Smart People and The Day The Earth Stood Still

Smart People - two and a half stars

This is from the same maker of Sideways, which I moderately enjoyed. The problem I had with Sideways is that the film appears to hate its main characters. It is as if the film itself believes the characters are worthless and have no possibility of improving, even though the ending indicates that one character will improve. Smart People has less of that mentality. Professor Lawrence Wetherhold (Dennis Quaid) is the only character the film hates. Obviously, this is an improvement. However, Smart People had more shortcomings in the end. The film is not as complete as Sideways. There are parts of the Smart People story that are not sufficiently addressed. This is especially noticeable in the Chuck Wetherhold (Thomas Haden Church) and Vanessa Wetherhold (Ellen Page) relationship. Something strange happens, which could just be passed off as drunkenness, causing the uncle-niece relationship to become awkward. Though it is spoken about towards the end of the film, it is never resolved. Furthermore, Vanessa's fulfillment of the mother role is never corrected, or even talked about like the previous issue. Thus, the audience is left to wonder why she would want to go to Stanford, or if she is even going to go through with attending. Finally, Vanessa's conservative mentality makes it unbelievable that she would smoke marijuana and drink alcohol at her uncle's suggestion. There needs to be some incentive. The most obvious would be that Vanessa's mentality and academic studies have resulted in no friendships, making the uncle the only possible candidate. Therefore, she would do anything to keep that friendship. However, there was no threat that she would lose the friendship if she did not smoke or drink; thus, there is no incentive for her to abandon or ignore her standards. Of course, another positive of the film is Ellen Page. She does an excellent job with her role. However, I would like to see her in other roles aside from the smart or smart-ass or lethal teenager. Yet, I cannot be that disappointed. I like her too much to be that disappointed right now. Of course, I cannot actually like her because I do not know who she is. However, her acting abilities are an indication of her love for creating, and if she is anything like the Ellen Page during interviews, then she must not be all that bad.

The Day The Earth Stood Still - three stars

The trailers for the remake with the infinitely talented Keanu Reeves indicates that The Day The Earth Stood Still is a sci-fi action flick. The action part is incorrect. The original is almost devoid of all action, and I like that way. Usually sci-fi films are filled with action and violence. Though the robot Gort does injure some people and shoot some lasers the destruction is minimal. Nothing blows up. Objects hit by the laser disappear. Additionally, I can count the number of times Gort attacked on one hand.

The film is more about an alien learning about earth, and trying to determine how he can convey his message. However, that is just what happens. Obviously, the true meaning of the film is the theme. This film is completely theme. It is not meant to be purely entertaining like the remake appears. Though not all elements are philosophically sound and there are several missed opportunities for commentary, the majority is pretty solid. Basically, the alien was sent by his home planet to earth because terrestrials recently discovered atomic power. Therefore, in short time terrestrials would discover how to use atomic power to travel easily throughout space. However, since earth is currently at war, usually at war, and appears to have a predisposition to violence the aliens fear their lives are at stake. The alien's message is basically, "We never interfered with you before because what you do on your own planet is your own business. However, if you come into space and start attacking us, we will have to destroy you." Obviously, destroying all terrestrials is extreme. However, the basic principle is what government should be, and how people should behave. People can live their own lives because their lives are their own. However, if they start attacking other people they must be stopped.

My favorite scene is when the alien steps off his ship and states, "I come in peace and good will." His ship is already surrounded by the military. He walks toward the military line, extending an item towards them. When the item expands a soldier fires, inuring the alien and destroying the item. The alien then states that the item was a gift, and with it man could create life on other planets. The message here is that people react to force to quickly. Defense force or retaliatory force can only be used in response to initiating force. Extending an item does not violate anyone's natural rights; therefore, defense force is unnecessary, and is actually aggressive force. Obviously, the alien should have explained the item was a gift as he approached in order to assure his safety; however, his lack of speaking does not legitimize their force. He has the right not to speak.

My other favorite scene is after the alien has abandoned his ship to go undercover and learn more about terrestrials. During his absence the military keep his ship and robot surrounded and then they try to break into both of them. Once again initiating force is displayed through the violation of property rights. Of course, the alien did park on a baseball field, violating the field owner's property rights. However, no one asked him to move, and the alien may be unaware that he parked in the wrong spot. Of course, he was monitoring earth for a while so he should have known. However, this was completely a missed opportunity regarding property rights because the alien notices people are trying to break into his ship and does not say anything. He does not even shake his head as he constantly does throughout the film. Unfortunately, the alien does break into someone else's house, making him an aggressor. Consequently, any head shaking at the attempted breaches of his ship combined with his breaking and entering of a house would make him contradictory. This is just one of the few philosophically unsound moments.

This Has Not Happened In A While

During the last week of my internship Russia invaded Georgia. Since my second semester I have not been reading or watching any news. Throughout high school I would watch the news often, and during my first semester I read the news every day. Eventually, I realized that I did not enjoy it. I found it boring and frustrating. However, there was a time when I was incredibly interested in watching the news because I liked to think of how the reported problems could be solved. Additionally, I would often envision myself as a government employee such as a diplomat or agent of the CIA. I never pictured myself as a James Bond character. I understood a career in the CIA or the foreign service as a whole to be similar to how it was portrayed in the film Spy Game. However, over the past years I have developed some reservations about government, and I no longer want to work within the defense arena. One reason is that my pay check would be funded with taxes, which does involve some degree of armed robbery. The second reason is that the defense sphere of government appears to lack moral standards. I am of course no hippie. I do not get riled up for the same reasons. I also do not really get riled up. I just have this reserved disdain. As I have stated several times before the purpose of government is to protect individuals natural rights. Therefore, the American government should protect the natural rights of those that live in America. Thus, if there is a foreign enemy, such as a nation or organization that initiates force against individuals living in America, the American government should use retaliatory or defense force against the aggressors. Consequently, I have no problem with special operations forces killing Al-Qeada terrorists. I also have no problem with the U.S. military invading a country that has attacked individuals living in America. I am not referring to the Iraq war in this circumstance, but World War II especially in regards to Japan would apply. Though I do have my reservations about the atomic bomb. However, I probably would have to agree with the use of the first one. The second one I am not so sure about. The first one still disturbs me though. I will discuss this issue at another time.

Anyway, the only real problem I have with these actions is that they would be funded by taxes. They should be funded with voluntary funds or user fees like they were a security firm. Unfortunately, this is not the way the defense sphere operates, and I am not referring to how they are funded. In changing the government eliminating all taxes would be one of the last steps. The problem with the defense sphere is that they do not solely use retaliatory force. The defense sphere consistently initiates force. Iraq, Vietnam, Korea, Somalia, First Gulf War, just to name a few obvious ones. Therefore, if I were part of the defense sphere I would have to act viciously, through accepting my paycheck provided by tax money, and following through with orders requiring the initiation of force.

However, last week while monitoring the news for my internship I noticed a few headlines about Russia invading Georgia. Immediately a passion was ignited within me. While at my internship I went to Al Jazeera news, which I read consistently during my first semester because it provided specific news of the Middle East. I then read an article about Russia invading Georgia, another about the Pakistani legislature having enough votes to begin the impeachment process against President Musharef, and another article about the Iraqi government demanding an exit time table from the United States. I began to envision myself as the problem solving, and began thinking about how the U.S. government should interact with these situations. I have this strong desire to be a problem solver and an additionally strong desire to be a protect of natural rights. I have also been reading The Bourne Identity, which has also kept my passion lit. I have a desire to operate secretly, and neutralize threats to individuals' natural rights. I briefly considered pursuing a career in the defense sphere on a clandestine level as I once did starting during my first year of high school and through to my first semester freshman year. However, then I read this post while researching blogs for my internship:

"'545' PEOPLE THAT MAINTAIN A DYSFUNCTIONAL GOVERNMENT!

By Charlie Reese* --

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them. Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, we have deficits?

Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, we have inflation and high taxes? ·

You and I don't propose a federal budget. The President does. · You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does. ·

You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does. ·

You and I don't set fiscal policy, congress does. ·

You and I don't control monetary policy, The Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president and nine Supreme Court justices - 545 human beings out of the 300 million - are directly, legally, morally and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country. The plate is so full of problems its totally overwhelming.I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board, because that problem was created by the Congress.In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered but private central bank.I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority.They have no ability to coerce a senator, a Congressman or a president to do one cotton-picking thing.I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash.

The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes. Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall, power, love of the lime light and perks. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits.The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.

The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes.Who is the speaker of the House?Nancy Pelosi, she is the leader of the majority party.She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want.If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted-- by present facts - of incompetence and Irresponsibility.

Wake up America before its too late.

I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people.

When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.·

If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair or don't care. ·

If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red or don't care. ·

If the Marines are in IRAQ, it's because they want them in IRAQ. ·

If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.

It’s a windfall for them. One term, and their set for life. There are no insoluble government problems.Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power.

Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like 'the economy,' 'inflation' or 'politics' that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people and they alone, are responsible. They and they alone, have the power.They and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses - provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees.We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!'

*Charlie Reese is a former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel"

I also read this quote while also researching blogs:

"'Democracy is the pathetic belief in the wisdom of collective ignorance.' - H.L. Mencken"

This made me realize that no matter how much I desired to protect individuals' natural rights, the government is not acceptable for me. Essentially, I remembered what disenchanted me with the government towards the end of my first semester. However, during the summer I had a discussion with my cousin about government. He is a libertarian objectivist like myself, and he wants to work for the government at some point. I will discuss and address his argument in a later post. It has made me reconsider whether or not working for the government is vicious. Right now I am leaning towards that it is; however, he did bring up some good points. Presently, I envision myself being forever caught between anarchism and libertarian government, never being wholly convinced of either one.

Production

Production is creating an object or service with one's own mind and ability; it is one of the most enjoyable and virtuous actions one can commit. That is, of course, only if one produces properly. Producing properly involves all the elements of man's nature: individuality, reason, and independence.

Production involves individuality because one should be producing for one's own benefit. He should be creating because it makes him happy. Essentially, production is selfish. However, there are plenty of people who loathe their jobs. Some people accept work they loathe because they assume it is virtuous, and is thus willing to sacrifice his happiness in order to continue the work. Obviously, it is not virtuous if one is miserable because happiness is the realization of one's values; happiness is acting virtuously. There could be a variety of reasons why one is miserable while pursuing what one perceives to be virtue. One answer could be that the virtues are actually vices. Another could be that some element about the work, unrelated to the morality, such as an annoying coworker, causes one to be miserable. In any event, the misery should not be dismissed outright as a mistake. One should not force himself to be happy. Emotions are not worthless; they are important indicators. However, they must be explored. This is all for another more in depth post. Another reason someone would continue work they hate is because they see no escape. This is a host of other problems. Obviously, there is always some way to improve one's situation one must only take action. Of course, there are all sorts of extenuating circumstances. For example, one may despise his entry level job, but accepts it because he desires the managerial position. Therefore, there is no escape from the entry level job until promotion. Of course, in this situation there is an exchange. One is willing to accept something miserable for an improvement in the near future; thus, there is an escape. Once again the situation must be analyzed, and the person must be willing to act. The person must not be self-loathing, assume they are worthless, and voluntarily choose stagnation. They fact that one chooses stagnation indicates that one is not worthless, for one can choose progress.

Production also involves reason because it involves the application of one's knowledge. Obviously, entry level positions require less reason than higher levels; however, entry level positions are only temporary, and they prepare one for the high levels demanding more reason. Of course, some people like to remain in mindless jobs. There may be the few who enjoy excelling in these positions; trying to create an environment and produce work that is efficient. However, this itself demands reason. The problem is with people who are completing the bare minimum. These individuals are in fact not producing. They are just going through the motions. They have degraded themselves to a cog in a machine. However, in order to reach this level the individual must already assume that he is nothing but an expendable machine part. Once again he has chosen to be inactive out of self-loathing, indicating with some self appreciation he can choose to be active.

The final element that makes production virtuous is independence. When one produces something he is using his own mind and abilities to create. Production is not a collective effort. Obviously, every creation requires several individuals; however, this does not make it collective. Every individual involves in the job is assigned a specific task. The perfect example is the construction of a building. There is the architect, or several architects, and builders. The architect is responsible for designing the building. He must create a vision of the building and produce a design for it's construction. The builders are not extensively involved in this part. The builders; however, are responsible for erecting the building. Furthermore, each builder has specific tasks. Therefore, all the individuals involved in producing a building are completing unique tasks utilizing their own abilities and their own minds. Additionally, each individual is acting, or should be acting, to achieve one's own happiness; each individual is producing to be happy. There is no collective element. The individuals are not producing so all the workers will be satisfied. That is an personal pursuit and each individual should not be acting with the concern of making another individual happy. Also, the workers are not providing their input on every task. The welder welds and the crane operators are not involved in the welding and the welder is not involved in the crane operations. The architect designs the building and the plumber does not concern himself with designing the building and the architect does not concern himself with plumbing. Clearly, each must act with the other's work in mind, or else the building would not be operational. However, the architect is not laying pipes, and the plumber is drawing his vision of the building.

I believe the most important aspect of production is the individualistic aspect. Individuals must enjoy their own work. The must not voluntarily choose imprisonment to the tasks, they must not miserably pursue a false virtue, and most importantly they must not produce to impress others, or for the sake of doing better than others. Personally, I was trapped in such thinking throughout much of my pre-college academic career. I was only concerned with producing in order to do better than others. Therefore, I was relying on others. I was depending on others' failure in order to be happy.

I was never good at sports. I also was not interested in sports. The same goes for socializing. However, throughout my academic career students seemed to identify success as excelling in those areas. Therefore, according to them, I was a failure. Early on I really did not care about this; however, by fifth grade when my self-loathing started to develop, provoked by the insults from those exceeding in sports and socializing, I was obsessed with being as smart as possible so I could be better than them. Obviously, those insulting me were self-loathing. They were not satisfied with their own achievements; thus, they needed to make others miserable, make others hate themselves in order to be happy. However, my actions were exactly the same. I was not satisfied with who I was. I thought that I was a failure according to standards I was not interested in. Therefore, I desired others to hate themselves more, hate themselves in the field I claimed, so I could be happy, to convince my self that I was valuable. Of course, I really just had to enjoy the work I was doing, which really did not start until my first semester of college when I began to correct my thoughts. However, even now, when I find myself thinking about someone in the past I dislike, my next thought is of me being successful and smiling in their faces while they are frowning below me. Immediately, I try to correct myself. I remind myself that I must enjoy my work as it is, and if I do not enjoy my work, I must find new work, work that I like. However, I do need to explore this more. Understand why even today I picture those who angered me, and picture my success as retribution. More importantly, I need to understand why I am even thinking about these people if I dislike them. The people I envision are people I do not even communicate with. All the people I envision I have not seen in about a year. I do not plan on resuming association with them in the future. Therefore, they are not part of my life, I should not be thinking about them. However, I must understand why I am. Once I understand it, I will probably be able to direct myself to being happier.

Some More Film Reviews

The Squid And The Whale – three and a half stars

This movie captures the result of children growing up with deficient parents. By deficient I am not referring to completely psychopathic physically and sexually abusing parents. I am referring to the parents below that level. Just below the level that the law can intervene. Parents who verbally abuse one another and their children in addition to psychologically and emotionally abusing all the members of the family.

Usually, I like movies that depict life as it should be; however, I do enjoy some dark film because they expose unexplored problems. This is one such film because few people discuss the extraordinary damage a family can cause. Obviously, family can be good, but just the fact that people are a family, are related, does not make it good. It is the family members’ actions that make them good. In The Squid And The Whale none of the characters use their family status as an excuse, as a way to identify their actions as good. I believe maybe once or twice someone says lines similar to “I am your father,” or “I am your brother,” which is exactly like saying “we are family” as to justify vicious actions. However, the mother and father do get divorced; therefore, the “we are family” justification cannot be used prevalently. What is more disturbing is that no one really tries to justify their actions, suggesting that everyone assumes what they are doing is virtuous. What their assumed virtuous actions but really vicious actions produce is a son who hates his mother and is trying to pursue a promiscuous life style and another son who abuses himself and destroys property through unhealthy sexual activities.

At the end of the film comes the moment I like. A period that shows what life is supposed to be like. The son who hates the mother and always supports the father finally realizes something is wrong. He abandons his father at the hospital and visits the last place he felt happy. It is as if he is identified there is a problem, avoided everything wrong with that problem, and then asks, “What can I do to make things better?” meaning, “What can I do to be happy again.?”

Pineapple Express – two and a half stars

How could someone mess up this idea? Answer: to much pot humor, not enough Hot Fuzz. Pineapple Express was allegedly supposed to be the frat pack’s and Judd Apatow’s crew’s humorous interpretation of action films. Instead, it was a stoner film with a few schizophrenic breaks into poor action humor.

Pot humor is funny; however, there is so much ground that can be covered. It is relatively easy to make a pot joke. The smokers’ mental capacity is already diminished because they are high, so naturally they are going to act goofy. That is basically the pot joke, which was basically the movie. James Franco’s portrayal of a stereotypical pot head was well done, and after seeing him in Spider Man I doubted his acting ability. Pineapple Express was his movie, but since pot humor is simple and limited, and he was a pot head, even his material was overused by the end of the film.

Unlike pot humor, making a comedic homage to action films is more difficult, and Pineapple Express did not rise to the challenge. The action sequences were ridiculous enough to be unrealistic but they were not extreme enough to be unbelievably hilarious. Personally, I was expecting something more like Hot Fuzz, which masters the humorous honoring of action films like Point Break and Bad Boys II.

The reason that Pineapple Express gets three and a half stars is because I just saw Step Brothers and there is no way this was as bad as Step Brothers. Pineapple Express definitely had more funny moments. My favorite part was the ending of the film where James Franco, Seth Rogen, and Danny McBride are sitting around a table talking about their adventures. It reminded me of Boy Scouts where I and other members of the troop would sit around and talk about what we did that day, a movie we saw, or a game we played. It was not like we sat down and asked, “So what did you do today?” like a married couple going through the motions. It was more like, “Guys, you should have seen what John did today on the ropes course. It was hilarious,” or “Okay, so I was about the grab the other team’s flag, then all of the sudden Jack pops up from the tall grass like he’s a marine sniper or something.” I like that kind of setting and dialogue because it shows people enjoying what they did, and not being ashamed to talk about how much fun they had.

Clue – four stars

Yes, this is a movie based on the board game. Obviously, that sounds like an atrocious idea, but it is hilarious. Infinitely better than any frat pack comedy, and I would put it right up there with The In Laws and The Blues Brothers. Basically, all the characters are brought together by mysterious letters inviting them to some dinner party. They are all given pseudonyms, which are the characters’ names of the Clue board game. Then it is revealed that all the characters are involved in scandals and the host of the dinner party has been black mailing all of them. The host then gives everyone a gift. Each gift contains one of the weapons from the board game. Then, for some reason, the host turns off the lights. Let it be known that all the characters have weapons, and the host has already told all of them that he is blackmailing them. Obviously, there are crashes and gun shoots in the dark. When the lights are turned on the host is dead. Then, hysteria ensues as other people in the house are killed while the Clue characters try to figure out who the murderer is. I will not reveal the murderer here, but here is a hint, there are three different endings and none of them make real sense. The film includes such classic lines as, “Communism was only a red herring,” and “I hated her so much. It was like flames… flames on the sides of my face.”

Religion And The State Are The Same - One Last Thing

I forgot to add one last point to the similarities between religion and the state. I thought of adding it to the original post, but I like keeping the posts exactly as they are when I publish them. I find that to be a more honest form. As of right now, I do not think I have edited any posts after I published them.

Anyway, the part I forgot to talk about was the collective element. In both religion and the state the individual is regarded as worthless without the religion or the state. In all religions there is constantly this talk of "a path" or "a way." Thus, suggesting, if not stated outright, one is lost if he is not on the religion's path. Basically, while one is an infidel or atheist he mindlessly roams around life as a heathen of some sort. Like some roaming animal, a yahoo of the herd. However, when he finds religion suddenly he knows how to act, knows his purpose in life. That is another part. God has a plan for each person. Of course, one has to ignore the free will part if he is to accept that. Anyway, if one is not listening to God or following God, he cannot possibly know his purpose, for God gives it to him. Furthermore, once one becomes a part of religion, to establish his worth, he must then sacrifice himself to the other followers, the cause, the unfortunate, to God. Therefore, his purpose, his worth, is just fodder and fuel for others. His worth is only established in his grinding down for others. Basically, before one finds religion he is a tree in the forest. When he begins following a religion, he is then a log in the fire. That is how he allegedly establishes worth.

The exact same thing is true for the state. I have written about this before in regards to Rousseau. In his books The Government of Poland and Politics and the Arts, Rousseau goes on and on about how one's civic duties are the definition of his life. One must spend several hours of his day studying local politics so as to make educated civic minded decisions. One must attend national sporting events, and other gathers to foster camaraderie among the citizens. Also a strong culture, one culture, that unites all the citizens must be established. The reason being that the state must be strong, for if the state is weak, it can be destroyed. In that case the people will then be unprotected; they will descend into a violent state of nature. Therefore, individuality is the enemy to the state. It causes a breakdown in culture, camaraderie, and government functions. Therefore, it is framed that the individual is worthless without the state. However, just like religion, one establishes his worth by being ground down into materials for the state.

Religion And The State Are The Same

Last week I listened to podcast 1103 of Freedomain radio where Stefan Molyneux addresses whether or not atheist libertarians should be concerned about religion within government, specifically whether or not political candidates are religious. For the record, I do not understand how a libertarian can be religious in the first place. However, the fact that there are religious libertarians indicates that the libertarian party, and libertarians in general, do not have a philosophical basis for their policies. Instead, libertarians overemphasize the founders' intent. The truth is, the founding fathers' intent does not make a policy legitimate. The truth, what is virtuous, makes a policy legitimate. As it stands now, libertarians argue that modern policies should mirror the founders' intent; however, they pick and choose which of the founders' intents they will follow. The most obvious example is slavery. Some founders were against slavery, others opposed, others unsure. If the founders' intent was infallible, libertarians would not ignore the fact that the founders' were really not interested in eradicating slavery. The intents of slave-owning and blood-letting relatives does not make something legitimate, truth and virtue do.

However, I have digressed. Before I even listened to this post I already knew there was something wrong with politicians who were religious. Religion is just another way to spell i-g-n-o-r-a-n-t. Therefore, a religious politician is susceptible to ignorance. Furthermore, a large segment of religious beliefs is devoted to morality, a warped one at that. Thus, a religious politician has an ignorant basis for his morality. Consequently, he has a legitimate basis for his actions, specifically his policies, for every action is a moral action. That is why I decided before I even listened to this post I would not vote for a religious politician. For the record, Molyneux is an anarcho-capitalist. I have been approaching these beliefs for some time, but I still have some reservations. However, not about the capitalist part, the reservations are solely for anarchy. Of course, I am not ruling out anarchism. I find significant value in most if not all of its arguments. There is just this problem I need to work out, which I will explain at some later date.

Once again, I have digressed. A large part of Molyneux's podcast was about how religion and tyranny run together. Basically, as religiosity increases tyranny increases. There is always the fan favorite argument, especially among college professors as I noticed in my first year, that religion acts as a check on tyranny. Personally, this never made sense to me, but I never invested the time in discovering whether this made sense or not. The argument of those in favor of a religious presence is that religion provides a morality. In A Letter Concerning Toleration, John Locke wrote that the government was responsible for governing bodies, while religion was responsible for governing souls. The government was concerned with physical actions, like murder. However, the government never had to explain why murder was wrong, the government just had to do something about it. Religion, however, was not responsible for stopping murder, or doing anything about it. Religion's only responsibility was to explain why murder was wrong. However, religion was not supposed to justify everything the government did. Religion was just supposed to provide an objective morality, which in reality, is not all that objective. Therefore, if the government did something out of line, meaning tyrannical, the people would know because religion provided them with an objective morality. Of course, this is not the case. In the podcast Molyneux sites several examples of religion causing government tyranny. He explains that even seemingly atheist countries like the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China were extremely religious immediately before the communist revolutions. Some of the other less questionable examples Molyneux sites are the Thirty Years War, the French Religious Wars, the Boxer Rebellion, the Crusades, St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre, Spanish Inquisition, Northern Ireland, Jonestown, Russian pogroms, witch hunts, Arab-Israeli Wars, Al Qeada, KKK, Holocaust, Christian Romans. Obviously, there are several more.

However, what I found most interesting was how similar the government and religion are. Before listening to the post I had my suspicions but Molyneux confirmed them. Actually, thinking back on the post I am not sure if Molyneux said anything really related to what I am about to explain. Maybe something he said in his podcast helped my mind take the next step, or he actually did say it. If anyone wants anything exact they should probably listen to the podcast, I would recommend it anyway. I just want to make clear that I am not stealing any ideas here. The problem is that I just cannot remember. Just be aware Molyneux deserves some credit.

Anyway, religion and government each have a term that basically means the same things. Religion has faith and the state has patriotism or nationalism whatever one wants to call it, personally I see no difference. In both cases the believer or the citizen is asked to have pride in his collective regardless of what that collective has done, and to support that collective also regardless of what that collective has done.

In the case of religion, the beliefs are contradictory and incomprehensible. God is all powerful and all knowing, but he cannot be both, there is an enormous conflict there, I have explained it in a previous post. God also exists outside of time; however, he can interact with the timed world. Creation itself takes time, it is the essence of time. Day one God does this, day two God does that. However, God is not bound by time. If is outside of time, why is it taking him multiple units of time to create something? How can he even be creating something without time? God promises man free will, then he constantly interferes: the flood, Cain and Abel, Abraham's almost sacrifice of his son, Sodom and Gomorrah, raping Mary, the existence of Jesus, converting Saul and making him change his name to Paul. Furthermore, many of these examples contradict his own teachings most notably one of the commandments, thou shalt not murder. Once again, the flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, there are more examples. God violates his own teachings. He is impossible to understand. Furthermore, his actions, practically all of them, are vicious. Yet faith demands that the believer follow God and heed his word. No one should follow God. No one should listen to him. He is clearly corrupt. He is clearly pure evil. Personally, I think Satan is a whole hell of a lot better than God.

In the case of the state the citizen is asked to do the same. Blind adherence to the homeland. Pride in the homeland, regardless of the homeland's actions. Support for the homeland, regardless of the homeland's actions. However, the state steals through taxes, murders through executions and unjust wars. At the same time, as I have explained in my Ionic Column article about democratic despotism, the state identifies murder and thievery as wrong, yet murders and steals itself. The state is contradictory and incomprehensible like religion. Of course, the only difference is that democracy offers the chance for people to change the government. Obviously, that never happens though because people do not think the government needs any changing. The state will remain tyrannical as long as the people are the same. Thus, voting, participating in government is useless, let alone that fact that by participating in government one must participate in the government's vices. For example, one's pay check will come from taxes, meaning armed robbery. However, as I have come to understand there is some consent in regards to taxes. It is an incredibly loose connection, and I do not think it is all that legitimate, but there is some element of consent there, especially on the part of those who vote. However, as I stated earlier, I am saving this discussion for a later post. Another part in my philosophy series.

Paquin's Ionic Column - Fast-food Moratorium

Link and article.

Fast-food Moratorium Accomplishes Nothing

Last Tuesday the Los Angeles city council unanimously voted to place a year-long moratorium on new fast-food restaurants in a southern section of the city. The argument is that South Los Angeles has high rates of obesity and diabetes because of the present excessive number of fast-food establishments. Furthermore, South Angelenos are allegedly too poor to purchase local healthy food or afford transportation outisde the 32-square-mile fast-foodom to healthier restaurants. Therefore, the only logical conclusion, according to the L.A. city council, is to stop new fast-food outlets from developing in South Los Angeles for at least one year.

Clearly, this decision violates all natural rights; thus, creating an immoral, contradictory, nanny tyranny. However, aside from initiating force against fast-food businesses, the city council has done absolutely nothing to improve South Angelenos eating habits. Therefore, not only is the city council a tyrannical nanny – as all nannies are – but also an ignorant one.

The L.A. city council has ensured that for one year no new fast-food restaurants will be established in South Los Angeles; however, it has done nothing about the fast-food restaurants that are already there. South Los Angeles is allegedly inundated with fast-food. From the several articles on this event, it appears that South Angelenos are up to their arm pits in fries and special sauce. Not only does that sound utterly delicious, but the Ken-Taco-Hut flood is probably also providing an excellent cover for the outlawed bacon-dog venders. The issue here is that South Angelenos became obese and diabetic on the fast-food restaurants that are presently operating in South Los Angeles. They did not become “of size” and “lacking insulin” on future but currently non-existent fast-food restaurants. It is as if the chunky artery-clogged baby’s high-chair is buried in popcorn chicken and taco supremes, and the nanny has said, “I am not letting any more Oreo pizzas or snack wraps over here for one hour so you can get thin and un-clogged, but you can eat everything you’re already buried under.” In one year, South Angelenos will still be obese and diabetic because the restaurants that made them obese and diabetic will still be there.

Of course, nannyistas will argue that the year-long fast-food moratorium will allow healthier restaurants the chance to open in South Los Angeles. Thus, there will be an eclectic variety of healthy flavor-lacking foods and unhealthy flavorful foods. The nannies believe when the obese and diabetic South Angelenos are faced with the choice between tofu and two strokes, high fructose corn syrup, greasy lettuce, greasy cheese, greasy pickles, greasy onions, on a sesame seed grease-filled bun, they will choose the former.

Firstly, they are definitely choosing the latter, and they are supersizing it. Secondly, there was nothing obstructing healthy restaurants from developing in South Los Angeles before the moratorium. They could have opened freely like McDonald’s, Burger King, Kentucky Fried Chicken, Taco Bell, and Arthur Treacher's Fish and Chips. It is not as if there was an enormous line of eateries waiting to set up shop, and all the vegan “restaurants” were last. Therefore, the L.A. city council did not suddenly decide tropical healthy eateries could cut. Healthy restaurants did not develop in South Los Angeles because they have no market; South Angelenos chose frosty-dipped-fries over humus-dipped-vegan-flatbread. Essentially, the nanny said, “All you Happy Meals and your fry-smelling toys have to step aside and let Whole Foods have a chance to feed the morbidly obese infant,” but there were no Whole Foods to come forward. In South Los Angeles fast-food already won and promptly deep-fried all the capitalism points. Unfortunately for the Ayatollah Kohnannies, their plan was half-baked, undercooked, semi-fried, utterly sub par to the Baconator. They provided no incentives for healthy outlets, so they will never heed the nannies call of desperation. Apparently, fast-food establishments accidentally deep-fried the L.A. city council brain in addition to their capitalism points.

Through vicious initiation of force, the L.A. city council has assured one thing in the South Los Angeles dinning scene: for one year, everything will stay the same. When a portly Angeleno fellow is bored with his Big Mac he will not try a salad and thank the L.A. city council, for he will be pining for the new fast-food restaurant and its signature donut wrapped in bacon between two slices of all American cheese, ham, and white bread, grilled to a perfect golden brown in a pool of grease from the previous order. Unfortunately, he will not be able to fulfill his desire, and the L.A. city council will be to blame.

Love

This is a more personal post I have been waiting to do for some time, and presently, I believe it is going to ultimately be a shorter one.

In several posts I have discussed how friendship and love are some of the highest forms of selfishness not selflessness as people frequently assume. One chooses another as a friend because he values that other more than mere strangers. The reason he values that other more than mere strangers is because the other follows the same moral standards as him. Therefore, similar people are friends. Dissimilar people cannot be friends, for they follow different moralities. Thus, they think one another is vicious. For example, a Marxist and a capitalist cannot be friends because the Marxist believes the capitalist is vicious, and the capitalist believes the Marxist is vicious.

The same goes for love. The only difference is that when one loves another, he chooses one person above all others, even his friends. One can have several friends. One can value several people more than strangers. However, one can only have a single favorite. That favorite, the best friend, is the one he loves.

Of course, this person, the one he loves, is only second to his self. The mere fact that he is choosing another person to love indicates that he values his self the most, even greater than the person he loves, for he is choosing that person because he enjoys being with that person, that person does not corrupt his virtue, that person makes him happy. When one is happy one is acting selfishly. Thus, love has nothing to do with sacrifice.

Unfortunately, most people assume that love is completely about selflessness and sacrifice. They believe love is about compromise. The assumption is, if one loves another, one will give up things - actions, items, etc. - for the other. This is not love. This is self-destruction. This is the atrocious sickening delusion that when two people love one another they become one. 1 + 1 does not = 1. 1 + 1 = 2. When two people love one another they are still two individuals; however, together they become more in the sense that they are happy, they enjoy life. The teaching of two loving individuals becoming one indicates that the individuals of the relationship decrease in value. They destroy parts of themselves so they can be one instead of two. They begin with more value than when they end. Since love is about happiness, about selfishness, one cannot destroy his self to love another. If he does so, he will be miserable, not happy. For before one enters a relationship he loves his self. He loves who he is. He has chosen to be a certain person, act a certain way because it is virtuous because it makes him happy. However, if he enters a relationship demanding sacrifice, he is aborting some of his virtues, aborting what makes him happy. In turn, this will result in one hating the person he allegedly loves because the other caused him to destroy his self, and it will also result in one loathing him self, for he is being less than who he was, the person he chose to be because it made him happy.

Last year I had a girlfriend for three months and I did not understand what I know today. Of course, neither did my ex-girlfriend. Starting the relationship itself was incorrect for several reasons. Firstly, the two of us were different. Though I was really just trying to make friends to make myself happy I still maintained a scarp of my identity, a scrap of what I have today. She was of the opposite thought. Though neither of us were extreme as a capitalist or a Marxist, we were on those ends of the spectrum. Therefore, we thought one another was wrong, meaning we thought one another was vicious.

The second problem was that I really wanted a relationship because I loathed myself. I hated how I looked, I hated how I acted, I knew people thought I was strange, I just wanted others to like me in order to convince myself that I was not vicious, bad, worthless, etc. I remember looking at myself in the mirror several years earlier and internally insulting all my physical characteristics. When I was finished I thought, "If I had a girlfriend, I would finally be convinced that I was mistaken." Obviously, by making that statement I admitted I was lying to myself. I admitted that essentially equating my physical appearance to that of the elephant man or a troll was a falsehood. However, I could not convince myself of it. I needed another person to do it for me. I needed another person to make me happy. Unfortunately, happiness is achieved through selfishness - the realization of one's values - not charity, so the relationship never really satisfied me as I thought. However, I was unaware of this truth, and I know when I was pursuing a relationship in my senior year, my last option to have a relationship before heading to college, I was thinking of that statement I had said to myself in front of the mirror. What I said was my motivation for having a girlfriend, for loving another.

A further problem with this is that one must love him self before he loves others. A self-loathing individual cannot love another. If one loathes him self, he is basically saying that he is shit, that he is worthless. He admits that he is a failure, meaning he has not realized his values; thus, he is also admitting that he is vicious. Consequently, he is saying that he is unworthy of love. He believes that no one should selfishly choose him over all others, for he thinks he is worse than all others. Therefore, one contradicts himself by searching for love to cure his self loathing.

Additionally, as I have stated several times before love is a selfish act. Thus, one loves another because he believes he deserves love. Essentially, he values himself enough to pursue and enjoyable relationship with another. If one loathes himself, however, he admits he is of no value, that he is so horrible he does not deserve to enjoy a relationship with another. Therefore, one must obviously love himself before he loves others. I certainly did not fulfill this requirement, and I do not believe my ex-girlfriend did either.

As my relationship with my ex-girlfriend continued the sacrifice started to develop. Honestly, it developed immediately. Even my scrap of identity was no match for society's false rhetoric and the incomprehensible mumbo-jumbo of my Catholic school. I apologized for everything I did. Occurrences that were not even under my control. I also immediately began sacrificing parts of myself. At that time I was interested in politics. I am still somewhat interested in politics, but now it is more on a philosophical level. During high school, I was interested in political strategy and party politics. Now I recognize all of that as nonsense now. However, some of my political positions still had a sound philosophical basis. Unfortunately, my ex-girlfriend did not want to hear any of that. She did not want to speak with me about it, and she did not want to hear me speak about it. This means that if she is in the room and I was talking to someone else about politics, she wanted me to stop.

Firstly, I now realize that I must love another that enjoys the same activities as me. If I am to love another, the other must be interested in philosophical discussion like this. I am not saying everyone must like philosophical discussion. Everyone should be concerned about truth and being virtuous, but not everyone must enjoy the exploration of it. My argument here is that two people who love one another must enjoy similar activities. For example, one who enjoy skiing, and loves the winter, cannot love someone who loathes the winter and despises skiing.

Secondly, it is completely nonsensical that one should not be able to enjoy innocent activities with other friends. It would make sense for one to oppose his loved one's use of heroine with others, for heroine indicates all kinds of unstable moral positions of the other person. Discussing politics, playing sports, playing video games, board games, card games, watching movies, listening to music, all pretty innocent activities that one should not demand his alleged loved one not to partake in.

In one instance, my ex-girlfriend actually demanded that I stop talking about politics. I was at her house and her older sister asked me about some of my political positions. I spoke about how I was opposed to redistributing of wealth because it relied on taxes, which I regarded as armed robbery. Her sister appeared interested in the conversation and wanted to talk more, but my ex-girlfriend came over and essentially told me to stop by making a frustrated sigh as she came over. Obviously, I stopped because I had no sense of how skewed the entire situation was.

Of course, throughout the relationship I was not without fault. As I already stated starting the relationship itself was a fault. However, there was another situation where my ex-girlfriend wanted me to talk to her parents more and say goodbye to them. To this day I still do not understand it, for I was interested in a relationship with her, not her parents. When one loves another he does not love a collective, he does not love the family clan. Love is individual. It does not concern others connected by blood. In any event, she did get angry because I was not conversing with her parents. Finally, she asked me what I thought, and I completely avoided the topic. I asked for directions to where we were going. That is a huge mistake. Communication sustains a relationship. Otherwise it is just two bodies, not two people. Relationships are as much about the minds as they are about the bodies. Furthermore, when individuals have a disagreement the only way to resolve it is through communication. One does not even have to explain himself fully. The conversation can begin as simply as, "I feel this way about this, and I don't know why." Stefan Molyneux of Freedomain Radio constantly emphasizes this, and as I understand it, his book Real-Time Relationships is all about that. I plan to read it some time in the future.

Of course, I do not completely understand love or friendship; however, I am much closer to understanding it now than I did last year. Through more reading of Ayn Rand I may discover more, but I believe further information on love and friendship will come from listening to Molyneux's podcasts and reading his books, especially Real-Time Relationships.