Environmental Studies Response 2

Here is the second reading response for my Environmental Studies class.

In chapter three of The Politics of the Earth, John Dryzek characterizes Prometheans’ as closed-minded; thus, implying that environmentalism thinks outside the box. However, true Prometheanism, and Garrett Hardin’s The Tragedy of the Commons reveals environmentalism’s closed-mindedness.

According to Dryzek, Prometheans believe “natural resources, ecosystems, and… nature itself, do not exist” (57 Dryzek). This actually directly contradicts Prometheanism, which believes reality exists; thus, it understands matter is finite. Prometheanism also believes man is productive and progressive, and that he has successfully lessened his dependence on nature for survival. Thus, Prometheanism believes man can progress beyond nature to a point when relying on it for existence will be unnecessary. Environmentalists argue the exact opposite, for they believe man cannot exist without nature. Thus, man must not progress beyond nature, but stagnate and preserve nature. Nothing could be more in the box.

Hardin’s The Tragedy of the Commons illustrates another environmentalist inside-the-box thought. In his parable, Hardin explains that individuals are inclined to place more cattle on a communally owned pasture, or commons. Eventually, there would be too many cattle for the commons to support, and must would starve. Hardin equates the parable to the current environmental problem, and concludes “mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon” (805 Adelson) is the only solution. Coercion is completely unnecessary; however, environmentalists cannot see another solution because the parable’s foundation is closed-minded. The solution without coercion is privatizing the commons. Consequently, the owner would want to sustain his property to continuously profit. This is impossible with commons because communal ownership is no ownership; no one is responsible for the property’s upkeep.

Closed-mindedness is not wrong. Knowing the truth is closed-minded. The problem is closed-mindedness about falsehoods. That is environmentalism, which believes nature is communal and man needs it; therefore, he must be forced to sustain it.

I would just like to add an example of a discussion from this very class to capture environmentalists' closed-mindedness.

The class was discussing how privatization could solve several environmental problems; however, most of the class was laughing and poking fun at the suggestions. One of the suggestions from the book was that whales could be privatized. Consequently, environmentalists could purchase whales to protect, and whalers could purchase whales to breed and slaughter like cattle. I pointed out that the one problem with this is that the whales could freely swim around from international waters to state owned waters, and that first sections of the oceans must be privatized, then one must find a way to keep one's whales in his plot of ocean. Once again the class laughed and pointed out how stupid this was. They argued that it could never be done because whales migrate. I stated that they were thinking like the first man who invented fire, claiming that man would never go to the moon and that man would never be able to electronically communicate with other men on the opposite side of the globe in mere seconds. I said that I did not know the solution, but that does not mean it will never be solved. They continued to point out that this was a completely different circumstance because whales' migratory patterns could not be controlled.

A few hours later, after class, I found the solution. I kept thinking to myself that cattle and horses used to freely move around, but then man invented fences and kept them in one spot, curbing those unstoppable migratory patterns. The whale solution could be implemented today. First, plots of ocean are privatized, and the geographical positions of one's plot of ocean is recorded on a computer that communicates with a satellite. Next, one purchases some whales, and herds them into these plots of oceans with boats or something. I am sure herding whales has already been pioneered. Then, one creates a device for whales which is similar to the electric dog collars. This device also has a GPS that communicates to the satellite the whale's current position. Thus, when the whale approaches the limits of one's plot of ocean the satellite knows and sends a signal back to the device, ordering that it zap the whale. The whale is zapped, swims in the other directions, and is conditioned not to leave that plot of ocean. Additionally, once more is understood about the brain, a chip could probably be placed on the whale's brain so that as it reaches the limits of the plot it just decided to turn around without any zap or conditioning. Man's mind has incredible potential, but it appears my classmates hate man too much to understand the greatness of his mind. In turn the only solution they see to such problems as this environmental issue is stagnation. Maintaining the environment for what it is, even if they have to violate individuals' natural rights to achieve this stagnation.

Environmental Studies Response 1

This semester I am taking an atrocious class called Environmental Studies. It is a general education requirement, and it was either do this one which is related to political science or one that was purely science related. I never really enjoyed science, so I decided to choose this one. Over this semester I am sure I will be writing about this class on several occasions; however, I thought I would also post some of my work for the class. Currently, the class is assigned weekly readings, which we must respond to in no more than 300 words. Below is the first response from a few weeks ago.

Thus far, Red Sky At Morning indicates that environmentalism has a religious quality. Therefore, incorporating environmentalism and government produces tyranny.

Religion’s essence is valuing another entity more than one’s self. Environmentalism is similar, for it believes nature is greater than one’s self. Subsequently, “energy depletion, economic collapse, limited nuclear war, or conquest by a totalitarian government” are not the worst catastrophes, but “the loss of genetic and species diversity by the destruction of natural habitats” (pg 24) are. Essentially, animal and plant extinction is worse than suffering, oppression, and death. If this is true, individual men are less valuable than individual plants and animals; one’s self, life, liberty, property, and happiness are worth less than nature.

This similarity with religion indicates that government implementation of environmental policies results in tyranny. Government’s purpose is to protect man’s natural rights. However, religion identifies another entity as greater than man. Therefore, it would be correct to oppress man for the sake of the greater entity. Thus, appropriate government environmental policies would include “require[ing] new SUVs and pickup trucks to achieve forty miles per gallon,” financing the development of renewable energy, and “[increasing] tax[es] on oil and gasoline” (pg 70). These policies violate every individual’s property rights. One’s natural right to property allows one to manufacture and sell any car variant he chooses, and to use his money as he pleases, both free of government intervention.

Unfortunately, the government violates individuals’ natural rights through similar methods, so few will notice the harm behind environmental polices. However, a victim’s apathy does not legitimize the attacker’s actions. Furthermore, apathy towards environmental preservation and thus self preservation does not legitimize tyranny; natural rights protect apathy.

Meld

In the same Sociology class where femininity was discussed, my professor mentioned a far more disturbing concept at the end of class. It began as a discussion on terms for sex. The professor wrote the following sentence on the board, "Honey, we're finally alone. Let's __________," and asked the class to fill in the blanks. It actually was pretty funny some of the terms people came up with. However, at the end of class the professor mentioned that there were no terms on the board that reflected anything "spiritual" or "mutual." She said all the terms were about desiring to do something to another person, and she suggested that in our spare time, not for class, we come up with a term that was both mutual and spiritual. Apparently, she has been thinking about this for some time, saying that the only term she could ever come up with was meld. She then said something to the effect that the term isn't about doing something to another person but just melding together and becoming one.

This is gross. First, all I am imagining is two people melting into a giant fondue of sex. However, that is beside the point, and even if I did not envision that the term would still be grossed. As I have said before, love is about becoming more, meaning achieving more happiness. Therefore, there cannot be two people melting, or melding, into one. That is subtraction. That is less. That is the destruction of two selves for some new entity. This common concept that in love 1 + 1 = 1 is perverted. Love is not about destroying two individuals into one entity. Love is about individuals maintaining who themselves and achieving happiness for themselves. It is not about achieving happiness for some singular fondue from their remnants. It is about achieving their independent happiness. Once again, love is selfish, it is not altruistic as this term suggests.

Additionally, though their is some mutual aspect to love, this does not mean that sex has to be equalized in every action. Nor does it mean that both individuals must agree that certain actions are pleasurable and other actions are not pleasurable. For example, the two individuals do not have to agree that doing something to another is pleasurable, yet having something done to them by the other is not pleasurable. If the two individuals had to pursue this, then mutuality would make sense because both individuals would mutually want to both do something to the other person all the time. Of course, then mutuality would also be impossible because sex does not work that way. Essentially, in each act one gives and the other receives. "Melding" suggests that a knew form of sex must be found where each individual is neither giving nor receiving because for mutuality to exist everything must be equalized both in actions and which actions derive pleasure and which do not derive pleasure. Obviously, the only way to achieve this is on the fictional spiritual level, which obviously delves into the irrational, and in order for a romantic relationship to function properly it cannot exist in some ignorant mystical atmosphere. Part of love is A's desire to do something to B, and B's desire to have A do something to it, and vice versa. The disgusting mutuality of "melding" would remove this pleasure, and all that would exist is some mediocre compromise with lots of irrational mystical elements involved.

Femininity

On Monday this past week in my Sociology class an intense debate about femininity began. It started out that the class was discussing how genders were becoming neutralizes. Next, one student stated that he thought that was sad. Obviously, everyone knows he is already approaching that line, and unfortunately he did not address it in the best way. However, I think there is significant merit to the foundation of his argument, and it is something I have considered and may have even briefly addressed in a previous post. Unfortunately, as I already said, he could not capture the essence of the issue well, and personally, I do not think I can either. Basically, what I am going to do is present a very simple idea really with no solution as to whether it is correct and virtuous or incorrect and vicious; however, it is something that should be seriously addressed, which just is not addressed in the current trend of gender neutralization while also remaining politically correct.

First, I want to specify gender neutralization. The term does not refer to males and females holding the same careers, enjoying the same natural rights which they are both equally entitled to, equally receiving judgment on their character and not physical qualities, etc. Gender neutralization refers to males trying to be like females and/or females trying to be like males. In turn, though there are certain physical features that classify males and females, the genders are essentially exactly the same in all other facets.

Secondly, I want to say that I believe that everyone regardless of gender may choose how they want to appear or behave in anyway as long as their actions do not violate another's natural rights. If a male wants to behave or appear as a female, or a female wants to behave or appear as a male, that is their right to choose it, and I do not necessarily consider it vicious. For example, some male homosexuals behave and appear more like females because that is their character, their self, and what makes them happy. Perfectly virtuous. This also applies to some females who are homosexuals and behave and appear more like males.

Thirdly, the problem I really have (and I am not sure if it is a legitimate problem or not) is males who want to make themselves as females or females who want to make themselves as males even though they are not homosexual. I find this difficult to describe and that previous statement certainly did not capture it, but I think it is some of the closest material I am going to get. From personal observation I find this far more prevalent among females, but I think I could be wrong because I do not regularly observe people while I am out, I also do not go out often, and I also do not associate with many people. So the possibility that I am wrong is very high. However, I think what I am trying to illustrate is clearest is some feminists movements. Some variations of feminism do not appear to be concerned with convincing people to judge females on the content of their character and not on their physical qualities. Instead, some aspects of feminism are interested in making females equal to males in almost every aspect. The difference is that the former wants both genders to be judged on the content of their character not on their gender. The latter appears to want females to be males.

The first issue is that philosophy, if that is indeed what some feminist movements are aiming form, implicitly classifies male gender as superior to female gender, when that is certainly not the case. It is as if the philosophy is stating, "the male gender sets the standard, and females must achieve that standard." Instead, the philosophy should be, "this is the standard, all genders must achieve that standard."

The second issue with that philosophy is that a male is a male and a female is a female, and it appears some females are not acting more masculine because that is their self and what makes them happy, but because that is how they believe they must achieve the "standard." Essentially, the idea, which I think is false, is "in order for equality between the genders, meaning equal judgment of character, I, a female, must be more masculine. " That is certainly not the case, and I believe this is what that student was trying to address, for at one point he said, and his entire argument focused on this, "there are some things that make a woman a woman." I think there is some merit to this, but I think those unique female qualities are not determined by her job, social status, etc. I believe a female can hold any job, social status, etc. and still maintain femininity. I think it may actually come down to physical and behavioral characteristics, but I am not sure. The best analogy I can think of is that an apple is an apple and an orange is an orange. They are both fruits, like males and females are both humans. Furthermore, an apple is not better than an orange, and an orange is not better than an apply. Like a male is not better than a female, and a female is not better than a male. However, an orange cannot be an apple, and an apple cannot be an orange. There are unique qualities that make an orange and orange, and unique qualities that make an apple an apple.

My final issue with gender neutralization is that I believe it may contradict one's nature, which is a vice. Obviously, it does not contradict the nature of some homosexuals because their selves' have qualities that are closer to the opposite gender. I am specifically referring to the people I previously mentioned who believe they achieve equality by acting like the opposite gender. The problem is that each person has unique characteristics which make them an individual. Including in these characteristics are also physical ones. Some are far more shallow than others, such as hair color and eye color. I do not think that gender is as shallow as those two; however, it is also certainly not as deep as one's character. This is why I think it deserves some level of acceptance. One should not contradict one's gender out of spite or the attempt to achieve equality. The former is a dependent life, one driven by the positions of others and contradicting them. The former is just the incorrect route to equal judgment of character.

However, once again I admit I could be completely wrong. I have not fully explored this topic. I do not understand it as well as I would like to. It is something I have though about on and off for some time, and I was reminded of it in that class. I thought this would be a good place for preliminary exploration.

Seperation Of Morality And Rationality

"What is ethical is not always rational."

This is what my International Relations professor said on Monday. He was responding to my complaints about offensive realism, which I expressed before the weekend and in my last post. He followed up this by saying that he sees no place for ethics in international relations. As I have explained several times before politics or in this case international relations is always linked to morality. Even when one does not admit it. Any policy one desires to enact is based on one's concepts of how things should be done, or, in other words, values. One does not support a welfare related policy on a whim. One supports welfare related policy because his values indicate that giving funds to the unfortunate is virtuous. He supports that policy because of his morality. Of course, there are all sorts of vicious qualities of that policy, such as the whole part about stealing from thousands of other people and redistributing their wealth to those deemed "unfortunate" or "needy." However, that is not what I am trying to address. First, I am trying to show, as I have done several times in the past, the morality and actions are linked. Since morality plays an enormous role in politics, it must also play an enormous role in international relations. For example, a state leader who seeks regional hegemonic power does not seek it on a whim. He seeks it because his values indicate that security is the highest value and achieving regional hegemony is the best way to obtain that value. Once again the state leader is trying to act virtuously, he is pursuing his morality. However, even those who cast out morality like my professor and that asshole John Mearsheimer are still considering morality. The previous example was the basis of his own theory, and their is clearly morality at its foundation. The reason that Mearsheimer and my professor believe they are amoral and cast it aside when theorizing international relations is because they believe there is a separation between morality and rationality, which is the ignorant basis of my professor's statement I began with.

I have one question. If rationality is not based on morality, if rationality is not based on virtue and irrationality is not based on vice, then exactly what are they based on? I really cannot even conceive of how my professor or others who advocate this separation would answer. I suppose they may try and argue that rationality is acting on one's self-interest. In turn, I would point out that acting in one's self-interest is indeed virtuous. However, that would lead to a whole other discussion because most believe that acting in one's own self-interest is vicious. Therefore, if they were correct, then rationality would be acting viciously. Though this is incredibly skewed rationality is still linked to morality.

Essentially, acting rationally is pursuing the best, the good, the better, or just moving in the general direction of perfection. For example, if state security is good, and if regional hegemony is way to achieve state security, then pursuing regional hegemony is better than not pursuing regional hegemony. A simpler example would be, if peanut is good, and spreading peanut butter on bread is the best way to obtain peanut butter, then spreading peanut butter on bread is better than not spreading peanut butter on bread. Assuming for the moment that these examples are correct, it would then be irrational to not pursue regional hegemony or not spread peanut butter on bread because whatever that action could possibly be would not be as good. Simply, irrationality is the pursuit of the worst, the bad, the lesser, or just moving in the general direction of imperfection.

However, in order to ensure that one is acting rationally and not irrationally one needs some guidance. He needs some codes or standards that indicate to him what is rational and was is irrational. For example, achieving state security through regional hegemony is the assumed rational objective. Therefore, some codes would include increasing the state's offensive military capability, using conflicts to decrease other states' power and offensive military capability, never trust other statesmen, always act immediately for one can never be certain with 100% accuracy what another state's intentions or future intentions are. Another example, obtaining peanut butter through spreading it on bread is the assumed rational objective. Therefore, standards would include obtaining a jar of peanut butter, obtaining a knife, obtaining a slice of bread, opening the jar of peanut butter, using the knife to extract peanut butter from the can and spread it on the bread. Additionally, some codes are more important than others. There is a hierarchy of value. For example, never trusting other states is more important decreasing a state's power and offensive military capability. The reason is because if one trusts another state it may be a trap that could indefinitely obstruct a leader's pursuit of regional hegemony, while one does not necessarily have to decrease another state's power to become a regional hegemon, one only has to surpass all other states. Therefore, if there was a conflict between the two codes, meaning that at one moment a leader could choose to decrease another state's power and trust another state, or allow another state to maintain its power and distrust another state, the rational choice would be the latter, for distrusting all states is a more important code than decrease another state's power. As for the peanut butter, obtaining the peanut butter is far more important than obtaining the knife, for one could use other utensils, the bread, or his own hand to extract and spread the peanut butter. Therefore, if the two standards were in conflict, if one could either have the knife and no peanut butter, or no knife and peanut butter, the rational choice would be the latter because obtaining the peanut butter is the more important code than obtaining the knife.

What I have just explained with standards or codes and their hierarchy is basically morality. Morality is a set of values one uses to guide his life towards the best, the good, the better, or just in the general direction of perfection. Furthermore, some values are more important than others. Therefore, if a lesser values is in conflict with a greater values, one must choose the greater value because it leader him towards perfection. Choosing the lesser values would lead him towards imperfection. However, is this not also rational? I can see no other possibility, and I admit that I may be wrong. Of course, if one does find that I am wrong, I demand to be proven wrong. One cannot just make an empty claim. Presently, I am convinced, morality and rationality are indeed linked. Morals are the values one uses to guide him towards the virtuous, the best, the good, the better, and perfection, and rationality is using those values to pursue the virtuous, the best, the good, the better, and perfection, while always choosing greater values if they happen to conflict with lesser values.

What The Hell Is The State Doing?

Apparently being an utter asshole.

This semester I am taking Introduction to International Relations. Currently, the class is learning about realist international relations theory, which breaks down into several subgroups, most importantly defensive realism and offensive realism. I find that defensive realism has some merits, but offensive realism is bullshit that justifies vicious power seeking.

Today, the class watched a video of offensive realist John Mearsheimer and discussed his theory in class. Like all realists, Mearsheimer argues that international relations is anarchic, meaning that there is no super state governing all other states. I will give it to him, even though it is not really anarchic because there are a bunch of states and not just all individuals. Anyway, he finds that it is the anarchy that causes states to be security seeking. Essentially, since there is no governing super state to act as 911, all states must be concerned with providing their own security. Alright, good enough, so far so good. He also posits that states act rationally. I completely disagree with this. There is an element of irrationality in the way states behave; however, they consistently adhere to their irrational premises thus having the appearance of rationality. The reason I find that states are irrational is because of Mearsheimer's next point. According to Mearsheimer, because the states are security seeking and acting rationally all states do and must continue to follow offensive realism. This international relations theory argues that states must act aggressively, seeking to become regional hegemons. Basically, each state wants to be the most powerful state in their region, so that no other state will want to attack it. Furthermore, regional hegemons also seek to eliminate hegemons in foreign regions because foreign regional hegemons have the potential to attack one another.

My question is why? Why do states want to seek security? The correct, meaning morally correct or virtuous answer is because the state's purpose is to protect individuals' natural rights. The only reason states are security seeking is so to defend against attacks from foreign states, to protect individuals from foreign initiation of force. However, this is not what Mearsheimer is arguing. Mearsheimer is arguing that each state should seek to be a regional hegemon.

Once again, why? Why do they need to be regional hegemons? The international system is anarchic. This does not mean that their is complete and utter chaos. It does not mean that states and individuals are allowed to act psychotically and start torching, raping, murdering, and stealing from one another. All states are supposed to want the individuals residing in their boundaries to live safely from the initiation of force from other states - that is, of course, in addition to domestic criminals. So, all each state needs to do, is take all its guns, and aim them outward, and sit there. States only need to shoot when another state is attacking them. This is defensive realism.

However, Mearsheimer says this is not good enough because no state knows another state's intentions. No state knows another state's current intentions with 100% accuracy, and no state knows another state's future intentions at all. Alright, that is fine. One mind cannot read another mind. The problem is, Mearsheimer sees this as the reason to act offensively. A state must gain regional hegemony as quickly as possible before other states decide to attack. But, why would other states want to attack? They are all just protecting the individuals residing in their territory. Obviously, like Mearsheimer said one leader cannot read the mind of another leader. One leader may want to invade another state. Maybe because that leader is seeking regional hegemony, or maybe because that leader is irrational, the two might be inclusive. However, the possibility that one state may attack another state does not legitimate the other state's aggression in search of regional hegemony. The mere possibility that one state may attack another state does not legitimate the other state's initiation of force. All states have to do is point their guns outward, sit, and wait for an attacker. The state will see the aggressor coming. The state will see itself being attacked. At that point the intentions of the other state are not a mystery. They are clear. The other state is violating the natural rights of the other states' individuals. Therefore, retaliatory force can be used. The state's use of force is then legitimized.

Fortunately for Mearsheimer, he appears to be amoral, or at the very least he appears to believe morality does not apply to the state. In the little video the class watched Mearsheimer explains that Americans have difficulty supporting realism because realism has a pessimistic view of the world and Americans are idealists. Basically, realists believe there has always been conflict, there is conflict, and there will always be conflict. Realists do not believe the human mind can solve this problem, whereas idealists do. I already have a problem with this because Mearsheimer has essentially said progress is impossible. Of course, it is not, man invented fire and the Internet and everything in between. History has proved this point of Mearsheimer's wrong.

However, at the same time Mearsheimer has said something even more disturbing. Mearsheimer argued that pessimism is correct - the Truth - and that idealism is wrong - false. He argued that is is wrong to try to seek virtue in international relations. Actually, he basically said it is wrong to seek any morality in international relations. According to Mearsheimer, there is not morality in international relations, there are just states.

To make the connection a little clearer, Mearsheimer argued that some times Americans ideals, or morality, lines up with the government's intentions, or amoral whims. For example, Mearsheimer argued that in World War II America fought Nazi Germany and Japan to eliminate foreign regional hegemons. America fought these states in order to secure unchallenged hegemony in the western hemisphere. At the same time Americans fought Nazis and the Japanese because they were initiating force. Americans used retaliatory force to protect their own natural rights and the natural rights of others who were also being attacked. See, no conflict, accept the absence of morality versus morality. However, Mearsheimer also points out that during World War II the American government allied with the Soviet Union. Here is a problem. The American people, moralists, find that the Soviets are vicious. However, the American government wants more states to join its fight against the Nazis and Japanese so to be sure to eliminate those foreign regional hegemons. Mearsheimer says at this point the government brings out spin doctors to convince the American people that the American government is doing a virtuous thing, even though the American government's actions are amoral. The government said the Soviet Union was an emerging democracy and free market, just a bunch of lies so the American people would not be pissed.

So, seriously, what the hell is the state doing? Mearsheimer appears to be arguing that the state has individuals best interests, and individuals just cannot know the truth - that the state uses vicious means to achieve security for the individuals. However, that is not what the states are doing at all. The states do not care about the individuals residing in their territory. Mearsheimer made this clear when he said states do not follow morality. If the government needs to kill innocent people for its security, the government will kill innocent people. The state apparently only cares about its own security. Once again, why? So that the state can exist. Well, why is that important? Why is it important that the state exists? Because non-existence is bad. Why is it bad for a state not to exist? Because it is good for the state to exist. Well, why is that good? ...

The state is only acting to preserve its own existence. As long as the government buildings are standing everything is peachy keen and the state will violate everyone's natural rights to make sure this happens. The state does not want to protect individuals natural rights. The state only wants to exist.

My professor liked that I brought up this point. He said every great thinker has tried to explain why the state exists. Of course, he did not find my points to be valid objections against offensive realism. I agree offensive realism is correct, not morally correct, not virtuous, I mean this is how state currently act. However, I think it is wrong, vicious, for states to act that way. I think offensive realism is wrong because it is vicious. He then tried to point out that there is a disconnect between the people and the state. Basically, that political theory - the connection between morality and politics - does not matter in international relations. Like hell it does.

A week ago he had us read another article by Charles Tilly, who argued that states act like the mafia. I found that one agreeable. He argued that states never actually sat down with the people and made a contract where it would protect their individual natural rights. Obviously, that never happened. However, he goes on to say that those ideas are myths created to excuse the state, myths that basically allowed the state to keep existing. According to Tilly, states actually sought to amass power from the very beginning. One king would basically disarm regional lords in order to amass power, secure a certain territory. Later on when individuals realized their natural rights were being violated, they demanded less tyranny from the state. That is when these myths were created. Though they are morally correct, virtuous, they are actually incorrect in the sense that the state has never cared about protecting individuals' natural rights. The states only afforded individuals some liberty so that the people would not try and topple the state. Once again, all the state wants to do is exist, and it will do anything to achieve that.

This is what my professor was trying to point out. He was trying to say my moral arguments against Mearsheimer's offensive realism was invalid because states never were interested in protecting individuals' natural rights. In that case, the state has failed. The state is wrong. The state is vicious. A new system, one concerned with protecting individuals natural rights must be created. If it is not, assholes who think like Mearsheimer, and assholes who act on Mearsheimer's thoughts will continue to get away with initiating force.

One other point my professor brought up was this notion of the prisoner's dilemma, which basically tries to justify states' offensive conquest for security. He used this in response to my argument that state's do not need to seek hegemony. All they have to do is sit, chill out, point their guns outward, and respond if there is any attack. I found that Mearsheimer's theory was based on the paranoia of imminent nonexistence threats, which Mearsheimer puts behind a menacing cloak that says, "You can never know what another state is intending. You better do something quick or one might attack you." Once again, the possibility of attack does not legitimize force. Only actual attack legitimizes force.

The prisoner's dilemma is as follows:

A and B are arrested for a crime. They are separately told that if one confesses and the other does not, the confessor will get 2 years in jail and the silent will get 10 years in jail. They are also told that if they both confess they will both get 5 years in jail. They are also told if they both do not confess they will bother get 10 years in jail. Finally, A and B cannot speak to one another or even see one another. They cannot garner any cooperation. The choice is then that each must confess so as to get the least amount of prison time as possible. This applies to offensive realism as a defense for initiating force. Initiating force will either get a state a little closer to hegemony or achieve hegemony, while not initiating force will render the state into non-existence.

My problem with this parable is that it is built on the idea that everyone is inherently vicious. No one is inherently vicious. Everyone is inherently good. Furthermore, this is about jail, not security and defense. A more realistic parable could be created.

Families A, B, C, and D live in the same neighborhood. They live in anarchy. There is no government. There is no one on the other end of 911 if there is an emergency. Therefore, all the families own guns, several of them, for the purpose of defense. So that they can shoot thieves and serial killers that might attack them. The families would want to kill these aggressors to protect their natural rights, so they could go on living their lives, which are entitled to them, using their liberty, which is entitled to them, pursuing their happiness, also entitled to them, and using their property, which they earned. They want to protect what is rightfully theirs. The end of the parable is that the families went on living their lives peacefully occasionally enjoying one another's company at a neighborhood BBQ.

Why would A, B, C, or D want to attack one of the other families? Only if the family attacked them first. However, why did the attacking family initiate force? Maybe because that family is psychotic, or maybe because that family thought the other family was going to attack them, maybe they thought all the families were going to attack them and they wanted to be the toughest family in the neighborhood so no one would ever attack them. Maybe family D believed Mearsheimer. Believed that they could never know what A, B, or C was intending; therefore, they should assume the worst and start trying to become the biggest bad ass in the neighborhood. However, the fact remains that neither A, B, or C initiated force against D. Maybe A was outside parading its guns. Maybe B purchased a fifty caliber machine gun and a bazooka. Maybe C was doing combat training. However, none of them actually marched on family D and started firing. Thus, family D has no reason to attack. None of the families have any reason to attack one another. They only have reason to shoot, if someone is attacking them. Of course, since they were not attacking the aggressor that would make the aggressor's actions irrational. Of course, the aggressor may have used Mearsheimer's argument as justification. However, that is not a real justification. That is an irrational premise, which he just consistently followed. See, the two are inclusive. The moral of this parable is that maybe defense should be put in the hands of the individuals, not the states. That is the only problem with this parable. It does not properly represent international relations because the families are protecting their own natural rights, while the states are supposed to be protecting others' natural rights - states do not have any natural rights.

Here is the John Mearsheimer video we watched in class.

My Philosophy Part 3: Government

As I have stated on several previous occasions the purpose of government is to protect individuals' natural rights to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and property. Certainly nothing more because in most cases when it attempts to accomplish more it actually violates natural rights.

Government is essentially a security firm. It is supposed to use defense or retaliatory force, meaning that the government only reacts, only uses force, when someone is being attacked, when force is initiated against someone's natural rights.

Obviously, that is not what any present government does. Actually, there probably has never been a government in existence that acted this way, that acted properly. Even the best government's, liberal democracies, are dysfunctional. Even liberal government's become monsters, drooling beasts lusting for violence. They murder, steal, kidnap, and shackle people. There are so many simple examples. Any ridiculous regulation works. For example, a month ago Chicago legalized fois gras, which meant at one time fois gras was outlawed. Fois gras is nothing more than a meal. It is a fattened goose liver. Neither eating fattened goose liver nor serving it violates any individual's natural right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, or property. No one is being attacked when fois gras is served. No forced is initiated when someone eats a chunk of fois gras. Yet, the government outlawed it, meaning that if an individual ate or served fois gras he would receive a fine. Of course, he could refuse to pay the fine, but that would not go over well. The government would keep hassling him to pay them because he bit into a fattened goose liver. The man could continue to refuse. The government would continue to hassle. Eventually, the police would show up. The police have no right to be there. This man harmed no one. Yet, men with guns arrive at his home and demand money. Since no natural rights were violated, the government is not using retaliatory force, the government is initiating force, in this case they are stealing, they are violating his natural rights, specifically his natural right to property. Of course, the man could continue to refuse, but then the police would try to arrest him. The man could resist that, but then the police would attack him. He could fight back, fight for his life because he harmed no one and two men with guns are threatening him, but then the police would shoot him. Obviously, the smart thing to do would just be to pay the fine because one would rather live and enjoy a comfortable amount of liberty than be dead. It is not like this man is living in Society Russia or Nazi Germany. Tyranny in liberal democracy is a burden, but not a ruthless cruelty devoiding life of all individual pleasure and liberty. However, this could still happen, and in the end an innocent man is threatened, robbed at gun point, kidnapped, and murdered because he ate a fattened goose liver. Some people will say that is an awfully stupid reason to die and he should have just paid the fine. I agree to some extent. I have already stated that. However, it is more stupid, more ignorant, more psychotic to murder a man or do any of that to a man who ate or served a fattened goose liver. That reasoning is as sound as the Son of Sam. "I kill people because a demon possessing my neighbor's dog told me to." "I threaten people, rob them, beat them, kidnap them, and kill them because they eat fattened goose liver."

Of course, the animal rights activists out there will say that animals have rights like humans and the government is also protecting those rights by making sure geese are not force fed to expand their livers. Allegedly that is painfully. Personally, eating sounds delightful. Additionally, animals do not have rights. I explained that in several previous posts, so I will not explain it here. However, there are other examples of tyranny within liberal democracies. The drug war is a prime example. Men are kidnapped, murdered, and robbed because they use or distribute drugs. Now, the drug war activists will say that drug dealers and users initiate force, they murder, kidnap, and steal. Well, what do you know, murder, kidnapping, and stealing are already initiations of force. Therefore, the government can narrow the spectrum and focus on retaliating against those actions not the acts of using and distributing. However, that may not be clear enough for the drug war activists. However, what these activists will not mention, or do not know, is that about every month or so SWAT teams kill innocent men in the war on drugs. SWAT was originally for hostage situations. I have no problem with that. Hostages' have had force initiated against them, and they need to be rescued. Therefore, special tactical teams trained to retaliate against the hostage holders in order to save the hostages is necessary. However, SWAT should not be used to blow open doors without knocking and declaring that they are the authorities all in the name of fighting drugs. The argument is that if the authorities knock then the drug users and distributors will have time to flush all the drugs down the toilet, eliminating the evidence. However, if the drugs are the problem, then flushing them down the toilet is good because now they are gone. No more problem. Of course, the drugs is not the problem any way. The problem is that every once and awhile SWAT hits the wrong house. They break open the door, the innocent residents inside are nervous that armed robbers, killers, kidnappers, or rapists are coming into their house, so they fire back in self defense. In response, SWAT fires back. The person in the right here is the home owner. Whether or not they have drugs, the home owner has not violated anyone's natural rights. Therefore, busting down their door is clearly not retaliatory force but initiatory force. The one retaliating with force is the home owner. His natural rights are being violated by the government. Of course, once the home owners realize they are firing at the authorities they drop their guns. If only the authorities would knock and declare themselves, but know the authorities must behave like armed robbers, killers, and kidnappers.

However, this example may not be satisfactory either. It sure ought to be. The former on sure ought to be. I am not going to list every example of tyranny, initiatory force within a liberal democracy. One only has to think.

Obviously, I have a clear and enormous problem with government. However, I am within my own conflict between anarchy and some form of limited government. In a previous post I outline my problems with democracy; therefore, I can never be satisfied with that. However, as I think about it more, some aspects of a liberal democracy may not be initiatory force. Yet, I still know there is lots of force; therefore, it is still bad.

Firstly, there is no way capitalistic anarchy is achievable in my life time. People depend on the government too much. Furthermore, in a democracy, the government is the people. Since day one of America the government has been expanding, becoming more tyrannical. In order for capitalistic anarchy to function, the people must function. They must not have warped moralities that see justice in a drug war. The current democratically elected government is a clear indication that people are no where near ready for capitalistic anarchy. However, my other fear with anarchy, is even if the people function properly there will always be the misguided killers, thieves, and rapists. How are these actions to be countered? How are the innocent to be protected from the criminals? Obviously, a private security firm could take up the task. However, could that not lead to competition between multiple security firms that could become violent? Of course, if the people are acting properly the competing firms will compete but not attack one another. However, how are the firms to investigate crimes? They could make contracts with their customers outlining their search procedures. If a customer does not agree, he does not hire that particular firm. However, what if the victim was from one security firm and the criminal is of the other security firm? How is the victim's security firm to investigate the criminal since they do not have a contract with him? They cannot just break into his house. Of course, firms could cooperate on this matter. They also could not cooperate, which would be a problem. At this point I really have no answer as to how this would work. Of course, I have not thought much on the issue, but the possibility that killers, thieves, and kidnappers could roam free alarms me. Unfortunately, there are plenty roaming free today under the guise of government.

Secondly, in recent months I have been seeing a little less force int he government. The prime example is taxes, which I readily labeled as armed robbery. However, as I have thought about it, there may have been some consent in the matter. If all candidates for the House support taxes, then by voting for any candidate would not the vote be consenting to taxes? When voting for a candidate one cannot pick and choose which policies he agrees with. A vote is for the whole package. Therefore, if he votes for a candidate that will keep taxes, he consents to taxes; therefore, it cannot be armed robbery, it cannot be initiatory force. Therefore, those voters who voted for a pro-taxes candidate and refuse to pay their taxes are actually the one's initiating force. They are violating a contract, and violating the terms of the contract makes them a thief. However, what about the minority? What about those that did not vote for the pro-taxes candidate? Say they voted for a candidate who wanted to eliminate all taxes? Is not force being initiated against them, for they never agreed to taxes? Or, is the simple act of voting consent? I think that is how it works in a democracy. If one votes he consents to abiding by all the policies of the victor regardless of whether or not the victor is the voter's choice. Therefore, could not voting be the loop hole? By not voting one is not consenting to the system. He is not consenting to following the victor's policies even if the victor is not his choice, for he has not made a choice. Thus, could it then be initiatory force to collect taxes from him? Or, is simply living within the boundaries the consent? By living in America one consents to adhering to all the policies of the American government. If one is displeased he can simply leave whenever he likes. Therefore, the government would only be initiating force if it refused to let the residents within its boundaries to leave, or attacked innocents outside of their boundaries. Unfortunately, I think this may be how it really works. Even more unfortunate is the fact that there is no where to move to. One can leave America, but it may be the freest country presently on the globe despite all its initiatory force. Once again I have not actually done any research. I have no idea if America is the freest country on the globe. I assume it is one of them. However, there is no unclaimed land to go to. There is no wilderness where natural rights are natural rights and there is no government to confuse them with warped citizen's rights and then violate natural rights in the name of consent by choosing to live some where. There is no place for the capitalistic anarchy, but as I have stated that appears to have its problems. It may be worse than a liberal democracy.

As one can see I am caught in this tug of war. Throughout high school I wanted to work for the government. I wanted to be a protector of natural rights. However, I have come to see that if I was part of the government I would be initiating force. I would be violating natural rights. I would not be a defender. Therefore, I no longer desire to work for the government; however, the desire to defend is still there. I have had a few conversations with my cousins about what is enabling government force and what is not. I see government employment as clear enabling. They do not. I am unsure about voting. By voting there is that consent given to the government; however, as I have stated, I think the real consent comes from living here. However, that really does not seem right to say living here is the consent, and thus by staying here I am enabling. Therefore, wherever I went I would be enabling some government. My cousins pointed out that by my argument using roads and public transportation would be enabling. There seems to be some truth to that. Unfortunately, I use public transportation frequently. Of course, I really do not have much choice in the matter. I cannot afford a car and I need to get places. I could just go to less places though. However, even if I had a car I would have to use the roads, meaning I would need a helicopter and I cannot afford that let alone I have no idea how to fly it. Therefore, I am decided about public transportation and roads. There seems to be something wrong with calling it enabling because of my limited choice. However, I could always choose not to go anywhere, but even the people who brought me my food would use the roads. Of course, I could grow my own food. These make me question whether or not government employment is enabling tyranny. I obviously have much more choice in that matter.

The way my cousin explained it to me is through an anecdote. If an amnesiac washes up on the shore starving and approaches a house for food but no one is home, should the man break in and steal food. The answer is obviously yes because life is valuable and even the home owner should value life. However, the man should remain at the home until the owner returns. He should explain the situation and offer to pay back everything. The damage of breaking in and the food he ate. He should even offer to work for the home owner until the debt is paid if he has no money. My cousin states that government employment, using the roads, etc. is just like this. Their motives for government employment is to increase liberty. I see that as impossible to accomplish because as I stated before the people are the government. The people must change first, then the government can follow. Unfortunately, currently people do not want to increase liberty. However, my cousin argues that working for the government to increase liberty is just like a prolonged version of that anecdote. I really do not see it though because who is the amnesiac and who is the home owner. The home owner must be the people, for their house is being invaded and their food eaten. That is the apparent initiation of force. However, the amnesiac cannot be the government. That would mean that the government is sick and dying and needs what the people have to live. This is somewhat true, but there is no incentive to keep the government alive. It is an institution not a dying human being. Maybe the amnesiac is the amount of liberty, breaking into the house is the government, and the home owner is the people. Therefore, after awhile the amnesiac is not starving, liberty is increased, breaking into the house and government is no longer needed, and the home owner and the people are satisfied. That seems a little shaky to me though because the people and the government are directly related; therefore, the home owner and the breaking and entering should be related. Meaning, the home owner should have instigated the break in some how.

the final point my cousin gave me was that the good is not the enemy of the perfect. He said this to point out that a good government, a government that protects individuals' rights most of the time is not the enemy of the perfect government that never violates individuals' natural rights. My problem is where is the line between good an evil, and is the American government or any government on the side of good, or is everything on the side of evil? This also applies to actions such as employment with the government. Is that good or evil? Certainly, none of them are perfect.

The Comancheros and The Journey To The Center Of The Earth

The Comancheros - three stars

This movie came in one of those John Wayne collections; therefore, my assumption was that it was going to be awful. However, a John Wayne fan I know reviewed the collection and said all of them were pretty good. Thus, I decided to actually read the description on the back. Basically, the movie was about John Wayne, a Texas Ranger, tracking down an arms dealer selling guns to a gang of Native Americans and Caucasians. Furthermore, I realized it was from the director of Casablanca, Michael Curtiz.

The beginning of the film is excellent. A few men in the woods with two of them about to duel. One man explains that he found his woman was more interested in the man he is about to duel. The allegedly more attractive man basically says that is not his fault, to which the previous man responds, "I intend to simplify her choice." That man does simplify the woman's choice, by getting shot by the other man, Monsieur Paul Regret (Stuart Whitman).

John Wayne then tracks down Regret while he is on the lam. Unfortunately, Regret is a little to crafty and escapes a few times, that is only after a few attempts are foiled by the Duke. At one point Regret is able to get is little girly pee shooter revolver back. He aims it at Wayne, to which Wayne replies by punching that Pilgrim square in the nose. Wayne then picks up the gun and pulls the trigger a few times, but the gun only clicks. "No bullets."

Unfortunately, a gang called the Comancheros complicates Wayne's hunt for Regret. However, he does get Regret back when he discovers him at poker game while he is undercover. Wayne then takes Regret on his fight against the Comancheros, and Regret actually assists him. In turn, a local judge basically pardons him. What actually happens is all the other Texas Rangers sign a statement saying that Regret has always been a Texas Ranger. This is one of those two moments I am not to keen about. Regret did murder an innocent man. Assisting in the fight against the Comanchheros does not change that.

The other part I am not satisfied with is the blatant prejudice towards Native Americans. Firstly, I am not some hippie who claims that the Anglo-Saxons stole all the Native Americans' land. That is ridiculous. Some of the land Anglo-Saxons did steal, and the true crimes Anglo-Saxons committed against Native Americans are atrocious. However, they are extremely exaggerated because some of the are not really crimes. I will explain this all in a later post. However, in this movie the Native Americans are obsessed with alcohol. The Caucasian half of the Comancheros actually do not pay their Native American half with money. Instead, they pay them with whiskey, which the Native Americans promptly pour over their face. I understand that genetically Native Americans and alcohol are not the best of friends; however, this just depicts all Native Americans as utter fools who lust drunkenness.

Aside from these two problems The Comancheros is a great story about securing property and natural rights on the open range, the nearest thing to wilderness. It indicates the natural rights are truly natural, for they exist in an area with almost no government. It is also always entertaining to see the Duke in action slugging people, shooting people, and beating them over the head with beer bottles and chairs. However, I would have liked to see the film explore Regret's east-coast city personality versus Wayne's western-frontier personality, but that might be better for a comedy.

The Journey To The Center Of The Earth - two and a half stars

I am not referring to that recent 3-D remake from the outstanding actor Brendan Fraiser. I am talking about the original with Pat Boone, James Mason, and Alrene Dahl. Pat Boone is not much better than Brendan Fraser; however, James Mason makes up for it with his rudeness and one liners. My favorite is when Sir Oliver S. Lindenbrook (Mason) begins his expedition and Carla Goteberg (Dahl) has forced herself into it. Goteberg is being belayed down the first descent and Alexander McKuen (Boone) remarks that maybe Goteberg will want to turn back because of the height of the first descent. Lindenbrooks responds by saying, "You make my mouth water."

The Journey To The Center Of The Earth is a descent adventure film, but it does have a lull towards the latter half of the middle, while they are in the cave with the enormous mushrooms. It was also nice to see where the inspiration for the rolling boulder in Indiana Jones came from. Philosophically it is solid, except for Lindenbrook's sexist remarks. There is a great few lines from Boone about how man is curious and even though he will freeze to death exploring the north pole he will keep returning to know the truth. Lindenbrook then makes a speech at the end explaining that it is this curiosity, this desire to know truth, this desire to understand and progress that is the spirit of man. Even the skeptical and fearful Islander that comes with them is convinced. In the beginning he is the one that asks why they should die in the caves exploring the center of the earth, which prompts Boone's explanation. After Lindenbrook speaks at the end the Islander, without his translator, says "If you ever go back down there, I want to go again."