Paquin's Ionic Column - Employers' Rights - Kennedy v. Louisiana

I have posted two new articles on Nolan Chart. Here is the link, but below are also copies of the articles.

Oregon Appeals Court Violates Employer’s Rights For Medical Marijuana Patient

Two weeks ago, the Oregon Appeals Court created rights for medical marijuana patients at employers’ expense. The Oregon Appeals Court decided that it is invalid for an employer to fire employees for medical marijuana use outside work. Whether or not this is a valid or rational reason does not concern the government, for a business is the property of its owner not the government.

A business owner delegates authority to employers. Consequently, employers fire employees on behalf of the business owner. Thus, employers’ firing motives are protected by the business owner’s natural rights. Only employers’ superiors or the business owner may override firings. Therefore, business owners and employers have the right to fire, and hire employees for any reason. For example, medical marijuana use outside work, heroine use outside work, Tylenol use outside work, Tylenol work inside work, gender, race, pregnancy, eye color, fashion sense, etc.

This is not to argue that any hiring-firing motive is virtuous. Basing employment and termination on arbitrary physical characteristics, such as gender, race, and eye color is indeed vicious. The problem is these motives do not concern the employee’s abilities and merits. Instead, the motives are based on collectivistic irrationalities. For example, ‘all blondes are stupid’ collectively identifies all blondes for all of time as ignorant. One must judge each person as an individual, not as a collective’s piece.

However, enforcing virtues and punishing vices is not the government’s concern. The government’s only concern is to protect individuals’ natural rights from infringement. An employee’s natural rights are not violated if he is fired for medical marijuana use outside work. Of course, others will argue that it violates his right to work. This is a fallacy. Individuals’ right to work is already protected by their natural rights of life, liberty, pursuit of happiness and property. In turn, one has the right to seek employment and engage in labor. No one has the right to be provided employment and offered labor.

Unfortunately, it is often assumed that people do have the right to be provided employment; consequently, the government tries to protect it. However, since it is a fictional right, an employer does not initiate force when he fires an employee for irrational reasons. Therefore, the government cannot use defense force against the employer. The government must initiate force against the employer. The government must violate the employer’s natural rights. The employer’s right to property is violated; one may use one’s property as he desires. His right to pursue happiness is violated; one may try to be satisfied even if one is misguided. His right to liberty is violated; one may choose even if the choice is vicious. Finally, his right to life is violated; one’s life is one’s own not a pie to be cut and divided for a collective.

Unconstitutionality Of Executing Child Rapists Decided By Popular Demand

In last week’s case Kennedy v. Louisiana the Supreme Court possibly made a wise decision classifying execution for convicted child rapists as unconstitutional, but the reasoning was utterly mindless.

One should always be suspicious of government because its purpose is to use defense force against natural rights violators, while it is controlled by a mob led by one strongman or a mystical collective mentality. In either case, the government begins initiating force. Therefore, even when the government is deciding to execute a criminal, there is cause for concern. This is why the United States has a Constitution.

The Constitution is undoubtedly imperfect, but it is on the path to Truth. It objectively guides the government by limiting its use of force. Thus, the government can approach understanding when it is acting virtuously – using defense force – or acting viciously – initiating force. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court ignored all of this in deciding Kennedy v. Louisiana.

Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the court arguing that executing convicted child rapists constituted “cruel and unusual punishment;” thus, violating the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution. This is a fine decision, but it requires reasoning. His reasoning is that, “society’s standards, as expressed in legislative enactments and state practice with respect to executions” indicate that the general populous is opposed to the death penalty, and “cruel and unusual punishment” is defined by “evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.” Basically, according to Justice Kennedy, the majority of the population defines “cruel and unusual punishment.” Regardless of whether or not one finds executing convicted child rapists as “cruel and unusual punishment,” all can agree Justice Kennedy’s reasoning is irrational.

This decision displays a complete unconcern for Truth. The purpose of the Supreme Court is to interpret the Constitution - an objective guide towards Truth. Therefore, the Supreme Court is supposed to search for Truth. However, Justice Kennedy believes that Truth is decided by the masses. If this is the case, there is no need for a Supreme Court. Every time there is a Supreme Court case Gallup should just conduct a poll. In fact, there is no need to even have a written Constitution. If the majority decides what “cruel and unusual punishment” means, the majority can decide what the rest of the Constitution means. Maybe, they will decide the First Amendment really means that invisible pink unicorns and flying spaghetti monsters are man’s lords and masters, and no one should say anything to offend their spiraling pink – yet invisible – horns and noodley appendages.

Justice Kennedy’s decision exposes another perverting pervasion of rampant moral relativism, where every law, every action, every man, every thing is excused from moral discrimination, for a simple majority can determines Truth. However, when 50% plus 1% determines Truth, falsity will inevitably be chosen because there is no concern for reality, knowledge, or virtue only appeasement.

Paquin's Ionic Column - Drug Criminalization: Government Vice And Contradiction

I have started writing articles on a Website entitled Nolan Chart. I will also post my articles here every time I write a new one. All of these articles will be of a more political nature, which is another reason why I will be blogging about personal introspection. Here is the link to my column where all my articles will be listed. Below is my first article.

John Stossel's recent article, "Legalize All Drugs" only addresses minute problems at the tip of the drug criminalization iceberg. He only disproves three simple falsehoods: heroine and cocaine have permanent effects, crack is highly addictive, and drugs cause crime. These are merely misconceptions; they do not concern the immoral and vicious nature of drug criminalization. Identifying these fallacies as the problems with drug criminalization is like identifying ill mustache fashion sense as the problem with Hitler. Stossel only makes one baby step towards drug criminalization's immoral core when he states that "in a free country, adults should have the right to harm themselves." Drug criminalization deserves a more serious attack because it is a serious vice.

Though Stossel's statement approaches the moral implications of drug criminalization, it has a disturbing element. Using the word "should" and saying, "in a free country" implies that the government gives its citizens rights. The fact is rights are natural; therefore, they are not given, they are inherent in every human being. The fundamental problem with drug criminalization is that it violates natural rights. Thus, the argument is not that the government should legalize drugs because adults should have the right to harm themselves, but that the government is vicious to criminalize drugs because adults have the right to harm themselves.

Man has the natural right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and property. These are objective rights, though I will not prove them here. That is a topic for another time. Since man has these natural rights, he may exercise so long as he does not violate others' natural rights. If one man violates the natural rights of another, he is initiating force because he is the first to use violence. Therefore, the man who responds to this first use of violence is not initiating force, he is only defending himself. For example, Adam tries to murder Bill, but Bill responds by killing Adam. The vicious individual is Adam because he initiated force against Bill; he tried to violate Bill's natural rights. The virtuous individual is Bill because he did not initiate force against Adam; he did not try to violate Adam's natural rights. Bill only used violence against Adam to protect his own natural rights. This is defense force.

Drug use and distribution does not violate any individual's natural rights; these acts do not initiate force. Of course, some will argue that drug users and distributors do initiate force by stealing and killing. However, it is the acts of thievery and murder that are initiations of force, not using and distributing drugs. For example, neither shipping milk nor drinking milk is an initiation of force. Even if a milk shipper murders his competition and a milk drinker steals money to buy milk, shipping and drinking milk are still not initiations of force. It is killing and stealing that violates natural rights, not shipping and drinking or distributing and using.

Therefore, when the government criminalizes drugs it must act viciously and contradict its own purpose. Government's purpose is to protect individuals' natural rights, meaning the government must use force against initiators of force. For example, when the government arrests murderers and thieves it uses force — involuntary captivity — against violators of natural rights. In those circumstances the government is using defense force and acting virtuously. Basically, the government is acting similarly to Bill in the previous example.

However,in the case of drug criminalization the government acts viciously like Adam. As already stated drug use and distribution does not initiate force. Since there are no natural rights under attack, the government cannot use defense force. The government is the first to use force; consequently, it is the government that violates natural rights by criminalizing drugs.

Furthermore, the government contradicts its own purpose by criminalizing drugs. Once again, the government's purpose is to protect natural rights. However, by criminalizing drugs the government must initiate force, must violate others' natural rights.

Though I do agree with Stossel's article, it misses all of this completely. He argues drug criminalization is incorrect because of its mischaracterization of drugs. Thus, he suggests that if heroine and cocaine had permanent effects, crack was highly addictive, and drugs caused crime, then drug criminalization would be fine. The fact is, even if these falsehoods were true, drug criminalization would still be vicious because it would still violate others' natural rights and still contradict the government's purpose.

Summary Of My History

Recently, I have noticed that many of my posts have become reviews. Actually, most of them are movie reviews, only one is a book review. I do not want to stop reviewing movies, and some books because they offer a good way to explore Objectivism through art. However, I do not like that these posts are becoming the majority because most of the time its the same themes being discussed and they are really not as in depth as I would like most of these posts to be. What I plan on doing is condensing my movie posts into one. Most likely I will continue to see two movies a week, so I will just put those two movie reviews into one post. As for books, I may be finishing one every two to three weeks, maybe longer depending on the size and my interest. Also, I may not actually review some books I read.

Additionally, I have also noticed many of my other posts are kind of repeating themselves. In the past week I have had a few about drugs, there have been several concerning the environment, and a few times taxes have been discussed. The problem seems to be that while I was at college learning different philosophical and political theories, and also hearing other students ignorant comments I had a large variety of topics to discuss. However, now I am interning with MPP, where I see the same things every day, and I am living with my cousins, and we all kind of think the same. What I am planning on doing is discussing more things in my personal life, which have really happened in the past nothing of note is really occurring right now. I will discuss many of my past events - which have really just happened in the past year - because they concern my development into Objectivism and pursuing truth, so some new interesting themes can be discussed. Of course, there will be an occasional somewhat government somewhat political somewhat entertainment related post in between. Also, there may be less posts in the future for a short while, maybe about a month of two. This may be especially true after Independence Day. This would be due to some events that are coming together that I will discuss when they work out, or even if they fail.

With that I will begin with a brief history of my time from Junior High to High School, and the summer of my Senior year, which led me to be more concerned with Objectivism. However, before I get into it I would like to just state for the record that I will be discussing some of my relationships with people I used to communicate with, but I am not writing this to try and prove to them that I am better than them or anything like that. Since this is a public blog any of them can access that; however, I am not concerned if they access it or not, whether they learn about what I am writing or not. I will not discuss them by name. I am going to be as objective as possible, always looking for the truth, meaning I will be commenting on my own past actions and their past actions. I am only concerned with discovering truth, discussing Objectivism, and understanding myself so that I can be the happiest I can be. I am not interested in making others angry or degrading others. That is a dependence on others' emotions and suffering, which is a vice and directly linked to self-loathing. I am not trying to rely on others' suffering for my own happiness; however, I am trying to understand reality, truth, and myself as best I can for my own happiness.

Now, I will begin with saying that I do not think people change very much. I believe that people choose who they are going to be very early on in life. This is not to say that people cannot change, for they always have free will. This is only to say that people pursue a personality, behavior, a self at a very young age. Usually, some who is a Marxist does not become a Capitalist. Obviously, that is an extreme; however, to make it more clear, people who usually choose to be altruistic do not eventually choose to be less altruistic and more selfish. As people grow, they choose to be more of what they are. An altruist will become more altruistic, and egoist will become more egoistical. The idea that people change as they go through high school, and once they go to college does not make sense. It would be to argue that the individual has no idea of who they want to be, meaning the person has no idea what they like, the person has no preferences. People have likes and dislikes from a very early age. These likes and dislikes guide them through life choices. Essentially, selfishness guides people to who they become. Even a religious altruist is acting selfishly, for he is choosing to act altruistically because he thinks it makes him a better person. Everyone is selfishly trying to be a good person; therefore, it is people's definition of what is a good person that is truly driving them to make choices in their life. Of course, the definition of "good" is instilled in children by authority figures. This is not to say children cannot grow into adults and realize their childhood authority figures were wrong about what is good. This is not to say adults cannot start pursuing a newly perceived good from when they were children. People always have free will, it is the natural right to liberty, it is individualism, it is the virtues of reason, egoism, and independence. All I am saying is that children's authority figures have a great impact on an individual's initial direction in life because the child comes to understand what is good from these authority figures. From there, the child acts selfishly to pursue that good.

Since that is the case my parents must have set me on the correct track very early on. I am not going to explore my childhood in depth here at this moment, I am not ready for that endeavor. All I will say is that I am not judging my parents lessons to me as a child based on who I am today. Obviously, every decision is personal, meaning independent of others; however, my parents early lessons to me did not cover what I have independently learned through Ayn Rand, Objectivism, Libertarianism, to a lesser extent Stefan Molyneux, etc. I am judging my parents lessons based on who I was in elementary school, and partly junior high school, and to a much lesser extent high school. I always remember myself being incredibly independent, individualistic, and rational. I had a great concern for doing well in school - though I will admit for much of my life I pursued academics so seriously because I wanted to be better than others, and obvious vice. Additionally, I also remember I did not become concerned who I was friends with until seventh grade. This is not to say I pursued friendships with everyone. This is to say that I only pursued friendships with people I liked, meaning people I thought were good. In seventh grade I became more concerned with friendships with people that could make me friends with more well regarded people. Somewhat more popular people, but they really were not like the stereotypical popular people in teenage television programs like The O.C. I have never actually watched The O.C., so it is not good to use that as an example. Basically, the people I thought were more well regarded were not like the popular girls in Mean Girls. I will get more into this later on. Finally, I also liked to do things on my own. Even throughout high school I hated collaborative efforts. I was on several sports teams as a youngster, but I never actually played the sports. I was more interested in running around and enjoying myself then with working together to score points. Those team work pep talks always annoyed me. I tried one sports team in sixth grade, cross country, a very independent sport. However, I became less interested when it was emphasized that our running times effected the entire team's score. Once in junior high and high school, I did not try out for any sports teams. This also extended to when my classes were assigned group projects. I never necessarily wanted to be the leader, but I always thought everyone's ideas were stupid and wanted to do things my way. I cannot remember any specific examples, so I am not sure if other students ideas were stupid. I am sure some were, and I am sure some were fine ideas. What really annoyed me, though, was the idea that two heads were better than one. I knew I could complete my homework efficiently, and that group work took forever. I also had several experiences with free loaders in these groups. I never failed any group project because of them, for I always took on the extra work to succeed. However, every time I heard "group" followed by "project" I immediately saw a beggar on the street.

I acted this way all before I was exposed to Ayn Rand; therefore, my parents gave me some basic definition of good related to the three great virtues reason, independence, and egoism. Thus, people really do not change, they just become themselves more.

By the time I got to seventh grade, however, I hated myself. This was due to my time in fifth grad and sixth grade. In fifth grade I distinctly remember an event towards the end of the year in music class where several students kept making comments right behind me. It continued for several minutes and several times I told them to stop. Finally, I asked, "Why do you hate me?" The response was, "We don't hate you," then they made another comment. During my time in sixth grade I went to a public school in an urban area. My parents gave me the option of going to a public school and a private school. I chose the public one - very bad choice. Throughout the year my parents continued to offer to take me out of public school and send me to the private school. They were not annoyed or frustrated offers either. They were genuine offers. They convinced me it would be very easy, and they would rather I went to the private school. However, I wanted to tough out the public school.

This acceptance of suffering is probably not related to religion. My family was never that religious. I accepted this misery because I was trying to prove I was tougher than other people. I always felt much weaker than other guys because I was not very good a sports and girls never outwardly admitted they liked me. I was trying to prove to myself I could endure a pain they could not endure. Of course, this is an incredible vice. There is never any virtue in suffering. Suffering is accepting the destruction against one's self. Happiness is the purpose of life; thus, if one accepts misery, he gives up his one and only life. He gives up his human nature. He sacrifices his nature as independent, for he depends on the success or failure or some other for his own life. He sacrifices his nature as individual because he surrenders his life for some other, he does not live his life for his own. He sacrifices his nature as rational, for he equates pain to good. Of course, the other problems with this was that I was equating success in sports with success in general, instead of success with the realization of one's values, or happiness. Also, I was depending on girls to publicly admit they liked me, for me to identify myself as a good person. Majority rule does not determine virtue or vice. Virtue and vice, whether a person is good or bad, not decided by the majority. Then there would be no virtue or vice because it would not be objective. Also, I was dependent for I was relying on them to like me in order to feel good about myself.

Unfortunately, the last point was only exacerbated through fifth and sixth grade. Since people degraded me at the end of fifth grade and continually through sixth grade I hated myself, I was convinced I was not a good person, I was convinced I should hate myself; thus, the only way I could be a good person would be if I had several friends. I was then relying on others to like me in order to be convinced that I was a good person. Several Friday evening I would complain to my cousin that no one ever invited me out. I would then mope around my house. I acted like I did not want to live any more. I never considered suicide. Personally, I find that concept completely foreign. I find it so disturbing that someone could identify his death as the best thing that could happen to him. Basically, it never made sense to me that no life was better than life. However, I just become more and more self-loathing. I pined after being friends with certain people, a few of those individuals degraded me, which just made me loathe myself more, and thus rely on others more.

During this time I was not innocent of degrading others. I did try to degrade the people that degraded me, but they always found a way to counter it. However, in addition to desiring for people to like me I was desiring to degrade others. I was not only relying on others to like me to feel happy, but I was also relying on others to feel miserable in order to feel happy. Unfortunately, the way this works is that one cannot attack someone higher than himself. Obviously, I would fantasize about causing the people I despised extreme pain, but in reality that could never be satisfying. The reason that this would be an impossibility is not because the better individuals, in this case actually the enemy and worse individuals, cannot be defeated by lesser individuals. The reason this is an impossibility is that if a lesser defeats a greater those greater than the lesser do not respect the attack. A lesser must then attack someone who is lesser, perceived as weaker, because then those above you respect you. So during this time I degraded one of my friends from elementary school. Of course, I had to degrade him in front of the people I wanted to be friends with so that they could join in laughing and accept me. Only very recently, in the past few months, have I begun to try and repair this relationship, which I destroyed in seventh grade.

As I became more and more self-loathing, I finally got others to accept me. It is not completely fair to say that all the others accepted me because I degraded others, but I will argue that my own self-loathing is what caused some people to accept me. Maybe they pitied me, maybe they wanted to fix me. Of course, that is not true for everyone. There are some who accepted me because they genuinely liked me.

Some other elements of my self-loathing included my belief that I was not intelligent despite my grades never being below a B+ and usually always being A's. My problem was that I defined my personal intelligence, my personal satisfaction with my knowledge, with how much more intelligent I was than other people. Being at a private there were lots of intelligent people; therefore, I thought I was an idiot. The real problem here, of course, is that I am once again relying on others. Also, another overwhelming problem is that I continually did not identify truth or reality as objective. It all depended on what other people thought. This lack of concern for reality and truth led me to verbally endorse amorality. I never acted on amorality. I never drank, did drugs, had promiscuous sex, etc. but I wanted to, which was strange. I had several opportunities to act on the first of the three at parties I went to, but I never chose to. I think it was the mere underage drinking law that stopped me from it. Not my current understanding of morality.

Eventually, in my Senior year, and during my Senior summer I had a girlfriend. Additionally, during my Senior year I went to the Winter Ball and Prom even though I knew I would not like either. Even after I went to the Winter Ball and disliked it I chose to go to the Prom. I never liked dancing, never liked parties, never liked being in large groups of people, or celebrating with people I did not know or care for, but I chose to go to them. I was convinced my life style was wrong and tried to break out of it, even though I hated it. I was probably confused because I loathed myself, yet also hated these activities. In actuality, my perception of truth and reality was warped; therefore, I could not tell that I liked solitude and I mostly liked myself, and that my self-loathing was unfounded. Therefore, I tried to break into something I knew I disliked because I thought I disliked the lifestyle I had always chose.

The relationship with my ex-girlfriend was obviously a disaster. I did not understand truth, meaning I did not understand love. She did not understand it either. As I have explained before to love someone is to selfishly choose someone as more valuable than others because the standards the other values are the same as one's own. Basically, one loves another because he selfishly values the other's virtues. My girlfriend and I were of different values and beliefs. She was liberal I was more conservative and moving into libertarianism. Therefore, we believed one another was distinctly wrong. One cannot love someone one believes is wrong because that is to believe is the other is vicious. Essentially, people of different values cannot love one another, for one identifies his own values as virtuous and all other values as vicious.

After that relationship fell through I was at the end of my summer, and I was left unsatisfied. I was also not disappointed over my relationship with my ex-girlfriend ending. That was the one thing I liked. I was also looking forward to college. I wanted to recreate myself, which I later found out was just becoming myself more. However, I did not want to recreate myself as more outgoing more popular etc. I had some kind of nostalgia looking back on my earlier life style and felt so empty with the past two years in junior and senior year. Therefore, I turned to the one thing I had enjoyed many years earlier. I believe in seventh grade my cousin purchased Ayn Rand's Anthem for me. I read that again at the end of the summer, and the problems with my started to become evident. I then read the rest of Ayn Rand's fiction works We The Living, The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged and explored the Ayn Rand Institutes's website. I also explored the internet for Objectivist podcasts, and found Stefan Molyneux's Freedomain Radio, which helped me order my life towards truth. Though I realize I am not at the final destination, I know I am now much further along the path than I was in high school. I am happier now, more productive, more satisfied, more concerned with truth, reality, and morality. In some of the following posts I will be addressing some of these events I discussed, like friendship, success, relationships, etc.

Rear Window

The outstanding Rear Window receives four stars. Finally, a decent picture. Actually, Rear Window is better than decent, and it is the first good movie I have seen since Forgetting Sarah Marshall. I was mistaken in my previous post where I identified Iron Man as the last good movie I have seen.

As usual with Hitchcock's films, it begins with an excellent piece of music, and the rest of the score stays up to par. Shyamala tried to copy this in The Happening, which aside from the scenes with the creepy old woman, were probably the best elements of that film. There was also some excellent dialog. My favorite set was an exchange between Jimmy Stewart and Grace Kelly, where Stewart is trying to convince Kelly that they are incompatible because they have lived in different worlds, but Kelly is not accepting the argument pointing out that Stewart's ultimate conclusion is that men should die where they were born. Several times during the conversation Stewart tells Kelly to "shut up." A rarity in film dialog between loved ones, even when they are having a fight. The whole conversation is then ended with:
Kelly - Goodbye.
Stewart - You mean goodnight.
Kelly - I meant what I said. Goodbye, forever... or at least until tomorrow night.
There were also some clever lines from Stewart's insurance company nurse. Stewart happened to break his leg when a car crashed at a race while he was taking photographs for the magazine he works for. His insurance company then provided a nurse, and when I say she had some clever lines, I mean every time she spoke. Maybe, they were not necessarily clever, but entertaining and displaying man's interest in violence. Just seeing an old nurse saying, "Where do you suppose he cut her up? The bath tub. I mean, that would be the only place where he could wash up all the blood easily."Movies do not use music or dialog like this anymore.

The film was also effectively intriguing and thrilling. I would not say the movie was incredibly thrilling, until the end though, when Kelly and the nurse explore a neighbor's garden and apartment for murder evidence. At this point Stewart must watch Kelly in the murderer's apartment across they way when the murderer returns, while he is grounded by a broken leg. Fortunately, he is already on the phone with the police because he was calling to inform them another woman, in another apartment was about to commit suicide. Fortunately, Ms. Lonely Hearts is then distracted and Stewart can guiltlessly tell the police Kelly is being attacked. This is then immediately followed by the murderer discovering that Stewart has been spying on him. There is then a confrontation in the dark of Stewart's apartment between him and the murderer, while Kelly, the nurse, and the police are at the police station. The incapacitated Stewart must then defend himself by blinding the murderer with flash bulbs from his camera. Fortunately, the police arrive just in time to save Stewart as he is being throne from the window.

The rest of the film is not as heart pounding as this, but there is an intriguing thrill to watching bits and pieces of the murderer's life from Stewart's eyes. The man leaves several times in the middle of the night with a suit case while it is raining. The shades of his apartment remain closed. He covers a saw and large knife - it actually looked more like a machete - with newspaper. When he opens the shades of his wife's bedroom the mattress is rolled up and a trunk is packaged. The murderer looks through his wife's purse. He also makes several long distance calls. All very suspicious activities, even more suspicious because one is seeing a private life secretly; however, none of it is enough to arrest the man on murder.

Another positive to the film is that the characters discuss the theme outright. At one point Stewart says, "I wonder if it is ethical to spy on a man, even if he did commit murder." At another point Stewart's friend, Lt. Doyle of the police department, informs him and Kelly that in the trunk was the murderer's wife's clothes and that she had moved to Marinsville safely. Lt. Doyle then leaves, and Stewart and Kelly are disappointed that they are wrong. Once again the theme is discusses outright, Kelly says something like, "Why are we miserable that she is alive? We should be happy. Not disappointed that he didn't commit murder." Since theme is the most important element of the story, the audience should not be left guessing as to what it is. The characters should discuss it. The theme is the purpose of the story, there is no reason to hide it from the audience. Furthermore, the characters are experiencing a particular situation with specific moral questions. The characters themselves are aware of the moral issues, they should not be so ignorant as to not discuss them.

Unfortunately, one questionable moment of the film is when Kelly and the nurse, particularly Kelly, violate the murderer's property rights. First, the both of them dig up his garden, revealing no evidence. Second, Kelly goes into the murderer's apartment while he is not there to acquire some possible evidence. She is arrested, and immediately released on bail, and Stewart does acknowledge that she burglarized. The unfortunate part is that this vicious action ultimately leads to the murderer's arrest. Kelly's and the nurse's actions are important to have in the film because they raise the theme as to whether or not violating another's rights, even if it proves murder, is virtuous. Stewart raises a similar thematic question when he asks if its ethical to spy on a man even if he did commit murder. However, that act should have been punished more severely, or addressed more by the characters. Having that action cause the arrest of the murderer does raise the question I just spoke about, but there is no answer to the question.

Finally, the last positive point of the movie is Grace Kelly. Enough said.

Get Smart

I give this theatrical production three stars. I must admit I have never seen the television show, so I probably do not have as much appreciation for it as fans. However, I am a Jame Bond fan, but I actually did not see much connection between Get Smart and the Bond franchise it is supposed to be spoofing. Actually, I did recognize that a sequence involving one parachute two heroes and a rhinoceros sized villain was paying homage to a scene involving one parachute James Bond and Jaws from Moonraker.

I also did not enjoy the romantic development between Maxwell Smart (Steve Carell) and Agent 99 (Anne Hathaway). I really would have rather that they just went about their business without becoming romantically involved. In many films I find the romance between the lead male and lead female unnecessary, and just thrown in because the film maker believes that if he puts in some romance with the action and some sad scenes it will be a good film. Which reminds me, there were some sad moments in the film, which always make me feel awkward in a comedy. The film is for comedic purposes, but then sad moments are added. However, they are not sad/funny moments like in Anchorman when Ron Burgundy loses Baxter, or in Borat when Borat learns Pamela Anderson is not a virgin. These sad moments were also serious, and have no business being in a comedy. The elements of the film are supposed to move the film along by promoting the feature's theme. Just mixing in everything to cover all the bases does not promote the scene and creates a confusing film. It is like adding every cookie filling from oatmeal, to raisins, to chocolate chips, to M&M's, with some chocolate and vanilla, and do not forget the crunchy wafer, and remember the caramel, but slip in some cream filling, then some peanut butter filling, oh and add some fruity jam on top. It just becomes one gross cookie.

However, aside from these small problems Get Smart is philosophically sound. In fact, the first philosophically sound film I have seen since Iron Man. Furthermore, I enjoy the way in which comedy is used. Comedy is not just for comedy's sake. It is not purely slapstick. However, I do enjoy some ridiculous slap stick comedies like Anchorman, but in this case the comedy moves the film along. It is as if the comedy is happening naturally, like it could exist in real life. Additionally, the jokes are not repeated over and over again, like the repetitious humus jokes in You Don't Mess with the Zohan. Though I actually did not mind those jokes that much. However, I will say the jokes do lag at parts because they are antique comedic punches with no new twist. For example, a rat goes down Carell's shirt and pants as he is trying to get through a web of lasers. Obviously, this causes some problems, meaning injuries. I knew that before I saw it happening because I have seen the rat-in-the-pants-during-a-difficult-physical-situation-joke before. However, some old comedic punches are developed. For example, in the beginning of the film Carell walks through several automatic high security doors to get to CONTROL headquarters. Everyone has seen this a million times. In this situation, however, Carell is carrying an enormous stack of papers and one of those sheets flies off and gets caught in the door as it closes behind him. He quickly wrestles the paper out, but then the next door closes before he can make it through. Consequently, he must enter the code again.

Finally, I will also add that Carell does a wonderful job of creating a new character, and I am speaking for every time he acts. Before seeing the film my cousins were explaining that when they watch Carell in The Office they do not think of his character from Little Miss Sunshine or The 40-Year-Old Virgin. Every time Carell performs he creates a new character, even though they are all in comedic settings. They have basic similarities but Michael Scott is nothing like Maxwell Smart. Obviously, this is the meaning of acting, but in so many other comedies - particularly Will Ferrell ones - the same basic character with a different name and clothes is used over and over again.

Drug Stamp Tax

While interning at MPP in the past week I posted an article concerning a drug stamp tax. Reading the article I came to understand that about thirty states impose taxes on illegal drugs like marijuana. What marijuana distributors and users are supposed to do is anonymously file a form indicating how many grams of the illegal drug they have. They are then taxed so much for each gram, and printed a stamp for each gram. These stamps are then supposed to be placed on their bags, boxes, containers, etc. of the illegal drug to certify that they have paid the drug stamp tax. However, if an individual chooses not to pay this tax he suffers no consequences, that is, unless he is busted. If a drug distributor or user is arrested for any number of drug charges in a state that has a drug stamp tax and the distributor or user did not pay the tax, the distributor or user is then fined for not paying the tax.

In my post entitled “Exchanging Violence For Violence” I was trying to capture the conflict between outlawing something, yet then relying on it while it is outlawed. However, it is also applicable in a much broader sense, for example identifying something as vicious, yet then relying on it. Unfortunately, I do not think I understood the conflict as well as I thought I did; therefore, I do not think I explained it that well. However, by learning about the drug stamp tax, I think I understand it more fully and thus can explain it more efficiently.

In several previous posts I have explained the problems with taxing and criminalizing drugs; consequently, I will not explain them here. However, just know when the government combines the criminalization of drugs and taxes on those illegal drugs, like with this drug stamp tax, the government is combining two vicious acts and contradicting its purpose twice over. More importantly, however, the drug stamp tax shows a contradiction in the government’s opposition to drugs. The government claims it does not want to legalize drugs. The government claims drugs are vicious and need to be eradicated. However, thirty states are charging taxes on these vicious and illegal substances that need to be eradicated. The government is gaining funds through the existence of these illegal substances. Clearly, the government wants these substances to exist so that it can collect money. While it says that drugs should be eradicated it is relying on them. The same goes for tobacco. The government’s stance is that tobacco is bad, vicious, evil, and that people should stop using it. They have banned tobacco television ads and imposed warnings on the tobacco packages. However, the government charges an outrageous tax on tobacco products. Once again, while the government claims tobacco should be eradicated it relies on it. The government does not want to eliminate tobacco, or drugs. If drugs were legalized the government would obviously impose an enormous tax on it, not because it thought the tax would eliminate drugs. That has failed for several years with tobacco. The government would impose a tax on drugs in order to sustain its existence.

If the government really thought drugs and tobacco were so evil that they should not even exist, the government would not leech itself onto them. The government would not freeload on the success of drugs and tobacco. That is like saying, “Oh, I hate the Nazis. I think Nazis are vicious and should not exist,” yet the person goes to Nazi owned museums stocked with works stolen from Jews. If one believes something is wrong, he cannot then rely on it. That is a moral compromise. That is vicious. I do not believe any example makes that more clear than a drug stamp tax on drugs that the government declares illegal.

The Art Of War

I recently finished the most well regarded war philosophy text, The Art of War, by Chinese general Sun Tzu who lived from 544—496 B.C.. I found it very interesting, for at one time I had considered working for the federal government in the area of defense and security. Furthermore, before I learned I had diabetes I had considered joining the military, and even after I had diabetes, I continued desiring joining the military and knew I would join if I was ever cured. Of course, now I recognize that the majority of the time the government does not use the military for defense and security. Often times the military is used to initiate force instead of defending America. Of course, I do recognize that some people the U.S. military has attacked are vicious; however, attacking those individuals is not the authority of the U.S. military. The purpose of the U.S. military is to defend Americans' natural rights not the natural rights of any other individual.

This appears to be a contradiction because everyone has the same natural rights, hence natural, yet I believe the institution whose purpose to protect natural rights should only protect certain individuals natural rights. However, there is no contradiction. The U.S. military's purpose is to protect Americans' natural rights. The Rwandan militiary' purpose is to protect Rwandans' natural rights. If the Rwandan military violates Rwandans' natural rights, the Rwandan military is acting viciously and contradicting its own purpose. The U.S. military does not contradict its purpose and does not act viciously if it does not assist the Rwandans; however, it does contradict its purpose and does act viciously if it assists the Rwandans. Ultimately, the U.S. military would be initiating force against the Rwandan military because the Rwandan military, though it initiated force against Rwandans, did not initiate force against Americans. In order for U.S. military force to be defense force it must respond to the initiation of force against Americans. Responding to the initiation of force against any other group does not make the U.S. military's use of force one of defense.

However, this has little to do with The Art of War, of course, Sun Tzu does recommend that the military behave rationally selfish. He argues similarly that the military is to protect a specific state and should not embark on extracurricular activities. Of course, I would argue the military's purpose is not to protect the state, but its select individuals natural rights.

Sun Tzu also does not argue that a military should initiate force. From reading The Art of War I have a general sense that at the time Sun Tzu wrote this, several Chinese states were warring and competing with one another. Therefore, Sun Tzu definition of a just invasion probably includes initiating force against an opponent state when that state is weak even though that state has not initiated force. Sun Tzu, of course, is wrong. That state should not be attacked. However, if state A initiates force against state B, then state B would benefit from following Sun Tzu recommendations. Basically, one should only read Sun Tzu's The Art of War to know how to defend one's self.

At it's foundation, The Art of War's theme is that "all warfare is based on deception." I would have to agree, and I would argue that it is perfectly virtuous for a defender to deceive his attacker in any way, so as to be victorious, meaning to defend one's self, to achieve security, to avoid the death the attack is threatening him with. There is a fantastic section where Sun Tzu basically argues that if one is far away, make the enemy think one is close, if one is about to attack, make the enemy think one is not going to attack, if one is close, make the enemy think one is far away, if one is not going to attack, make the enemy think one is about to attack.

This basic idea also expands to where Sun Tzu recommends one should attack the enemy. Everyone considers attacking the enemy basically head-on, while Sun Tzu recommends attacking weakly defended locations far from the enemy's current position. For example, if the enemy has a strong base, and then several miles away is a weakly guarded outpost, train station, airport, depot of supplies, etc. the second location should be attacked. According to Sun Tzu, once the enemy knows that place is being attacked, it will rush from its camp to the attacked location. By rushing the enemy is weakened; therefore, one should continuously attack weakly guarded distant locations. Consequently, one will usually be victorious because he is confronting few soldiers; therefore, few one's own soldiers will die, the location will be captured, and the enemy will rush to the attacked location and thus become weak. Eventually, the enemy will be so weak from rushing around, it will be suitable to attack him. In the end he will be defeated, and few of one's own soldiers will be lost.

Another interesting concept of Sun Tzu's is that one may know how to attack, yet not be able to attack. Constantly, Sun Tzu states that only the opponent chooses when he may be attacked. This is because only the opponent can make a mistake, and only when the opponent makes a mistake may one attack him. By making a mistake the opponent weakens himself, and presents the possibility of a defeat with very few deaths of one's soldiers. However, Sun Tzu states one should not attack the opponent even if he has presented a mistake if one does not know his own army. If one does not keep his army well supplied, well fed, well rested, well disciplined, any attack even in the face of an opponent's mistake will be futile. In short, one should know his self, and one should not his enemy.

Additionally, one should know the terrain, surroundings, environment. Sun Tzu states at one point if one knows the enemy, yet does not know his self, one is half way to victory. If one knows his self, yet does not know the enemy, one is half way to victory. If one knows his self and knows the enemy, yet does not know his surroundings, one is still only half way to victory. Basically, a combination of the surroundings and the enemy's mistake and the condition of one's army determine which form of attack is most efficient, meaning which destroy as many enemy soldiers while losing as few of one's own soldiers.

Also, in a few small sections Sun Tzu states that soldiers should not be allowed to practice rituals or follow superstitions. According to Sun Tzu, then nothing will be feared as an omen, the only thing that will be feared is death. Though Sun Tzu does not say that omen's are false, he certainly does imply it. If the omen's had any truth to them, Sun Tzu would certainly want the general to be aware of them so as to battle efficiently. If an omen basically stated the next time the general issues an attack all his soldiers would die, the general should certainly adhere to it, if it is true. By recommending that no soldier adhere to any omen, superstition, ritual, etc., Sun Tzu basically states they have no truth to them.

This is echoed by Sun Tzu's major theme second only to deception; victory is in one's hands. Though Sun Tzu does state that only the enemy can choose when he is attacked, for only he can choose to make a mistake, Sun Tzu does not allow anyone to claim natural disasters, superstitions, or the enemy's attack as causes for one's own defeat. According to Sun Tzu, the environment needs to be understood so as to know what to avoid, what to utilize, and how to utilize it. A flood could wipe out one's own troops, or one can determine a way to bait the enemy into the flood, while keeping one's own troops out of the flood. Superstitions, as previously stated, are implied to be false. Finally, since the enemy chooses when he makes a mistake; thus, choosing when me may be attacked, one chooses one's own mistakes; thus, one chooses when the enemy attacks. Essentially, Sun Tzu emphasizes a strong person responsibility, and an adherence to reality and truth. Though he is lacking in other philosophical areas, for example when it is virtuous and when it is vicious to use force, Sun Tzu does understand what is correct and incorrect to do once one is in a conflict. However, as I just stated, Sun Tzu does not make clear who is virtuous and who is vicious; therefore, he does not state that the vicious general should surrender, while the virtuous general should persevere until the vicious general surrenders. However, if one approaches Sun Tzu's recommendations from the point of the virtuous defender, his recommendations are very useful and almost correct. Unfortunately, Sun Tzu's work is not absolutely correct. It has false points because his philosophy of war is only concerned about war itself. It is not structured around a completely philosophy concerned with truth and morality, yet, astonishingly, many of his points are virtuous and correct, as long as they are approached from the defender's point of view.

The Incredible Hulk

This reboot of the Hulk gets two stars. Though I did not see either of the two films in the previous Hulk series directed by Ang Lee, I would like to see it now. The reason being, while watching this Hulk a man sitting one seat over from me leaned over with excitement remarking, "This has way more action than the last one." As I just stated, I have not seen Ang Lee's Hulk, but this film did have lots of action. There were three battles between the Hulk and the U.S. Military. The first two were well filmed, and somewhat believable. Except the first one had special operations soldiers perusing the streets of Rio, Brazil looking for the Hulk like police officers. However, the lead up to the chase was well filmed. The third battle, however, was a ridiculous and generic street fight in Harlem between the Hulk and the Abomination. I realize this was added to the movie to show Emile Blonsky (Tim Roth's) increasing desire for power and destruction, but there are innovative ways to show this. Unfortunately, this was all there really was to the movie. Just action sequence building up to the next action sequence. After reading Ebert's review of the film he explained that Ang Lee's Hulk had more dialog that explored the themes of the character. As I have stated in previous posts the themes surrounding a super hero character are the essence of the story. As I see it theme is always necessary in a story. It constitutes the story's purpose. However, it is even more important with super heroes. Batman is distinctly different from Superman; Iron Man is distinctly different from the Hulk. Films and comics are meant to explore these differences. For example, when I reviewed Iron Man I explained that the main theme was that humans do not need natural genetic abilities to be super. One does not need to mutate or be born to have super abilities. Man has the knowledge and skill to create himself as a superhero. Hence the excellent tag line for the movie, "Heroes aren't born. They're made."

The Hulk, obviously, explores different themes. The most important is man's reliance on violence and aggression to be happy, and that animal violence is present in each human. The gamma ray that makes the Hulk actually does not make the Hulk, it is supposed to release the Hulk inside Bruce Banner (Edward Norton.) This is somewhat touched upon in the film by Blonsky, the meanest Marine questing for more physical strength only to cause more destruction. However, his altercation with a scientist Samuel Sterns, who has been using Banner's blood to find a cure and improve the human body at the same time, makes it appear that any genetic manipulation of the human body is vicious. One must, of course, analyze the reasons as to why one wants to mutate the human body. A few moments before Blonsky arrives Stern explains to Banner that he is trying to improve the human body with Banner's blood so that humans are impervious to disease. This is virtuous. It shows that man controls his environment and his surroundings, and he can genetically improve himself to better his life. However, when Blonsky arrives Sterns is willing to inject him with Hulk blood. The Sterns character of a few moments ago would not have done this. The sterns character of a few moments ago would not want people to use these improvements for initiating violence. However, by combining the two conflicting positions into one character the movie indicates that both positions are vicious.

One of the other themes surrounding the Hulk that is touched upon in the film is that the Hulk is a symbol of free thinking. Originally, Banner was conducting research for the military so that Hulks could be used in battle. However, once Banner finds this out he refuses to assist the military and tries to keep the Hulk data and his self from them before he can cure it. Now, having a new weapon for the military is not necessarily vicious, as long as the military is using it for defensive purposes. However, General Ross (William Hurt) does not appear to be this type of military officer. He seems to be more concerned with initiating force, but it would have been better to make this clearer in the film.

This then leads into one final aspect that I liked. Blonsky develops into the Abomination because of the military, while the Hulk develops from personal research. Though the Hulk is not analyzed sufficiently to show he is a symbol of defense force and free thinking, while also questioning a love of violence and power inherent in some men, Blonsky's role is excellently analyzed. Not only is Blonsky constantly searching for the next big fight and more strength to cause more destruction in that fight, he gets all of his assistance from the military. Therefore, there is an interesting twist in the end of the film when Blonsky goes rouge and the military turns to Banner for help. Banner who has been running from military aggression for the past several years, assists the military to subdue an aggressor. This is the one point I would have to disagree with Ebert on. He stated that in Iron Man the villain and superhero both knew who they were and why they were fighting. I remain convinced that the Iron Monger character was vastly underdeveloped. In The Incredible Hulk the opposite is present. The Abomination is well developed, while a little foundation exists for the Hulk asking for a little more thematic dialog.

The Happening

I give M. Night Shyamala's latest film one single solitary star for philosophical unsoundness. I will admit the cinematography is well done, and the score was also good. Therefore, I would recommend that Syamala become a film adviser instead of making his own movies. I would also like to point out before I go into the philosophically unsound moments that Syhamala wishes, desperately wishes he could be Alfred Hitchcock. The music over the opening credits reminded me of North by Northwest. The plot of The Happening is almost like The Birds. Also, the scene with the crazy old woman and her strange doll must have been directly inspired by Psycho. Paying homage to and alluding to other films is fine. It serves a purpose because it highlights the themes the movies share. However, one should not try to be someone else. Shyamala should not try to be Hitchcock, but instead be himself.

Now, onto the philosophical unsoundness, which leads to a poor theme. The Happening is about the environment, specifically plants, attacking man for his pollution and cutting into the environment. Of course, this sounds like a horror film more ridiculous than the latest Saw installment, but do not imagine the trees walking around using their limbs as claws ripping men in half, and having altercations with the U.S. military. Instead, the trees are releasing poisonous gases, and for most of the movie, the characters cannot figure it out.

The problems with The Happening I have already addressed in my several posts on environmentalism. However, I will still briefly address them. First, the gas that the trees release cause men to become confused and kill themselves. Thus, the film's theme is that not preserving the environment is suicide. Man is responsible for his own death if he does not sustain the environment in its stagnant form. The truth is man would be committing suicide if he did not understand the environment, and did not use that understanding to control it. If man had preserved the environment as the environmentalists would have liked the industrial revolution would not have happened, New York city would not exist, there would be no trains, planes, or automobiles. Those things only exist because man knows how to control the environment. If he preserves it, he does not control it, he lets it exist by its own demands.

However, the environment cannot make demands, for it has no reason. Therefore, the environment would grow, clamor, and distort in strange gross abnormalities arbitrarily, which leads to my second problem with the picture. I understand that plants evolve to release certain chemicals or grow certain ways to exist. However, to assume that plants will release toxins lethal to humans once stimulated by humans assumes that the plants have reason. A plant has no idea if the wind, another plant, an animal, a bug, or a human is moving around it. Therefore, the plant cannot release toxins specifically harmful to humans, for the tree does not know if a human or just the wind is moving it. Furthermore, the plant must be able to associate humans with lumbering, pollution, etc. Plants have no mind to make that connection.

The most disgusting theme of this movie, however, is that man is infinitely inferior to nature, and that man can never truly understand it. Right from the beginning of the Mark Wahlberg (which I will add provided a one-dimensional whiny performance) asks his class for some theories about why honey bees are disappearing. Some of the answers include, pollution, global warming, cell phones, etc. However, Wahlberg identifies the best answer as, "It is an act of nature and man will never truly understand it." What? That is not even an answer. That is just saying that man is too ignorant, and he should not even try. If man was that stupid then the industrial revolution would have not occurred, New York city would not exist, there would be no planes, trains, or automobiles, the atomic bomb would have not even exploded. Furthermore, Wahlberg is a science teacher in this movie; therefore, he is concerned with understanding reality, or supposedly. Wahlberg should have identified that answer as unacceptable. However, if he thinks that answer is valid he should not be a science teacher or a teacher period. Science is concerned with understanding reality. Teachers help others know truths and facts. Wahlberg has just taught his students that man will never understand. Consequently, according to the film, man should preserve the environment because he cannot understand it. However, that is a contradiction. If man cannot understand the environment, then he cannot understand he is harming it. However, by arguing that man should preserve the environment so as not to harm it indicates that man understands he is harming the environment; therefore, man does indeed understand the environment. Additionally, if man does not truly understand the environment, then there is no way for him to prevent this happening from ever occurring again. However, Shyalama closes the film by showing an interview with a scientist identifying The Happening as a warning, and then showing The Happening occurring in another part of the world. Unfortunately, Shyamala has already identified man as too ignorant to understand nature; therefore, he cannot understand how to prevent this even from happening again. Thus, Shyamal'a's warning has no meaning. His warning cannot be headed.

Of course, the truth is man does understand nature, and he rightly uses that nature to control it. Thus, man is not infinitely weak compared to nature. Nature does not need to be merciful in the face of human surrender because man is not weak enough to surrender, and because nature is mindless; thus, it cannot be merciful. However, Shyamala depicts this when Wahlberg, Zooey Deschanel, and Ashlyn Snachez accept that the cunning plants will kill them so they go outside to breath the toxin, but the plants are no longer releasing the toxins. A better method would have been for man to discover a way to prevent the toxins or live with the toxins. Instead it was nature that had to stop acting because man, once again, was just to ignorant and weak. He had to give up, kneel before nature, and say, "Kill me. I have wronged you. I do not know what I am doing. I cannot control you. I do not deserve to live." Man deserves to live more than the environment. Man has reason. The environment is ignorant. Man should be striving for the day where he does not need the environment, for he can create his own environment and control it. Man would not be committing suicide by doing this. He would be living more fully than every before. Adhering to Shyamala's argument is suicide. Man must control the earth or die. It is not a threat. No one is coming to kill men who do not control the environment. It is only a fact that they will die, for they will not be living for themselves, but for the ignorant lifeless environment.

Exchanging Violence For Violence

When I tell people that I am interning at the Marijuana Policy Project (MPP), of course, I get several questions. The questions do not actually annoy me. I enjoy talking about my reasons for interning with the MPP, which involves my reasoning as to why drugs should be legalized. I generally just like discussing philosophy even the philosophical element of politics because, as is evident in the word "philosophy," it is a discussion concerned with truth. Discussing philosophy improves people in two ways. The most obvious way is that it directs people towards truth and towards virtue; thus, making man a more virtuous being. The other way it improves people is that it makes people more intelligent, and a sharp intellect is obviously necessary to uncover truth and virtue. Basically, discussing philosophy is enjoyable because it is a mental exercise improving intelligence, uncovering truth, and making men more virtuous; thus, being a virtuous act itself.

However, that was not really what I meant to discuss here. Often when discussing my philosophy surrounding drug legalization I find people who agree with me. Except, they only agree on the very basic level of the discussion: drugs should be legalized. Unfortunately, almost immediately after they say this they then say, "After it's legalized then the government can tax the hell out of it." Oh, yes, yes. What a brilliant idea. Let us exchange violence for violence. That is such an improvement.

I have problem written on this before, but I am going to briefly restate it here. Governments are established amongst men to protect man's natural rights to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and property. The government's purpose is to use force against those who initiate force, those who violate others' natural rights. Therefore, the government uses force for defense.

When the government outlaws drugs the government violates its own purpose, and thus behaves viciously. Merely using and distributing drugs does not infringe upon any one else's natural rights. Some will argue this does because drug dealers kill and steal. However, it is the acts of killing and stealing that are violating natural rights. Producing, transporting, selling, and using drugs, these acts do not violate anyone's natural rights. To argue that dealing drugs is violent would be the same as arguing that selling Big Mac's is violent because the employees of McDonald's kill Burger King employees. Selling the drug, or Big Mac, is not violent and not vicious. Killing others whether from Burger King or Colombia is violent and vicious.

By outlawing drugs the government must use force against drug users and distributors to enforce the prohibition. The government must use force against the mere acts of using and distributing drugs. If a drug dealer kills someone, the government would still use force against him if drugs were legal. The government would be using force in response to the murder not the sale of drugs. In this case the government is not acting viciously. It is using defense force. It is protecting others' natural rights. However, when the government uses force against the mere use or distribution of drugs the government is using force against innocent men. Using and distributing drugs does not violate natural rights; therefore, the government cannot be using defense force in this situation. There are no natural rights to defend in this situation because no natural rights are under attack. Thus, it is the government that is initiating force. The government is the one violating the natural rights of the drug users and distributors. Consequently, the government violates its own purpose. The government is supposed to be defending natural rights; however, in this case, the government is violating natural rights.

This is why drugs should be legalized. However, taxing drugs after they are legalized is not part of the solution, it is just part of another problem. Taxing is also vicious and also contradicts the government's purpose, for taxing is nothing but stealing. A man who has not paid his taxes has not violated anyone's natural rights. However, if a man does not pay his taxes he will firstly get a letter from the government, probably the IRS. However, eventually men with guns will come to his door. They may arrest him, then he will be tried, then he will go to prison. However, if the man resists he could be shot and killed. I understand mere resistance will not result in his death, it will only result in his injury. However, this man has not violated anyone's natural rights. He is an innocent man. Therefore, these officers, men with guns, are essentially kidnapping him. If a man is being kidnapped he will use force, defense force, against his kidnappers force, initiated force. In this case, if the man resists with increasing defense force to resist arrest, kidnap, the officers will probably shoot him because the man is endangering their lives. However, those officers are threatening his first. Once again, this man has not violated anyone's natural rights by not paying taxes. Therefore, the government cannot be using defense force, for there are no natural rights to protect. No natural rights are under attack. Thus, the government is initiating force. The government is violating that man's natural rights. Consequently, the government is once again contradicting its purpose. It is supposed to protect natural rights not attack them.

Additionally, the officers are threatening the man with death. In this situation they are not officers they are kidnappers, with guns, bringing him to a dungeon. The man has every right to defend himself. Of course, he knows that if he does not pay his taxes this will occur. When men with guns trying to kidnap him and take him to a dungeon arrive at his door, the man will not be surprised. The fact is, the gun is already pointed at his head. Therefore, the man should pay his taxes because his life is already being threatened.

Now that it is evident that legalizing drugs then taxing them is exchanging violence for violence, I will state that I am aware that taxing is already in existence. Therefore, if drugs were legalized they would have to be taxed. However, I do have a problem with saying they should be inordinately taxed. I agree that drug use is vicious; however, the government is being more vicious. The government is violating natural rights, people taking drugs are not. Therefore, I understand the basic mentality behind inordinately taxing them. The assumption is the drugs will be taxed out of business, then drug prohibition will be complete. Obviously, that has not worked out so well in regards to tobacco. The government keeps increasing the taxes, but people keep buying them. However, I am not opposed to inordinate drug taxes for the practical reason. I am opposed to it for the moral reasons.

The government would place excessive taxes on drugs for the same reason it places an excessive tax on tobacco products. The government just wants to steal more. Obviously, repealing all taxes is not the first step to correcting the government. However, instituting flat taxes is a near first step. Everyone, businesses and people included, should be left alone as much as possible; however, unfortunately it must be done in precipitating steps.

Furthermore, since the government would want to steal more from the drug companies, it is contradicting its false intent with the excessive drug tax. Clearly, the ulterior real motive is to just get as much money from drugs as possible. However, as I stated before, the argument is that it will eradicate drugs because the companies will go out of business. However, as I also stated before, this clearly does not work, and the government obviously knows it does not work. Thus, it is quite clear to everyone the government is just using that position as a smokescreen. The government really would not want drug companies to go out of business. That is where the government would make its biggest steals. Therefore, they would be saying the eradication of drugs is important, while not wanting them to go out of business at the same time. Essentially, the government is saying that any business is fine as long as it is paying the government whatever it wants. It is moral relativity at its core. To the government, drugs are neither virtuous or vicious. It would all depend on how much they could burglarize from them. The government's position would be nothing more than an insulting lie condoning moral relativity. Even without drugs being legalized, this is exactly what the government does with tobacco products. The government is already saying this.

My Philosophy Part 2: Virtue And Vice

If one has not read the first part of this series, I recommend reading it before reading this one.

This first part of my philosophy discussed human nature. In summary man is a rational, independent, individual, and these three characteristics entitle him to the natural rights of life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and property. Therefore, any man can live his life in any way he pleases as long as he does not infringe upon the natural rights of any other man. However, just because man has the right to live in any way he pleases without violating others' natural rights does not necessarily make his life moral.

First though, it must be explained as to why man should care about morality, care about being virtuous, care about avoiding vice. Since this is man's only life and it completely belongs to him he should live to be happy. The purpose of his life is personal happiness, and happiness is the realization of one's values, or living one's values, or living virtuously. Thus, man should care about morality, care about being virtuous, care about avoiding vice because the purpose of his life is to be happy. Therefore, a man's concern with morality is a rationally selfish concern.

Of course, now must uncover what is virtuous and what is vicious. If one cannot discern the difference he may be living a miserable life, even if he will not admit it to himself. Unfortunately, knowing what makes one happy is not obvious, it requires much introspection. My favorite example is the promiscuous man. He will state that he is happy, he may even believe he is happy; however, he is not happy, he is absolutely miserable. That will become more evident by the end of this post.

One more point before I continue: morality, virtue, and vice, are objective. There is a true morality, there are true virtues, and there are true vice. I did use the word "one" earlier stating that happiness is the realization of "one's" values. This does not mean the values are subjective. That each individual has their own personalized virtues and vices. If virtues and vices were subjective there would be no virtue or vice. One man could regard murder as a virtue, and another man regard it as a vice. If morality were subjective the murderer could kill anyone without fear of being vicious, immoral, wrong, incorrect, etc. Furthermore, arguing that morality is subjective negates itself. It is the argument that there is absolutely no absolutes, or that there truly are no truths. However, that statement depends on a truth or absolute to exist, yet argues there are no truths or absolutes. The reason that I used the word "one" was to emphasize that happiness is individual. Individual happiness is not realized through collective happiness. Happiness is achieved independently of others.

In order to discover virtue and vice one must look back to man's nature. At his foundation man is a rational, independent, individual. Therefore, happiness is achieved by living to the fullest of his nature. The man who tries to live contrary to his nature will be miserable, for he is not constructed in that manner. Thus, the most basic and highest virtuous are reason, independence, and selfishness.

Reason is obviously derived from the rational nature of man. Some will argue that man is an animal. Though man evolved from an animal and is constructed similarly to animals, man is no longer an animal. Man's reason is what sets man a tier above animals. As I have stated before, animals are shackled by instinct. They do not think to act, they do not concern themselves with virtue and vice, they do not have likes and dislikes. Animals only live according to a predetermined set of codes and responses that keep them alive. This is called instinct. My favorite example is: Crow A found a worm. Crow B takes the worm from crow A's mouth. Crow A only knows that he must look for another worm. However, if man A finds an apple. Man B takes the apple from man A's mouth. Man A labels man B as bad or vicious, labels the act as stealing, and tries to seek justice through some form of compensation and separating man B from his life. It is important to see that man's nature is not of the nature of animals because on a spectrum of thinking or reasoning man is at the high end of virtue and animal is at the low end of vice. Since reason is part of man's nature to think, to search for truth, to learn, any action that uses reason is a virtue. Simply, reasoning is virtuous. However, if one does not think, does not search for truth or worse does not care for truth, does not attempt to learn anything, and does not use his reason, he is vicious. Not thinking is for the animals. Their nature does not include reason. Man's nature is reason. It is the greatest defining mark separating him from animal. Man should reason because that is who he is.

There are two points concerning the virtue of independence. First, there independence from relying on others, and second, there is independence from others' reliance. Basically, because man is independent he must neither depend on others nor fulfill others' dependence on him. This seems relatively straight forward; however, it will often be argued that no one is actually independent. No one grows his own food, cooks his own food, makes his own products, makes his own electricity, retrieves his own water, etc. This does not make a man dependent. Dependence is relying on others, not exchanging products. The independent man labors, makes money to extend his labor, and then uses his money to purchase goods with his labor he has already performed. The dependent man is the one who does not labor, has no money, and expects others to pay him, feed him, clothe him, shelter him, without exchanging his money, or his labor, for their goods.

However, it is often forgotten that man can be dependent in other ways than through services and goods. Man can depend on others for happiness. One must be suspicious of the man with many friends, for it is the man who can be alone that is truly happy. If one must constantly be around others to feel fine, or attend social gathers to have fun and be happy he is a vicious man, and thus, not a happy man. These people are dependent on others to make them happy, for they cannot make themselves happy. The one who likes to be alone or with a few friends is independent, virtuous, and truly happy.

Furthermore, one must be selective as to how he chooses friends. This actually encompasses all the basic virtues, reason, independence, and selfishness; however, it may be best to address it here. The man with many friends and constantly in attendance at social events is not only vicious because he is dependent. This man is also vicious because he probably has vicious friends. The dependent man and overall vicious man believes friends are an end in themselves. He believes that having many friends is inherently good. He is also the man that will not judge his friends. This unwillingness to judge is a vice. Man must discriminate.

Friends are the icing on the cake. One must be able to make himself happy, and only add friends as an addition. Additionally, one chooses a friend because he values them more than others. The basis of friendship is selfishness. It is also the basis of love. The man who is friends with great numbers, wants to be friends with everyone, loves everyone even strangers, is not selfishly choosing these people over others. He values them all equally. Thus, obviously he does not value any man more than any other man. Consequently, he does not actually value any of them, since they are all valued equally.

As I stated before, in order to selfishly choose a person as a friend, one must selfishly value the person. One values another based on more than his existence. The man with many friends has friends because they exist. The fact that one was born does not make him good enough to be a friend. One chooses another as a friend because he values the standards the other lives by. Therefore, one chooses another as a friend because the other lives by the same standards as him. A man who is a capitalist does not have communist friends. They have fundamentally opposing view points. One fundamentally believes the other is wrong. Therefore, the communist cannot value the capitalist's standards and vice versa. Valuing another is valuing one's self. It is choosing a person who is virtuous, and one recognizes the person as virtuous if he lives by the same standards. A virtuous and happy man does not choose to be friends with vicious men. He chooses to be friends with equally virtuous people.

The last point concerning independence is that the virtuous man does not fulfill dependent men. This is somewhat similar to friendship. The virtuous man does not associate with vicious men; therefore, the virtuous man should not fulfill the reliance of viciously dependent men. It is vicious to be dependent, for it violates the nature of man. Therefore, no one should be rewarded for their vices. The virtuous man ignores the reliance of the beggar. Not because it is the best thing for the beggar. Not because the beggar will learn that dependence is wrong if no one satisfies his reliance. The virtuous man ignores the reliance of the beggar because it would be vicious for the virtuous man to satisfy that reliance. The virtuous man is preserving his virtues, not trying to make the vicious virtuous.

This leads to the final highest virtue, selfishness or egoism. As previously stated, since one's life is one's own, and this is his only one, he should live for his own happiness. He should selfishly and egoistically live for himself. The man who is selfless, the man who lives for others, sacrifices his life and thus happiness for the lives and happiness of others. To destroy one's only life in any quantity for others' lives is a vice.

Of course, some will then argue that this is incorrect because the man who takes a bullet for his friends is the virtuous man. Firstly, it depends how valued this other friend is. If the friend is a mere acquaintance or one tier above acquaintance, it is most certainly a vice. Like it is most certainly a vice to take a bullet for a mere stranger. If one is going to allow his life to be destroyed for another, it must be for another he values most highly. One should only be willing to destroy his life for a few. To die for another should not be to recognize that the other's life is worth more than one's own. That is self-loathing, a vice. It is also an action for the greater good, also a vice. One should die for another because he values the other as the highest, next to himself, and because he is interested in selfishly protecting the virtuous and standards he values in himself and the other.

Some will also argue that the virtue of selfishness condones promiscuity, which I vehemently oppose. I have made this distinction several times between rational selfishness and animal or absolute selfishness. When I speak of the virtue of selfishness I am speaking of rational selfishness. I speak of a selfishness concerned with the true. I speak of a selfishness that regards reason, independence, and egoism as the highest virtues. The man who is promiscuous is not rationally selfish; therefore, he is not acting in accordance with the first virtue, reason. A man who violates one virtue for the sake of another is vicious. None of the three should be ignored to act more in accordance with another. They are all virtues. To ignore any is a vice.

Since reason, independence, and selfishness are the three highest virtues the three worst vices are their opposites: ignorance, collectivism, and self-loathing. I will not explain each of these. Once one understands the virtues he can easily understand the vices. However, in short:

Ignorance is clearly the polar opposite of reason. It is an unconcern for truth and thus reality. It is essentially unconcern for knowledge in general.

Collectivism is the same as dependence; therefore, it clearly opposes independence. However, collectivism actually goes one step further than dependence. Collectivism attempts to link man together, even though his nature is of independence from other men.

Finally, self-loathing is the hatred of one's self. One that is self-loathing is willing to suffer, is willing to be absolutely miserable. Consequently, this man is also willing to destroy himself. To him suffering and misery are virtues because he believes his is an awful man. Most ideologies that embrace this vice argue that man is awful because he was born, not because of his actions. Since he is awful, since suffering and misery are virtues, the most virtuous act is to destroy one's self for others. Therefore, self-loathing is directly linked to selflessness, which directly opposes selfishness.

I have a few points in closing. Firstly, once again, reason, independence, and selfishness are the most basic virtues. They can lead man to understand any virtue or vice. It would be impossible for me to go through every action and classify it as a virtue or a vice. That is why I have not discussed natural rights in depth in this post. Those three virtues are directly related to the three basic qualities of man's nature, which lead to natural rights. Therefore, the violation of any other man's natural rights is clearly a vice, and violating other natural rights would relate to the three vices, ignorance, collectivism, and self-loathing, and also the three virtues, reason, independence, and selfishness.

Finally, it is important to understand that morality is not solely lived in one's mind. One is not virtuous just because he understands this, because he believes it in his mind. Actually, I would argue one that only lives these virtues in his mind does not truly understand these virtues. In any event, the mind and body are not separable. The body physically represents the mind. Therefore, every action is a moral action. Every action is concerned with virtue and vice. The promiscuous man who understands all this is still vicious because he acts viciously. A man is defined as virtuous or vicious not by his thoughts, but by his actions.

Voluntary Human Extinction Movement

The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (VHEMT) is obviously an atrocious movement calling for the extinction of man kind. Their reasoning for this twisted mentality is that presently man's impact on the biosphere, environment, nature, whatever is so damaging that it is vicious for man to exist. Clearly, there are several problems with this organization. I have already addressed several of these problems in the Exploit-The-Earth Day post, so this will be rather short.

The problems with VHEMT include altruism for the inanimate, assuming an inherent value of nature, and moral compromising. I addressed the first two in the Exploit-The-Earth Day post, so the third one will be brand new. However, first, VHEMT's altruism for the inanimate.

There is already a problem with altruism. I have addressed it before, but I will address it again. A man's nature includes being an individual and independent. He also has the natural rights to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and property. Therefore, it is virtuous for a man to live for the purpose of attaining his own happiness. Now, I am not advocating hedonism because hedonists are not happy. Hedonists are dependent on others, which contradicts man's nature. In order to be happy one must use introspection. Therefore, the promiscuous man, who believes he is happy, must ask himself serious questions to determine if his belief is true. He will undoubtedly find that his belief is a falsehood.

Since living rationally selfish, living to pursue one's own happiness, is virtuous, then altruism is inherently wrong. Altruism calls for the individual to sacrifice part of his self, which includes his life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and property, for the sake of others' well being and happiness. Therefore, the individual is not really an individual. He is a tool for the collective. Furthermore, the individual is not independent, for the basic argument of the altruist is that life is about everyone. Thus, no man is an island. Everyone is just a grain as part of the entire continent. According to the altruist, the grains must not try to be islands. First, the altruist does not believe independence is part of human nature. Obviously, grains cannot be islands, they will sink. The altruist does not think a man can be independent. The altruist believes the man who tries to be independent will fail, he will descend into misery, he will not be able to accomplish anything. In short, altruism violates every point of man's nature. Man is regarded as a tool for others to depend on, and a parasite to depend on others. Additionally, man must sacrifice his self for others' selves in order to be virtuous. Thus, it is virtuous to destroy one's being.

That is the basic problem with altruism. However, in VHEMT's case altruism takes another nauseating turn. The simple altruist believes man should destroy his self for other men. However, VHEMT, which is an altruistic movement oriented in favor of the environment believes man should destroy his self for nature. There is no doubt that altruists are vicious; however, they are concerned with man's well being. The environmental altruists do not care about man. Actually, that is a mistake. Environmental altruists do care about man. They care about how evil man is for altering the environment. Environmental altruists hate man, yet love nature. However, nature has no reason. Nature cannot accomplish anything, for nature has no will or desire. Nature cannot be happy. Nature has no reason so it has no natural rights. Yet, the environmentalists argue this inherently ignorant stagnant surrounding to man, is greater than man. Nature cannot create railroads, planes, cars, and sky scrapers. Nature has difficulty adapting to man. Yet, man can create inventions and control nature. The environment is not a blockade to man's desires. Clearly, man is greater; however, more importantly, as I stated before, man has reason, nature does not. Reason grants man the potential for greatness, the potential to be virtuous and to achieve and produce. Nature has no reason so it is not even included in morality, and it has no basis to desire to achieve or produce; thus, nothing nature does can be called an achievement or production. However, the environmental altruists argue that nature is superior to man. They argue nature is better more valuable than man. I will address the point of value later, but the point here is that the environmental altruists want something that is great to commit suicide for something that is infinitely inferior, and can never achieve greatness. Nature is not even included on the same scale as man.

The next problem is that VHEMT assumes nature has an inherent value. This is incorrect. Nature only has value if man exists. Without man a tree is a tree is a tree is a tree. It is just a tree. Nothing more nothing less; however, a tree is not that much to begin with. Some animals live in it, and it makes oxygen for other animals. So trees, without any reason; therefore, it is not producing, makes oxygen for other ignorant beings to exist. However, what values do these other animals have. What value does the making of oxygen have without man. According, to environmentalists nature has value in the fact that it sustains itself. So nature's value is that it can remain in existence. What value is there in nature existing without man? Nature continues to exist and do what? Maybe millions of years later a waterfall is created. For what? A canyon another billion years after. For what? However, man can take the tree and make it into paper. The paper can then be used to make books, keep records, draw designs for future projects. Books promote philosophy and knowledge. Records reduce man's labor time, freeing more time for man's leisure. Designs allow for man to create more, such as making a sky scrapper and designing cars. The sky scrapper shelters man from the ravages of nature, provides more work space, more space to create. Cars shorten the time of man's travel, giving him more free time for his happiness. Everything man creates has a purpose leading to the achievement of his own happiness, success, and realizing his virtues. When nature makes a waterfall no purpose is fulfilled. Therefore, nature has no inherent value. Nature only has value with man. Nature only has value when man looks at a tree and does not see a tree but sees paper and lumber, which means he sees books, records, designs, homes, buildings, which means he sees leisure time, happiness, success, realizing virtues. The tree then has value as a resource for man's happiness. Without man a tree, is a tree, is a tree, is a tree.

Some will argue that nature's destruction for man's happiness is also altruism. However, altruism is voluntary. One must choose to commit suicide, destroy himself, for the sake of others. Furthermore, in order to make this choice, to have liberty, one must have reason. Nature has no reason. It cannot choose to commit suicide for others. In fact, it does not choose, man takes and controls the environment by his choice, not natures, for nature cannot choose. Some will also argue that this then is a vice, to seize and control nature without its choice, even though nature does not have the ability to choose. This is not a vice because nature is not included in morality. In order to be included in morality one must have natural rights. In order to have natural rights one must have reason. Nature is devoid of reason. Seizing, controlling, destroying, utilizing, manipulating nature for man's happiness is not a vice because nature has no reason, and thus no natural rights.

Finally, there is the problem with VHEMT's moral compromise. VHEMT has a set of virtues, which are all pretty close to vices. So, for the moment, to show VHEMT's personal contradictions I will stay within their virtues. However, their virtues are not the virtue's of reality. Their virtues are vice's of reality. VHEMT's moral principles are based on the foundation that man's existence is vicious because it harms the environment. Man's existence is vicious is VHEMT's most basic moral principle. Therefore, it is virtuous to reduce the number of men in existence. VHEMT does this by its members voluntarily deciding not to reproduce. However, VHEMT also regards suicide and killing as vicious, even though those methods would reduce the number of men in existence. I am against any sort of idea of the greater good, or ends-justify-the-means philosophy, so this appears to be on the correct track, somewhat. The problem I see is that VHEMT regards existence itself as vicious; therefore, anything that would reduce man's existence without harming the environment would be virtuous. That is, of course, unless VHEMT believes man has natural rights; therefore, killing would be vicious. However, then suicide would still not be vicious. Furthermore, if VHEMT believes man has natural rights, then the rest of their morality falls apart. If, for VHEMT, natural rights are the reason why killing others is vicious, then some or all the natural rights VHEMT believes in must be similar to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and property. Those natural rights are supported by man's nature as individual and independent. Therefore, if VHEMT believes killing is vicious because it violates man's natural rights, they must believe man is individual and independent. However, if that is the case then their environmental altruistic stance is vicious, for if man is an independent individual with some or all the natural rights of life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and property, it is not virtuous to sacrifice himself for nature. The basic principles of man's nature indicate that man is not linked to nature, that his life is his own; therefore, there is no virtue in preserving stagnant ignorant nature period, let alone destroying one's self for nature. Furthermore, if they believe man has natural rights they cannot believe nature has natural rights. The qualities that give man natural rights are not present in nature. In short, VHEMT cannot believe man has natural rights, while advocating that man stop reproducing for nature's sake. Consequently, VHEMT compromises its own morality by arguing that man's existence is vicious, limiting his existence is virtuous, yet killing and suicide are vicious.