here. Alcohol has a purpose which water, juice, and soda do not have. Alcohol is the drink of celebration. People drink alcohol when they have accomplished something, and I do not mean they accomplished something like, "Yeah I made it to Florida for spring break." Doing that required no skill, no work, no creativity, no thought. You went to airport, bought a ticket, and got on a plane. That is no reason to celebrate. Producing, creating, achieving, and accomplishing something difficult something that requires skill, though, work, and creativity is a reason to celebrate. Writing and book and having it published is a reason to celebrate. Making a movie is a reason to celebrate. Graduating from college and high school is also a reason to celebrate. Those events are what alcohol is for. This is also all very rational. The drink that causes decreased mental capacity is saved for celebrating. It is saved for the period after intense mental thought and work. It is saved for the period of relaxation, the period of delayed gratification, between two projects. Of course, the irrational mob uses alcohol whenever. They strip alcohol of its rational meaning. They devalue alcohol by overly using it. Of course, that is their right to choose to engage in such activities, but just because it is their right does not make it correct. It is not virtuous to behave irrationally. However, that is what people on spring break do. Additionally, people who overuse and devalue alcohol actually admit that alcohol is supposed to only be saved for celebrations because they create pseudo-celebrations in order to drink. Spring break is disguised to look like a massive party; however, the party has absolutely no meaning. Therefore, people on spring break are striping meaning from alcohol and from celebrations.

Mill and Incest Aren’t that Bad

This past week in my Political Theory and Political Literature classes, both of which are taught by the same professor, some interesting topics of discussion arose. In my Political Theory class the assigned reading was John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty, and in my Political Literature class the assigned reading was Montesquieu’s The Persian Letters.

When I first noticed I would have to read Mill in one of my classes I was somewhat annoyed meaning I felt a combination of anger and skepticism. For some reason I thought Mill was a socialist, so I did not think he would have any convincing arguments. That was the skepticism aspect. The anger came from knowing that everyone in class would jump on board with a socialist. Even though his arguments would have no logical basis the whole classes would just hop on board because it does not matter if someone’s arguments are reasonable as long as they are all fluffy and sound nice on the outside. Of course, deep in its core socialism is rotten because it advocates armed robbery, but no altruism is just so wonderful that it does not matter how rotten the center is. Of course, I have already addressed this topic, and I will address it more fully on other occasions.

The truth about Mill is that he really was not a socialist. I think I read that about him on wikipedia. Apparently, he was a socialist towards the end of his life, but On Liberty has no socialist leanings. The argument Mill makes in On Liberty is that the government must become as small as possible so as to allow people as much freedom as possible. Mill never discusses whether or not man has any natural rights such as John Locke does, but Mill is half way there. Instead of natural rights being his reasoning for the government not stealing man’s liberties is that man has no idea what the best way of life is; therefore, by allowing man to be as free as possible individuals will be able to experiment with several different modes of life. In turn the likelihood that the best mode of life will be discovered is higher. In other words, according to Mill, man should be free in order to discover truth. Mill makes an extremely good point. Freedom acknowledges that man still has much to learn. Of course, freedom is a man’s natural right, but that is a discussion for another day. In contrast to freedom, tyranny acts as man has all the answers already. This reminds me of Stefan Molyneux’s discussion on God, which I covered in an earlier post. Any kind of tyranny, government, religion, dogma, ideology, etc. believes man has discovered all the answers; therefore, man stops searching for the answers. To use Molyneux’s metaphor tyranny is like a man in the back seat screaming, “You’re home! You’re home!” so the driving stops because he thinks he is home. However, the man is in the middle of the woods and just assumes he lives there. According to Mill, this is exactly what tyranny is. Therefore, freedom is the man who continues driving, searching for his home. This reminds me of quote from Einstein. I have these Libertarian quotes that rotate on my facebook profile, and the quote from Einstein basically says that man only produces in free societies. This statement just concurs with Mill’s line of thinking and Molyneux’s line of thinking.

Another point Mill brings up is that he does not think men are incredibly individual. For Mill individuality is essential for discovering truth, but every where he looks men are the same. Now, Mill wrote On Liberty some time in the mid 1800’s, so, of course, everyone in the class assumes, “Well, the 1800’s were so long ago. Mill can no longer be right. Men are incredibly individual nowadays. Look we have the Internet and technology we can do anything.” However, a breath later they accuse the college of not being diverse enough. I will ignore this contradiction to focus on a more important point. Their reasoning for my particular college not being diverse enough is that there are not enough minority groups and the different socioeconomic brackets are not represented. However, they admit my college is diverse in thought. These students have it all wrong. Firstly, just look at what these people are doing. They say more minorities and socioeconomic brackets need to be represented. Mill would argue that these are extremely shallow elements of individuality and they have almost no impact. You are black I am white, you are rich I am poor. So what? Race, culture, socioeconomic brackets does not make people truly individuals. A black man and a white man, a rich man and a poor man, could think the exactly same things. Individuality is in someone’s brain not on someone’s face. Secondly, these students are assuming all minorities will think the exact same things, and those thoughts will be different from the majority. They are doing exactly what Mill says people are guilty of. Individuals are stripped of their individuality and forced into these groups of collective thought. I disagreed with the rest of the class and pointed out these facts. I also pointed out that people actually do think the same. Though many people look different and come from different cultures and what not they all think the same things. For example, the two major elements of political thought in America are incredibly close on the political spectrum. Every election for every elected official to the government encompasses the exact same issues, and there is very little difference of opinion on those issues. The cause of this is most probably the education system in America. Public education, and probably much private education, is not concerned with teaching people to think. Education is concerned with giving information and making the students accept the information. No one can exhibit individuality if they do not know how to think independently. Everyone just accepts the same things, government good, religion good, altruism good. This is almost exactly the same as the man in the back of the car shouting, “You’re home! You’re home!”

Of course, the class discussion on Mill unearthed one other issue. Since Mill believes there is a truth, and exploring different modes of life will lead man to the truth, that means some modes of life are wrong and other modes of life are right. The class’s response: “Oh my God, how can this be true? How can you tell another person his culture, customs, his way of life is wrong?” Mill argued culture and customs were actually barricades to individuality and discovering truth. However, that is somewhat of a digression. These people continually fail to realize what they are saying. I have discussed this in my earliest post, but I am going to discuss it again. If you cannot judge another way of life, if every way of life is good, then there is no bad. Consequently, Nazism is equally as good as democracy. This is, of course, a lie, but these moral relativists and cultural diversitists do not think about that. They think of all the poor little cultures that the majority say is bad. I would argue this majority does not exist. I would argue the majority is cultural diversitists. Any way the cultures they are talking about are tribal cultures in third world countries. The cultures that fear nature, barely have any clothes, live in thatch houses, and believe in mysticism. I do not and will never respect these cultures. I also think I have Mill on my side when I say these cultures on wrong. Clearly, their way of life is horrible. People are less happy and less healthy. There is also no individuality or independence, everything is collective. There is no freedom only collective tyranny. Also these cultures have a man permanently locked in the back seat of their car, or carriage, or horse, or just walking behind them, shouting, “You’re home! You’re home!” However, this metaphor is more closely related to reality this time because in this circumstance the people are actually living in the woods and not looking to get out of the woods. Once again the class also brought up the point of tolerance; however, Mill agrees with me. One should be tolerant of other modes of living. Remember Mill wants people to have more freedom to explore other modes of freedom. He does not want to stop people from living any way they want. Neither do I. However, Mill argues, and I agree, this does not stop one from judging; in fact one should be tolerant of other modes of living while also being judgmental of them.

Now, onto incest. In Montesquieu’s The Persian Letters one of the travelers, Usbek or Rica I cannot remember, tells the story of a Zoroastrian brother and sister whole fall in love with one another and have a child. Firstly, this child may very well be deformed with gills or an extra set of toes, but that is of no importance. The story of the Zoroastrian is used to contrast the tyranny of the Biblical religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, which in the novel is called Mohammedanism. However, the story has this one element, incest, which is supposed to make it detestable. So while the Zoroastrian is appealing there is that one quality that makes people back away from his way of life. After discussing this for a few moments the professor informed us that Montesquieu never understood why incest was so bad. This changes the entire meaning of the Zoroastrian story. The story makes the Zoroastrian look good in order to show that incest is not all that bad. After thinking about it for a few moments I realized there was no problem with incest. Personally, I am not attracted to my sister in such a way, but I can understand if someone else would. Incest is completely consensual. No one is initiating force on any one else. The problem is that it is just not orthodox, but like Mill said orthodox is a barricade. I would have to agree. Many extremes to orthodoxy are actually not that bad. This might be because orthodox is extremely wrong so its opposite is extremely right, but I will explore this at a later date. This discussion on incest also points out another problem I have: marriage. The problem I have with marriage is actually unorthodox from the problem many other people have with marriage. Many people who dislike marriage argue, “Why should I have to commit myself to one person?” This is not my issue. I do not care if anyone commits himself to one person or a hundred. That is that person’s choice. The problem I have with marriage is that it is approved by the government or a religion. It is none of the government’s business to approve a marriage. A marriage concerns only the individuals involved. I do not say two individuals because marriage should be able to involve as many individuals as possible. See the government sets up all these restrictions on marriage, these people can get married, these people cannot, only two people can be involved, it has to be a man and a woman. Here is an idea. How about the government stops approving marriages and just lets people live how they want to live. In this case the government is not exactly forcing marriages on people, but people seem to think marriage only exists because of the government or religion. I do not need the government or a religion to affirm that I want to live the rest of my life with one person or fifty people. I can do that myself. Marriage once again highlights the laziness and irresponsibility of people. If people were responsible for their own lives there would be no need for the government or religion to approve marriages. Also, by having control of marriage, government is just doing what it does best. It abuses its authority. It decides what marriage is and then initiates force against people who have innocent yet unorthodox marriages approved by the government. Of course, the people did have to trick the government to approve the marriage, but lying is not proportionally punished by suing, especially in this case where lying has caused absolutely no harm. The government should stop approving marriages because it is not its purpose and it become tyrannical with the control.

Daylight Saving Time is Irrational

Today was the day to turn the clock ahead an hour and pretend that everything was different. Nothing was different. Daylight Saving Time (DST) is completely irrational. Basically, all DST does is change the name of the hours. Time does not change. It exists in the same pattern regardless of whether or not someone says it is one o' clock or two o' clock. However, what is most disturbing about DST is that it is ordered by the government. Therefore, DST is just one of two times of a year when the government decides that the hours are going to be called by a different name. Firstly, this is not the government's purpose. The government's purpose is to protect man's natural rights. Changing the time has nothing to do with protecting man's natural rights. Secondly, the fact that the government is allowed to change the time is disturbing. As I have already said time exists in the same pattern regardless of what someone calls it. However, allowing the government to change the time indicates that people believe the government determines truth. Obviously, the government is not really changing the time, it's just renaming the hour; however, some people believe that an hour is actually gained or lost. Therefore, people believe the government decides the truth. The government does not have the power to decide the truth. The truth exists outside of the government. The truth is not meant to be controlled but discovered. In actually the truth cannot be controlled, even if some people think the government is controlling the truth it really is not. Controlling the truth is just lying. Furthermore, the government does not have the right to rename the hours twice a year. That is like letting the government have the power to decide that "dog" no longer refers to a canine, but now refers to an apple. This has a eerie 1984 element to it. Letting the government rename apple "dog" is violating a man's natural right of liberty. I'll call an apple whatever the hell I want to call it. Of course, I choose to follow the standard that "apple" means an apple because I want to communicate with people to get things I want, but that is a choice I make. I do not want the government initiating force against anyone in order to force people to call objects different names. The same goes for time. The government should not be allowed to enforce any renaming of time. The naming of time should be left to the people. That's who it rightly belongs to anyway.

Another Problem with Religion

I almost forgot my other huge problem with religion. It is short so I decided to place it in an additional post. The fact that people need a religion to tell them the difference between virtue and vice is disgusting. I have often heard people ask, "If you are an atheist how can you believe in morals." Well I have a brain, and I use it. Why is it so hard to assume that I can use my reason to figure out what is right and wrong? People who believe in God are so self-loathing. By believing in God they are saying, "Oh, I am just too simple and dumb to figure out what right and wrong is myself. I need an incomprehensible, contradictory, incoherently complex, imaginary being to tell me what is right and wrong." People give man so little credit. I give man a lot of credit. He has this amazing potential because he has this extraordinary tool called reason. The things he can accomplish with that are wonderful. Only if people would not be so lazy and actually use it for a change.

Jumper and Atheism

No these two are not related. Far from it. These are just the two topics I am discussing. First, I will begin with my movie of the week Jumper. I knew before going into the theater this was going to be a horrible film, partly because of Ebert's review that I read ahead of time, and I have to say I was not disappointed. This moving picture was absolutely atrocious for the its twisted disgusting theme. I give the movie one star. I would have given it a half a star, but Samuel L. Jackson was alright and his villain was actually pretty good. I will begin my review by pointing out the smaller problems. Small problem number one: the acting was atrocious. This is probably because the only real actor in the film is Samuel L. Jackson. It appears Samuel L. Jackson is an incredibly expensive actor because all the movie could afford for the other roles were Abercrombie & Fitch models. They may look good in their hip modern day clothes, but they have no idea how to make pretend appear to be reality. Every words they spoke just pulled me right out of the film and sat me back in my seat. In all seriousness studios are probably purposefully hiring these people just because they look good and not because they act well. The reason for this is because it sells. The majority of people are just going to go see the movie because Female Abercrombie & Fitch Model from One Tree Hill is going to be with Male Abercrombie & Fitch Model without foreign accent and Male Abercrombie & Fitch Model with foreign accent. The majority of people are interested in watching pretty young hip cats and kittens on the silver screen together. The majority of people are not interested in seeing a good movie. Small problem number two: illogical element. When David (Male Abercrombie & Fitch model without foreign accent) and Griffin (Male Abercrombie & Fitch model with foreign accent) teleport themselves they cause significant damage to the area they are leaving from and arriving in, but nobody notices. For example David (Male Abercrombie & Fitch model without foreign accent) teleports himself from a lake to a library knocking books on the floor and bringing a whole bunch of water with him, but no one says, "Hey, where the hell did all that water come from," or more importantly, "Hey, where the hell did that person come from." A similar instance is when he creates a crater in when he teleports himself into a hospital room. Now the major thematic problem with this movie is that David (Male Abercrombie & Fitch model without foreign accent) and Griffin (Male Abercrombie & Fitch model with foreign accent) steal all the time. They are nothing more than common thieves with the ability to teleport. However, the film portrays these people as heroes. Therefore, the theme of the film is, "Hey, if you can teleport it's alright for you to violate other people's property rights." Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. Teleportation is not a free pass to violate another's natural rights despite what the prestigious motion picture Jumper may say. Now if the jumpers were just stealing stuff the whole movie and detective Samuel L. Jackson came and busted them saying, "I have had it with these motherfucking jumpers stealing all this motherfucking shit," that would have been just fine. However, Samuel L. Jackson was a real villain. He was a religious crazy who thought only God should have the right to teleport. Also, very wrong. Man should always try to progress regardless of what their contradictory incomprehensible imaginary friends say. However, by putting such a villain in the movie, trying to kill the jumpers, the vicious jumpers become heroes. What would have been interesting is if one jumper was vicious and the other was virtuous and Samuel L. Jackson was still a villain. Then there could be a excellent theme developed. The virtuous jumper using his teleportation to produce and create greatness could save the thieving jumper from the murderous Samuel L. Jackson only to turn him into the authorities for stealing. Also, another problem I have with these movies is that these people have the power to teleport and they have decided to steal. How lame. They could have robbed banks before. If they want these jumpers to be real vicious make them use their power for world domination or something. These jumpers could teleport themselves into the homes of world leaders and kill them, but no they rob banks and car dealerships. Boring. Unfortunately, I smell a sequel to this piece of garbage.
Now onto a discussion on atheism because over the past week I have been involved with much discussion on the topic. As one can see in my previous post on "Anonymous," or even in this post I do not much care for religion or the belief in supernatural beings. As I understand it one should have some convincing scientific evidence to believe in something. See I am not even calling for conclusive scientific evidence. For example there is no conclusive scientific evidence for how gravity works or that evolution exists; however, there is some convincing scientific evidence. All the pieces are not there to prove it, but there are enough to be pretty sure it exists and understand a few things about it. It is kind of like a puzzle. It is not like there are two pieces on the table and someone is saying or its a picture of an invisible pink unicorn. This person does not have enough evidence to prove it is a picture of an invisible pink unicorn. In reality there are many pieces of these puzzles on the board and one can actually see a few hooves, the mane, the horn, some pink, some invisibility. No one is quite sure what pose this invisible pink unicorn is in, but they know it's there. This is not the case for God. There are no pieces on the board of the God puzzle but people keep saying God exists. This is a blatant logical fallacy. Faith is just an excuse to be ignorant, and I do not buy it. I believe people should have to logically answer for their beliefs, and if someone believes in a supernatural being I accept that there is something faulty in that person's logic. This is the reason I am an atheist, or what I call a weak atheist. I will not believe in God until there are enough puzzle pieces on the board. This is actually points to the problem I have with agnostics. Agnostics argues they are not sure whether God exists or not so they will not choose a side. The problem with this is that no one needs to prove that God does not exist. This is the essence of skepticism. The skeptic is not required to prove that something is untrue, it is the believer who is required the prove that something is true. Agnosticism removes all responsibility from the believer. As I said before believers have to answer for what they believe in. However, there is another element of my atheism. Even if someone proves to me God does exist does not necessarily mean I will follow him. If God does exist I assume he is like the God religious texts like the Bible, Torah, and Qur'an, meaning if God does exist I assume he is a bastard. Read the Bible sometimes God is not a good being. He does not want Adam and Eve to eat from the tree of knowledge, he kills everyone by drowning them when they do not please him, he tortures an innocent man to see if he has strong faith in Him so He can win a bet with the devil, and He allows His innocent son to die as collective payment for all man's sins. What a complete asshole. Furthermore, He claims He provides man with free will and throughout the Bible He keeps interrupting man's life. The best example I can think of is when he rapes Mary. How much more intrusive on someone's free will can someone get. God is a tyrannical bastard, and if He existed I would do everything within my power to destroy him. Actually, everything I just spoke about summarizes another problem I have with God and believers in God. The being is contradictory. He is completely amoral. He sets up these standards, such as thou shalt not kill, and He kills people all the time. The being is incomprehensible and contradictory. It completely stuns me as to how people could believe in this. When someone says he believes in God he is saying I follow the orders of an incomprehensible, contradictory, imaginary being. Holy shit I say. Run away as fast as you can this person could do anything. This person is just as dangerous as a moral relativist. He believes in an imaginary being. It cannot be seen, there is no proof of its existence. It is incomprehensible on two levels. First, it is consciousness without reason, and it is energy without matter. That cannot exist. Secondly, it is incomprehensible because no one knows what the hell it's going to do. Incomprehensible also serves as an excuse for God. Believers say this all the time, "Oh, He is far too complex to understand." That means people should accept whatever he does without question. Such as initiating force against innocent people.
All these reasons are exactly why I believe Church and state should be completely separated. The state is already messed up beyond all recognition. The state is already completely illogical. Adding religion to the equation just adds another layer of irrationality, but even worse it adds an accepted excuse for being irrational. I do not accept this excuse. "Because God said so," is never a free pass in my book, but plenty of people think it is. Another reason I believe Church and state should be separated is because religion is against the search for truth. Religion is a pseudo-philosophy. It comes along and tells people this is what to believe and people say, "Oh, okay," and then they stop searching for the truth. Stefan Molyneux talked about this on Freedomain Radio podcast 1001. He argues religion provides non-answers that stop people from searching for the real answers. The metaphor he makes is that if someone is driving a car and thinks he is home, then he stops driving. Religion is shouting, "You are home! You are home!" when the driving is miles away from home, but the driving stops anyway and just says, "Well I guess I live out here in the woods." To have anyone especially the state operate on these non-answers is completely ridiculous, but people do it all the time. Knowing all this it appears fairly obvious that Church and state should not be mixed, but in my Political Theory class my professor discussed John Locke's Letter Concerning Toleration. Apparently, Locke wanted a separation of Church and state, but he wanted the Church to still exist. As he saw it the Church provided some good civic purpose such as good morals and it naturally divided the people so they would not all give into to government. Firstly, religious morality, altruism, is horrible. It is completely wrong, and it significantly impacts people and man as a whole in a negative way. However, that will be discussed another time. In regards to splitting people up naturally I have a better idea. Instead of a whole bunch of irrational groups with a variety of non-answers providing a check against the government how about the people actually search for the real truth. How about people act logically; therefore, there would be a virtuous check not a moronic amoral check on the government. Of course, Locke also takes a crack at atheists saying all religions should be tolerated except atheists. I somewhat have to side with Locke on this one, but only partially. When Locke wrote this the reason atheists were a cause for fear was because they were amoral. Other religions at least provided some, yet severely warped, objective morality. Today, moral relativists are still to fear, but rational atheists are actually the best people. Atheists accept there is not enough proof for God, and this is already a step in the right direction to requiring a logical argument for all beliefs and actions. Of course, many atheists do not make it all the way. Some atheists just want to act amorally and they should be feared, but there is still a significant number that have taken the next step to Objectivism. In response to Locke's attack on atheists my professor brought up that all atheists regimes that existed were communist regimes; therefore, he argued that atheism is probably still a bad idea. The problem is these atheists are plagued by moral altruism. They were atheistic and collective, so without a God they adopt the community, the greater good, as the highest priority. In turn one gets a large, aggressive, and ultimately unsuccessful government. If atheists are logical they will be individualistic; therefore, without God their self takes the highest priority. In order to preserve one's self a small, weak, possibly successful state takes form. In this case a state would not be at all necessary. Of course, these arguments receive no credit in class because, "My God, it is John Locke. John Locke is infallible." To this I say read his Second Treatise on Government, he provides a cloaked defense of slavery. The problem with proclaiming someone is infallible, is that they never have to answer for their beliefs and actions.

"Anonymous" and Comments on Recent Talkback

Last night in my Introduction to Fiction Writing class one of the short stories the class was reviewing concerned religious cults. Of course, Scientology was brought up in the conversation because Scientology is really just the funniest of all religions. When I say "funniest" I mean most comedic; however, in this context "funniest" could also be interpreted as strangest. Even though I find Scientology the most comedic religion it really is not that much more ridiculous than other religions. In Scientology there was apparently some intergalactic war millions of years ago, and the souls of the dead aliens now posses human beings. In Christianity God impregnated (I would argue raped) a human being and she was able to give birth to God's son without losing her virginity. This son then went on to perform magic tricks like turning water into wine, then wine into his blood to wash down the bread he turned into his flesh. Christianity also argues that 3 = 1, meaning the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three beings but they only make one God. This 3 = 1 reminds me of 2 + 2 = 5 from 1984. I always think that is worth nothing because like the government in 1984 God can make up facts, meaning God can never be wrong when He actually really is wrong. Judaism believes that a Moses was not crazy even though he carried on a conversation with a burning bush. They also follow a religion that preaches peace accept when they have to invade a land their imaginary friend told them was theirs. Islam believes that Mohamed ascended into heaven on a horse even though horses do not fly. Islam also has a similar problem to Judaism in that they preach peace accept when they have to kill people innocently practicing different beliefs. Be aware I am not talking about the terrorists I am talking about the slaughters and massacres of innocent pagans carried out by Mohamed and his cadre. You can read about this in the Qur'an, which is the same book that preaches peace. As you can see by comparison Scientology is not all that strange. The reason people laugh is because the other religions have heaven, God, and angels instead of other planets, intergalactic war lords, and aliens.
In any event when the conversation digressed into Scientology I learned that a video of Tom Cruise speaking about his personal beliefs in Scientology had been released on Youtube. So part of my day I spent watching this video and it was somewhat entertaining in a disturbing sort of way. He used abbreviations like SP, or suppressive person also known as non-believer, and KSW, or Keeping Scientology Working by the prestigious L. Ron Hubbard. Hearing abbreviations like this always reminds me of 1984. Obviously, every organization has their own jargon and abbreviations, but I just keep associating 1984 with religion because they are basically the same. After watching the Tom Cruise Scientology video I saw a related video titled Message to Scientology. I thought it was going to be a bunch of disgruntled people shouting at a camera about how stupid Scientology was, and one of them would say something like, "America's a Christian nation." However, the video was spoken by the generic computer voice that come with every PC stating that they were a group of people calling themselves "Anonymous" who were declaring war on Scientology. I found another video from "Anonymous," and it said that they were declaring war on the Church of Scientology and not the believers themselves. I would argue it is impossible to draw the line. After hearing these videos I assumed they were made by some teenagers bored on a Saturday afternoon, but I wanted to make sure I was correct so I searched for "anonymous scientology" on Google and found a whole list of articles about Internet hackers calling themselves "Anonymous" who were destroying Scientology websites and stealing Scientology documents. "Anonymous" actually has there own wiki page explaining how a non-member of "Anonymous" can help their war effort. I am in favor of protesting religion and intellectually challenging religion, but hacking into website and stealing documents is no good. Firstly, people have a right to believe in whatever philosophy they choose. Even though many of those philosophies like Scientology, Christianity, Islam, and Judaism it is a person's natural right of liberty and pursuit of happiness to believe in such philosophies. Secondly, "Anonymous" is initiating force against the Church of Scientology, and all initiation of force is vicious. "Anonymous" will argue that the Church of Scientology has convinced people to surrender their life savings to the church, and that through their other practices the Church of Scientology has ruined several lives. I would point out that the Church of Scientology has not actually stolen money from people or intentionally ruined people's lives. Following Scientology, or any religion, can certainly ruin someone's life, but that individual must choose to follow the religion. People chose to give their life savings to the Church of Scientology, people chose to accept everything Scientology said. The Church of Scientology is wrong, but what happened to those people is their own fault. I am not saying "Anonymous" should halt its whole campaign. I think they should continue challenging Scientology and I think they should expand to challenging every religion. However, they should remove the force plank from their platform. Destroying websites and stealing documents is an initiation of force that violates an individual's natural right of property.
I would also like to point out that the government should actually be trying to stop "Anonymous" actions that violate people's natural rights. I have not read many articles about "Anonymous's" war, but it appears the government is doing nothing. Of course there is an excellent upside to this. I believe it is government's purpose to use force against those that initiate force, like "Anonymous;" however, I would really rather not see the government involved in this Internet war. The government would just call for more laws to be passed so they could expand its power and limit people's rights on the Internet. What I do like is that the Church of Scientology has hired a private organization called Prolexic, which is basically like a private security firm for a website. This is clearly a step in the right direction. Government would cause a whole variety of problems on the Internet if it tried to combat "Anonymous;" however, Prolexic is defending the Church of Scientology and several other people on the Internet from initiations of force from people like "Anonymous." There is no reason for the government to get involved, and I think people should follow the Internet example of the Church of Scientology and Prolexic by bringing more of that kind of security into the physical world.
Now to move on to Talkback, which is a podcast I listen to concerning entertainment from a fan's standpoint. What I mean by that is the hosts of Talkback, The Merc and Have Hope, are fans of specific franchises. For example Batman, Superman, Rambo, Indiana Jones, Terminator, etc. On their show and website The Merc, Have Hope, and on occasions special guests comment on new films coming to the silver screen from a fan's standpoint. Talkback argues that many of the franchise films such as Superman are not given the respect they deserve; consequently, Hollywood studios take these franchises and make horrible films. Talkback argues, and I agree, the reason Hollywood studios do this is because they are only concerned with making money. Talkback calls it greed, I say it is an irrational focus on money. Let me clarify myself for I am an Objectivist and right now I sound like a collectivist. I support Hollywood studios' right to make any movie they want with whatever franchises they own; however, this does not make the movies good. I understand Hollywood studios are business are they need money in order to function. However, my problem is the studios are not concerned with the work they are concerned with the money. I am reminded of Ayn Rand's novel The Fountainhead answers no, and that is the truth. Howard at the point where Ellsworth Toohey asks Peter Keating if Howard Roark like money. Peter Keating Roark is not concerned with money he is concerned with his work. Howard is concerned with producing the greatest possible buildings he can create; money is just the reward for his work. This also reminds me of Ayn Rand's other novel Atlas Shrugged. At one point Hank Rearden says he will never sell anything for less than it is worth. Howard and Hank Rearden have the same philosophy. Howard and Hank are both concerned with producing the best possible creations; however, they will not accept anything less than what it is worth. In other words, they put a lot of work into what they create, they are proud of it, they will not give it away like hard candy. This is the approach the studios need to have. Currently, the studios' approach is that they will create whatever they need to make the most money. If the worst movie to ever make it to the silver screen makes them the most money they will do it. They are putting the importance of money before the importance of work. Studios need to have the understanding that every time they make a movie they should try to make the best movie possible, and whatever they create should earn the money it deserves. If the studios had this approach then characters like Superman and Batman would get the proper respect. Honestly superheroes and other franchises have incredibly interesting characters, and those characters should be used to explore interesting themes. Most of the time, however, studios produces movies like Batman Forever and Batman & Robin.
In the most recent episode of Talkback they addressed this topic in respect to video games. However, another interesting topic came up. Every time there is a school shooting, like the several occurring at universities in America, parents always point their fingers at the gaming industry. Talkback argued, and I completely agree, parents are shirking their responsibility. As I understand it when parents have a child they basically own that child's life until he is eighteen. That child is just short of being the parent's property. Therefore, it is the parent's fault if their ten year old is playing a Mature rated game. Talkback pointed out that conservative favorite news station Fox News had a guest on arguing that children were going to get their hands on the video game anyway. I really have no idea how this is possible. Video games are locked up behind glass cases, which store clerks need to unlock. Furthermore, if store clerk looks down at a ten year old, sees the ten year old buying a Mature rated video game, and that ten year old has no parent around the store clerk will not sell that ten year old the Mature rated video game. Unless there is some elaborate video game black market for elementary school children to buy Mature rated video games there is no way these children are getting the video games without the help of some adult. Maybe there is an extensive adult renting service for elementary school children. The child can pose for the store clerk with the rented adult so the store clerk believes the child is buying the Mature rated video game with the permission of his parent, but I doubt it.
Furthermore, the logic of blaming a school shooting on the video game industry is ridiculous. If that argument is valid let me supply three more valid explanations that should be given equal credit. The city provided the electricity for the individual to play the video game; therefore, it is the city's fault. He was wearing Nike sneakers when he attacked the school. If Nike had been more careful as to who they were giving their sneakers to the shooting would not have happened. He use a gun made by Colt to attack the school. It is Colt's fault for making guns. Colt is responsible for the shooting. Selling electricity, shoes, guns, and video games do not sell an individual the permission to violate others' natural rights. The city, Nike, Colt, and BioWare did not initiate any force, it was the shooter who chose to initiate force. Responsibility completely lies on the shooter because he chose to commit the act. Responsibility does not shift to those that sold the shooter his supplies or inspiration. Again those items were not complete with permission to initiate force. The responsibility is not passed to the peaceful suppliers.
I think this shifting of responsibility from shooter to business man is related to parents shirking their responsibilities. The problem manifests from the idea of collectivism. The concept that all of humanity is in "it," whatever it is, together causes people to shed responsibility. If humanity is all in "it" together then no one has to care for himself because everyone is caring for everyone else. Not only is this a vicious way to live, but it is a blatant lie. People try to argue they are living altruistically, but they are not. Everyone lives selfishly whether they admit it or not. People are naturally selfish and it is incredibly difficult, nearly impossible, to commit a truly altruistic action. If people would just embrace their selfishness and stop trying to live under the vicious guise of altruism then people would stop shedding responsibility because they would realize they have complete responsibility for their own actions. Since the majority believes everyone is living altruistically when no one really is, they keep passing responsibility to people who are not responsible. There is this obvious and horrible disconnect existing. People pass responsibility when no one is behaving altruistically. If people were truly living altruistically then it would make more sense to pass responsibility on to someone else because an individual would not be caring for himself, another individual would be caring for him. However, man lives in this lie that they are altruistic or should be so they think they can pass responsibility, even though everyone is living selfishly, which makes the passing of responsibility utterly illogical. I would argue altruism and passing responsibility is always illogical, but it would make more sense if people were actually living the way they thought they were. Once again this is not to say it would be completely logical or that it would be good, only that it would make more sense. In reality altruism and shedding responsibility is always irrational and always vicious.

Machiavelli and Comments on MEcosystem

Today and last Friday my Political Theory professor has been reviewing Machiavelli's play titled Mandragola. The basic theme of the play is that people should not follow their morals because morality just gets in the way of people's happiness. Let me make it clear that I am not supporting Machiavelli's theme in Mandragola because it argues man should kill, steal, and lie to get ahead. I generally knew this about Machiavelli before reading Mandragola because in high school in my English and History classes I learned about his most favorite work The Prince. However, I am going to argue Mandragola does highlight an important problem with man's understanding of morality. As I already stated the theme of Mandragola is that morality makes people unhappy. The important question to ask here is whether or not morality should make people unhappy? The answer is obviously no. The reason morals are developed are so people can have a rational guide to living happier lives. Though the real theme of Mandragola is that no one should follow any morals what people should gather from Mandragola is that maybe the morals Machiavelli is commenting on are wrong. In Mandragola the two moral systems challenged are that of religion, specifically the Catholic church, and classical virtue, meaning the virtues of people like Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle. If one compares the theme of Mandragola to the message of the Catholic church and the classics there is a major difference aside from the fact that one argues for amorality while the other argues for morality. The major difference is Mandragola argues people should be happy while the Catholic church and the classics argue people should be better. "Better" for the Catholic church means satisfying God, and "better" for the classics means being virtuous determined by objective truth. The the classics' definition of "better" is certainly more admirable than the Catholic church's, but they are both utterly wrong. Both the Catholic church and the classics' argued for altruistic morality, which actually makes people more miserable. One should consider whether being "better" should make him more miserable, or happier. As I understand the purpose of life is to be happy; therefore, being "better" should make one happy not miserable. This means the stereotypical understanding of morality, altruistic morality, defined by religions like Catholicism and the classics' is wrong. This is exactly what people should gather from Mandragola. Though Machiavelli's characters lie throughout Mandragola they are more closely following rational selfish morality than irrational altruistic morality; therefore, there is some merit to the theme of Mandragola. My favorite part, and also the most convincing part, in the play is when Callimaco, through lying which is not virtuous mind you, finally ends up in bed with, Lucrezia, the woman he has been pining after. Lucrezia then explains that she hates her husband and likes Callimaco far better, and decides to abandon her arbitrary religious morality to sleep with Callimaco and be happy. I immediately thought of the relationship between Dagny Taggart and Hank Rearden in Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. Before I move on let me reiterate one more time that I do not entirely agree with the theme of Mandragola. Even when Lucrezia speaks with Callimaco about choosing him to be happy she says some other things which I do not particularly care for. Also, the rampant lying used to accomplish the task is not admirable.
In regards to MEcosystem this concept actually comes from Stefan Molyneux of Freedomain Radio. I believe he specifically addresses the concept in podcast 996, and as I understand it MEcosystem encompasses all the elements of one's self. However, Molyneux argues many of an average person's self elements are repressed; therefore, the average person does not have a functioning MEcosystem. Basically, like an ecosystem needs specific plants, animals, climates, etc. to function properly a person needs every element of his self in order to function properly. It appears Molyneux is seriously developing a topic I have considered. I have argued that most people are not happy because they have been conditioned not to think. Through school, interactions with friends, school, etc. people have been conditioned to accept stereotypes about life, such as altruism is a virtue. In turn people do not really know how to live because they have never really thought about life, their purpose, morality, truth, etc.; they just go through the motions of the stereotypes they have accepted without thought. Molyneux develops this idea far beyond what I have considered. I admit I do not have a complete grasp on Molyneux's argument as of yet. From what I can tell Molyneux starts off with a point similar to mine: school and family repress certain elements of an individual's self. He continues to argue that just cause these elements are repressed does not mean they are dead. He compares these repressed elements to the private sector in a communist society. Just because the government represses the private sector does not mean it is destroyed. Instead the private sector goes into the black market. In other words, Molyneux is saying an individual's repressed elements are operating, but he does not know they are operating and their operation is limited. A specific element he says is in an individual's "black market" is creativity. I would also argue thinking. Molyneux argues, and I agree, what repressed creativity and thinking was sitting people in rows and having a man write stuff on a board to copy. I would agree the style of education does repress these elements, and I would argue privatizing all education would solve this problem. However, that is a discussion for another day. In regards to the point that the repressed elements are not dead but in a "black market" indicates that these elements do convey themselves occasionally. According to Molyneux, it is in our instinctual emotional responses that these elements present themselves. I do not believe Molyneux is speaking about an average person's emotional response to hearing generic disaster on the news or to some stranger saying he just experienced a tragedy. I believe those are conditioned responses that are actually killing the MEcosystem. I am sure Molyneux is speaking about self criticism, anger, and annoyance. The problem is what schools and families have conditioned people to do represses those responses, so they rarely reveal themselves and when they do the person is confused as to what he is feeling and tries to ignore it. Basically, the individual tries to repress it himself partly because he is confused as to what it is, and also because he has been conditioned to repress such feelings. I thought about my past week and discovered a few examples of a raw emotion hitting me, and my response was just to explain it away instead of understand it. Obviously, since I am concerned with living consciously I should be concerned with understanding raw emotions. I did not believe I was unknowingly conditioned, but it appears I have been. In turn I try to understand these emotions know, meaning I try to understand what they are telling me about myself and what I think of other people. I found it difficult to discover any certain answers. Molyneux attributes this to the elements "black market" behavior. It is as if the elements know they are illegal. This does not mean they try to avoid operating, but they try to avoid being repressed. Molyneux compared addressing the elements blatantly to a DEA officer walking down the streets of a drug neighborhood saying, "The drug war is over. It is safe to come out." The drug dealers will not come out because they will believe it is a ploy so the government can just arrest them. The problem is the same with the individual's "black market" self. He cannot just start thinking about them or trying to discover them because they will run away. They will believe it is a ploy just so the individual, school, family, etc. can repress them when they come out. I am speaking as if these elements have their own brains, which is of course irrational. In actuality it is probably more like an individual's brain conducting damage control. It wants to preserve as many of its elements as possible, even the repressed ones, so when part of it is looking for the "black market" other parts of the brain warn the "black market" to go into hiding. I am not exactly sure how to best address these repressed elements. I was somewhat confused by Molyneux's explanation, but I believe he was saying they have to be addressed humbly. He compared it to praying. He actually argues that since there is no God praying is actually just appealing to one's repressed elements. Basically, one must weaken his other elements, especially the repressive ones, so that the repressed elements come out of hiding. In other words, the black market will come out of the alleys and into the street if the government is weak, crippled, or destroyed. Of course the object of addressing these repressed elements is so that they become liberated. It is somewhat like un-conditioning one's self, or in a sense re-conditioning; freeing and utilizing the repressed elements with a good stimulus. The ultimate goal is that people will be happier because all the elements of their MEcosystem will be operating; therefore, the MEcosystem will actually function properly. This is of course a long process because it is the exact opposite of what people have learned. I myself am somewhat daunted by the task, but I want to understand and control every element of my self. Having a "black market" operating in myself is no good because then I cannot utilize that market for my own happiness. This is of course somewhat confusing the metaphor because it sounds like my solution to liberating the "black market" is a bigger and more powerful government. I guess a more appropriate metaphor in this case is that the person is a business and for years the business has been told not to use certain employees cause they were radical. In turn the business kept sending the employees down to the basement where they would no interact with the daily tasks of the business. Whenever the CEO tries to find them, they hide because they think they are just going to be sent deeper into the basement. Now the CEO wants to find them to bring them back into the offices because now he realizes the company would function much better and be more profitable if the repressed employees were now working.
If in any of my future listening to Freedomain Radio I discover an error in my explanation here I will be sure to address it in a later post.

reason.tv

http://www.reason.tv/video/show/60.html is a link to reason.tv provided by the Libertarian organization, Reason Foundation. Currently, there are eight episodes of a reason.tv program hosted by Drew Carey. I just finished watching all eight episodes, and they were all thoroughly enjoyable. Each episode displays a problem, usually caused by the government, and then offers several solutions to that problem. All the solutions involve less government, which means more freedoms. The only problem I have with the episodes is that they are flooded with feelings and emotions, offering few logical explanations as to why the government is wrong. However, all the episodes were still enjoyable, and I recommend them to anyone Objectivist, Libertarian, Republican, Democrat, Communist. People should educate themselves in any way in concern to an individual's natural right. Of course I am not ordering or demanding anyone to watch these videos or read any of the books I recommend or listen to any of the podcasts I recommend. The key word is recommend. It is still an individual's choice as to whether or not to watch, read, or listen to anything I speak of. I would never want to violate someone's natural right to liberty.
My favorite episodes concerned eminent domain, and I would like to briefly address eminent domain because I loathe it. I do not support eminent domain in any circumstance. Whether the government wants to build a road, hospital, military base, or hand the land off to developers it is always wrong because it is always stealing. Any time eminent domain is used the government initiates force, the government violates an individual's natural right to property. As I understand part of a government's purpose is to protect individual's property, so eminent domain is clearly contradictory. Some people may argue that eminent domain really is not stealing because the government pays the individual for the land. To retort this argument I will provide an example: If a man comes into your house, points a gun in your face, gives you $100 dollars, and takes your television the man did not buy your television.