The Steven M. Paquin Archive

The Catalysts

2008-12-18T13:00:00.000-05:00

A few days ago I was listening to podcast 1223 of Freedomain Radio where Stefan Molyneux explained what he thinks the life cycle of empires and what he calls modern free range empires. I do not know that much about history aside from American history; however, his argument seems to have some truth. I was a little hung up at first when he classified America as an empire. It is always something that I thought was incorrect because America does not actually expand its territory in the sense of traditional empires like Rome. Often times when I heard people claiming America was an empire, they were just continuing on an irrational rant and the only evidence they had was that America controlled Puerto Rico, the American Samoans, etc. However, Molyneux clarified the position by defining modern empires as free range empires, meaning the modern governments utilize individuals across the globe to serve their own ends. This made more sense to me. Even though America does not have a traditional empire with its flag on every spot of land, the government does try to control global activities. Some good examples are in the past when the United States governments installed dictators like the Shah of Iran. Seriously, completely unrelated to its original job description of protecting the natural rights of those residing within its borders. Not only does the American government involve itself in completely unrelated activities across the globe, but by doing so it violates the natural rights of those not residing within its borders. Of course, this is not to say the American government does not violate the natural rights of its own residents. This was just to clarify the definition of America as a free range empire. Not any better than the original, but not exactly the same either.

Anyway, at one point in his argument I laughed a little. He argued that the life cycle of empires including free range empires is as follows:

1) The government allows its residents to practice some of their natural rights.

2) This liberty allows the individuals to create and invent.

3) The individuals become increasingly productive and earn increasingly more wealth.

4) The government increases taxes to acquire some of the wealth these individuals have earned.

5) The increased taxation causes the government to become larger.

6) The larger government invariably violates the individuals natural rights. Additionally, the government violates some of these natural rights as an attempt to control the individuals in such a way they think will produce more wealth, which means the government can acquire more through taxation.

7) Finally, the individuals get annoyed with this system and causes the government to collapse or decline. Obviously, there are several options at this point.

8) The individuals create something new, which is actually just another variation of government. Thus the cycle repeats itself.

Therefore, currently America is on the decline. It is around step 6. The income tax was established early in the 1900's. The government has continued to grow with lots of superfluous departments and agencies. Taxes increased to support this. Now there is the emergency of the Nanny State to make citizens healthier. There are also an inordinate amount of regulations to try and make American businesses more productive.

This is when I laughed a little. I have recognized a sort of decline of America, and I know the only way to reverse that trend or slow it is for America to become more isolationist, but with trade. Essentially, alliances with none, free trade with all. The American government needs to withdraw from its global games, allow its businesses to trade with whoever, and only shoot those trying to shoot at at those within America's borders. Of course, that does not solve all the problems. I am really not interested in trying to implement that trend because natural rights will still be interested. I just recognize that if individuals are interested in reversing or slowing America's decline that is what they have to do. I thought this before listening to this podcast, and it appears to fit Molyneux's argument. However, the reason I laughed is that, at least here at my college, several individuals, probably the majority, also think America is on the decline. The majority of the students are more liberal, and they think America is on the decline because of its global games, but also because it is not humanitarian enough on an international level. I used to be Republican back in high school, so I know the conservatives think America is on the decline because it appears weak. They want less humanitarianism and more military activity. They are simply tired of losses and draws like Korea, Vietnam, and Desert Storm. The reason I laughed is because they are both wrong, and no matter which one is in office, they will be accelerating the American government towards step 7. International humanitarianism enforced by a government means increased taxation and infringement of natural rights for the unfortunate in other countries. It means conscription to fight genocidal dictators and to "keep peace." Tougher military action does not mean the protection of American residents' natural rights. It means the violation of natural rights of those in other countries. Once again, increased taxation on American residents, and conscription. It also means more security, more bag checks, more metal detectors, more violations of American residents natural rights for their own safety. Each of them think that their actions are slowing or reversing the American government's decline, but both of them are steepening the nose dive. They really have no idea what they are doing.

I think part of the reason is that they cannot think of a world without government. They really would not know what to do with themselves. Government was supposed to provide protection from murderers and thieves so individuals could live their lives as they pleased. Government is now an obsession. Government is life. Therefore, they cannot recognize my understanding of less government. That is crazy to them. No regulations. They think the world will descend into Thomas Hobbes state of nature. Of course, if they thought about it they would realize Hobbes was wrong. The war of all against all does not exist unless individuals want it too. However, without recognizing it, that is what they accelerating towards: no government; the exact opposite of what they want, and that makes me laugh a little.

Service Staff Friendship

2008-12-17T13:00:00.001-05:00

Earlier this semester in my sociology class, several students instigated a discussion where they argued that the college students were not friendly enough with the service staff. The service staff specifically refers to those who clean the college and serve and prepare the food in the dinning halls. Honestly, I am not surprised these individuals argued this. Their entire mentality points in the direction that they believe that love and friendship is an entitlement of every individual not something that is earned and selfishly given.

The discussion began when someone pointed out that the majority of the service staff was black and/or of a lower socioeconomic bracket. Of course, this caused some to argue that the college students were racist and disliking of lower classes. Obviously this is ridiculous; just as ridiculous as assuming that service staff members and customers must be friends. I am not saying that these individuals should be rude to another another. Rudeness is just an indication of self-loathing behavior. One feels he must verbally attack another in order to establish his self worth through superiority. The individuals of these separate groups must be polite with one another, one group is making the other groups paid experience better, while the other group is paying the first group. However, both groups should not have to be friends with one another. If they want to be friends with one another that's fine, but the simple fact that one group is the service staff and the other group is the customers does not mean they have to be friends.

The core of this belief is a strange egalitarianism. It is not the egalitarianism that argues every man has the same natural rights. No. That egalitarianism is almost forgotten. This egalitarianism argues that everyone must be treated exactly the same at all times, meaning everyone must be friends with one another at all times. It is the assumption that love and friendships are entitlements based upon the mere fact that everyone is a human being and everyone exists. This only points to a deeper problem. Since one thinks he should give away his love and friendship freely because it is an entitlement, he believes everyone else should love him solely because he exists. It points to a degree of self-loathing. The individual does not believe he deserves love in the true sense, where another recognizes the values in him, practices the same values, and selfishly wants to be around him because their similarities make him enjoy life more. He believes what he is taught. He believes he is weak, insignificant, and usually evil. Furthermore, he believes everyone is like him. Therefore, true love and friendship are unattainable. Therefore, the only way to make him feel at least a little good is if he loves everyone simply because they exist, and elicits love from everyone simply because he exists. He feels good because he gives love and friendship to those he does not know well enough to give love and friendship to, such as the service staff. Then he elicits love from them, and they do not know him well enough to give him love and friendship. Everyone is weak, insignificant, usually evil, and wholly undeserving of love, but everyone gives and gets love regardless of any factors. It convinces them they have self worth because they have disregarded logical rules.

Personally, I like my relationship with the service staff to go as follows.

Service Staff Member: Good evening Sir, what can I get for you tonight?

Me: Good evening. May I have the steak.

Service Staff Member: (Places steak on plate) Here you are, Sir. (Paces plate to me)

Me: (I receive plate) Thank you.

Service Staff Member: Have yourself a good evening.

Me: You too.

See, simple, polite, professional, and not giving away friendship and love like it was free hard candies.

Environmental Studies Response 9

2008-12-16T13:00:00.000-05:00

I just noticed I forgot to post my last environmental studies reading response. Here it is below.

It is no secret that environmentalism favors a government intensive approach to solving environmental issues. However, this is utterly inefficient, as evident in Michael Grundwald’s article The Clean Energy Scam, describing government’s nonsensical approach to biofuels.

The argument for biofuels is that “cars emit carbon no matter what fuel they burn, but” (Grundwald 44) plants absorbs carbon from the atmosphere; therefore, biofuels help nature before harming it. Unfortunately, other more carbon-absorbent plants must be cleared to create land for growing biofuel crops. Consequently, the atmosphere’s net carbon amount increases. Furthermore, deforesting the rainforest is the prime method of securing biofuel cropland.

Regardless of this truth, politicians continually support biofuels because they are unconcerned with doing what is correct; they are only concerned with remaining in office, increasing their power, and keeping their party in office. Of course, politicians do not support biofuels by simply saying, ‘Biofuels are peachy keen. I am Joe the Politician and I approve this message.’ Supporting biofuels involves money; around $8 billion rightfully belonging to American residences, but Joe the Politician steals to subsidize biofuels. ‘Subsidy’ is just a fancy word for ‘pacifier’. Thus, Joe the Politician purchases an $8 billion pacifier with money he stole, and gives it to the farm lobby; a powerful baby that – without its binky – throws a temper tantrum and votes out Joe the Politician and his cronies. Therefore, subsidizing biofuels has nothing to do with sustaining nature; it is all about maintaining power.

This is just one small example of how politicians specialize in boondoggles. Therefore, if politicians cannot properly address this small environmental problem, environmentalists have no reason to believe that any politician can do it correctly.

Grundwald, Michael. “The Clean Energy Scam.” Time. April. 2008: 40 – 45.

Education

2008-12-15T15:34:00.004-05:00

This semester I did not get to post as often as I like because school really drained me this time. It was not that I lacked the time to post. It was that I lacked the enthusiasm to because college is becoming increasingly annoying and increasingly boring. My first semester was exciting because I had far more free time than in high school, the classes were slightly more interesting, and I had more independence. However, that has worn off. Therefore, since my first and only exam is in a few hours and then I get to go home tomorrow, I am going to take this time to complain about education.

I have not spent considerable time thinking about all the problems with education; therefore, this post is not going to be anywhere near as encompassing as previous posts. That is not to say my previous posts have all the answers. They are certainly not close, and I recognize I could be completely wrong about pasts posts and even this post, so long as I am provided with conclusive evidence as to otherwise.

Everyone recognizes there is a problem with education. It is one of the few topics actually discussed at college. There is the government (meaning how to make it a bigger welfare state), how to protect the environment, why people suck (which includes racism, prejudice, selfishness, all that stuff), and why education sucks. Unfortunately, no one really has the slightest clue why education is poor. They just point to statistics of drop out rates, graduation rates, SAT scores and say, "See, they are low; therefore, education in this country is poor." Of course, they always follow up with the statistics from Europe and Asia and say, "See, education there is great." However, these individuals do not realize that the statistics really have nothing to do with whether the education in one particular place or another is good or bad. The real mark of good education is if it ignites the desire to learn. This means that the students must actually want to learn, voluntarily educate themselves, and are learning what they want to learn.

Therefore, while others say education is poor because of lackluster statistics, I say education is poor because it is boring and supported by violence. Simply look at all education prior to college. However, do not count pre-school or kindergarten. I do not remember those periods very well, but the little parts are do remember are distinctly different from the other periods. In those two periods I remember sitting on the floor with toys or coloring. From first grade to twelfth grade, however, I remember sitting in rows with thirty other students, all facing the same way, staring at someone talk to me for about fifty minutes. After fifty minutes I and all other other students would get up, go to another room, and repeat the process roughly six times a day, five days a week. This is utterly boring. The emotions I associate with my school years are a feeling of physical sickness (like I actually wanted to vomit all the time), incredibly tired, really freaking warm (like unbearably warm like I was cooking), anger, hatred, self-loathing. As far as I recall, first grade to twelfth grade was infinitely worse than college.

The best example that captures how awful that period of education is comes from an experience in my seventh grade geography class. On an unrelated tangent my teacher stated something like, "These are the best years of your life. You are having the most fun now." I then turned to the student sitting to my left and said something to the effect of, "That is the most retarded thing I ever heard." The student then replied with something like, "Yeah, if that's true, I am just going to kill myself right now."

Education is not fun, it is boring and horrible, even though it should be fun. The fact is, education, meaning learning new things, is incredibly enjoyable. When I learn something new it is like the sunlight hits me in the face. I have those incredible ah-ha moments. However, I experienced this very rarely in my formal education. Furthermore, I actually went to a private school, which is supposed to be better than public school. If that is true, public school must be awful.

I think the two biggest reasons why education is so boring is because the students do not actually get to do anything, and because students are learning about topics they do not care about.

Firstly, sitting in rows for six fifty-five minute periods five days a week does not count as doing something. That is the opposite of doing something. Presently, it seems so obvious to me that this is a major problem with education; however, while I was in school I could not figure it out. I always thought I was the problem and I just needed to focus more. Yet, now, whenever I plainly describe school as sitting in rows I laugh a little. I just think to myself, "Who honestly thought this was a good idea? Who really thought people were going to learn this way?" I just think of a comedian like Lewis Black, Jerry Seinfeld, or Eddie Izzard describing how people came to a conclusion as to how they were going to educate students. However, I only realized how utterly horrible and ridiculous the concept was until I heard Stefan Molyneux of Freedomain Radio compare education to sitting in rows like fattening calves. At that moment it became so obvious to me. The complete absence of stimulation in education results in not actually learning anything. It is basically like trying to teach something to someone who is sleeping. More stimulating and active methods are required. For example, one of my favorite classes was anatomy and physiology even though I have no interest in science. The reason it was one of my favorite classes was because I was actually dissecting animals. I actually saw the inside of lungs and stomachs. I saw where all the organs were. I had to look up organs I had not seen before. Today, I still remember parts of what I learned in anatomy and physiology. Whereas in environmental science, pre-calculus, geography, geometry, classes where I sat and listened and never did anything active to apply my knowledge I remember absolutely nothing. I can tell you that the semi-circular canals within the inner ear use the distribution of fluids within them to communicate to the brain how balanced the body is because I actually saw semicircular canals and the brain and the inner ear of an animal. Furthermore, I discovered them myself. The teacher did not throw up a slide and say, "Here they are." However, I cannot deduce all the lengths of a polygon based on one length, I do not know the characteristics of different climates, I do not know the nitrogen cycle and how it interacts with other cycles. Why? Because I was bored out of my mind because I was not applying any of it.

Secondly, if a student has absolutely no interest in a topic, there is no reason for him to learn it. Of course, there is a benefit to learning basic math and writing skills, but does every student really need to learn pre-calculus. I really dislike math. I had no interest in taking that class, but I was forced to because of some state requirements or something. However, today, I cannot remember a single thing about pre-calculus and I have not died, I have not failed out of college, and I can get a job. I fail to see the importance of learning something I have no interest in, if it has no role in keeping me alive and allowing me to interact with the world. Forcing students to take classes they despise only compounds how boring and distressing and discouraging education is. If students are allowed to learn what they would like to learn, even unconventional topics, they will be more excited about learning. They will also do better in those classes, and will be interested in learning on there own. When a student is provided with active learning in topics he loves, he is taught that learning is enjoyable; therefore, he will seek to learn independently. Thus, education becomes a life long activity, and individuals become smarter. However, if a student is provided with inactive boring learning in topics he hates, he is taught that learning is miserable; therefore, he will try to avoid education and never seek to learn independently. Thus, education is no longer part of his life, and he is not as intelligent as he would like to be.

Of course, no one wants to hear these ideas. If these ideas are correct, then that means they have been wrong their entire lives. No. Instead, individuals believe the solution to poor education is giving schools more money. This is a horrible idea. It is like paying someone who know is a horrible mechanic to fix your car. You are basically paying for your car to get just a little better. If schools are given more money, they will spend it trying to make things more boring and more restrictive.

Other problems with education include the fact that it is forced. Parents must send their children to school or else they will be fined, sent to jail, or their children will be taken from them. Fantastic ways to motivate people to learn. Obviously, children do not see government agents holding guns to their parents heads saying, "Go to school or else." However, I am sure there are parents who would not send their children to school, or send their children to more active yet state un-approved schools if allowed the choice.

Another problem with education is that the majority of it is public. Therefore, the state sets the curriculum. If the state has no idea how to run a business and has no authority to run a business, the same applies to education. It is a business like anything else. Better learning environments are created, when schools can compete against one another in the free market. Furthermore, since the state controls the schools, the state puts an emphasis on math, science, and conformity. Through schools the state tries to create students who will serve the interests of the states. The goal is not to provide the best place for customers to learn. The goal is to create future leaders and future civil servants. It should not be that much of a stretch to understand, since those exact lines, "future leaders" "future community leaders" "future civil servants", are actually used.

The worst problem with education, however, is how it is presented. Teachers argue that high school prepares one for college, and college prepares one for a life and a career. Therefore, high school must be somewhat related to life and careers. As education stands now, this is completely false. However, this is how it is presented, and this is what students assume. Thus, students also assume that since high school is horrible, their lives and careers will also be horrible. In a previous post I explained that nonsense parties where individuals drink excessively is motivated my self-loathing. That is definitely still a part of it; however, I think this presentation of education also plays into it. Students may assume that since life is going to continue sucking, that this is the most opportune time to get in as much hedonistic joy as possible before they acquire larger responsibilities that will not allow them to behave in this way. Basically, this presentation of education may only add to their self-loathing. They already do not like themselves, so the drink and party to cripple their reason, cripple their ability to recognize reality. Then education basically confirms this for them. Life sucks, and you suck, that is why you boring education is forced upon you. Thus, they continue to use the only method they know of to feel "good", which means to feel less because what they do feel is pain, hatred, anger, boredom, and self-loathing.

Unfortunately, college essentially follows the same blue print as high school. The only differences are there are fewer classes, few assignments, more time, and more independence. Yet, classes are still forced upon individuals, and they use the same boring standard.

There is only one defense for any of this. There is the defense for general education requirements. Allegedly they make someone a well rounded person, which is allegedly good. I do not buy it. If someone does not want to learn something, there is no reason for him to learn it. Well rounded individuals are no better than others, especially if they are unhappy. Furthermore, well rounded individuals know only a little about several topics. While a skilled individual knows much about one topic. From a practical perspective the skilled individual seems more equipped then the well rounded one.

The other defense I have heard for courses like geography forced upon individuals is that it helps the brain grow and develop. I do not buy this either. Of course, I could be completely wrong. Though I do pretend to be a doctor on occasion, I am certainly not a doctor. Therefore, my the brain does grow and develop in useful ways when learning topics one does not want to learn. However, I do not understand how the brain grows and develops through these courses, if after a year the individual no longer remembers what he learned in the course. For example, I do not remember anything about geometry, pre-calculus, environmental science, or geography. If my brain grew and developed while learning those topics, would I not remember them? Furthermore, even if my brain grew and developed while learning those topics even though I do not remember them, what exactly are those grown and developed parts filled with? They are certainly not filled with geometry, pre-calculus, environmental science, or geography.

A Great Story

2008-11-18T20:32:00.000-05:00

From Crackle: A Jewish Man's First Bacon

Like A Begging Dog

2008-11-09T15:11:00.000-05:00

On a similar note to my previous post, there is this student in one of my classes who constantly interrupts the teacher to contribute here own information and anecdotes. To be fair, she does sometimes raise here hand. However, every four minutes she tries to add something. Most of the time, it is not really information pertinent to the course. Granted, the course is not very specific about what is pertinent information. The class is essentially about transitioning from college life to real life, so it covers topics like resumes, cover letters, apartment leases, bills, health insurance, etc. However, personal anecdotes acting as a superfluous examples are a problem. Here are some paraphrased examples of her contributions:

"Hey, that's the name of my mom's law firm."

"That happens to my dad a lot. He tries to avoid it by doing this, but that doesn't help."

"At the hospital I work at (insert name here) the other nurses talk about that all the time."

"My brother is the number two goalie on the east coast. It's kind of a big deal."

Though the constant interruptions are certainly annoying, the real problem here is that the individual is trying to have her life affirmed. She is like a begging dog. Asking the teacher to call on her, and praise her for her examples. In some cases, she is not even seeking praise for an example. She is just seeking praise for a quality about another member of her family.

The problems here are one, she is dependent upon the reactions from the other class members and the teachers to make her happy. As I stated in the previous post, happiness is only achieved independently. The actions of others cannot make one happy, for it requires dependence, which requires one to violate his nature as an independent reasonable individual.

The second problem is that she is using the qualities of her family members to gain affirmation of her life. She is not even stating her own accomplishments. It is about her brother's "big deal" accomplishment as the number two goalie on the east coast. The prestigious law firm her mother works with. The wit and intelligence of her father. However, there is nothing about her own accomplishments. Therefore, she is not only dependent on reactions, but also dependent on the accomplishments of people she knows. Just as one is not guilty by association, one is not successful by association. She is only violating the independent quality of her nature two fold.

Politicians Are Like Jesus

2008-11-08T14:42:00.001-05:00

No, that is not a compliment. However, maybe the more appropriate title would have been "Politicians' Supporters Like Jesus' Disciples." Unfortunately, it just doesn't have the same ring.

Anyway, I began thinking about this, while on the myface. I am a visual person. I like images. Therefore, most of my time on the myface is spent looking at other people's pictures. Most of them aren't very good. Sometimes its like someone gave a crack baby a camera. Everything is all out of photos, the shots are diagonal, people's nostrils are up against the lens. Whoever has the camera has to use some common sense. Furthermore, they should not read this and hide behind the nonsense that it is abstract art or something. No. That is not the case. The case is you are trigger happy with a camera, and since you have a digital camera, with a million image limit on the number of photographs, you lack any motivation to stop, frame up a shot, and click.

As anyone can tell. I am not in a very good mood. College has been driving me insane; however, that is a topic for another day.

As I was saying. I was looking through some myface pictures, and since the election just occured most of them were reaction shots. Additionally, I believe all of them were reaction shots of supporters of Barack Obama. The shots show individuals out on the quad, jumping up and down, hugging, high fiving, waving the peace sign, and worst of all, crying with joy.

This is incredibly disturbing and overwhelmingly gross. Regardless of what these individuals claim to be their religious beliefs, even if they claim they are atheist, they have selected a new God, a Jesus equivalent.

First, I want to make it clear I am not singling out Obama supporters. Nonsense like this happens for all sorts of political elections throughout history and across the globe. The only connection to Barack Obama this really has, is that the images were of Obama supporters. However, in another time they could have been John F. Kennedy supporters, Ronald Reagan supporters, really the supporters of any politician. The problem here is not necessarily the candidate (though politicians and political candidates do have a wide array of problems) the problem here is the disturbing reaction as if they are worshiping a God.

This situation reminds me of a quote from Ayn Rand's We The Living.

"Well, if I asked people whether they believed in life, they'd never understand what I meant. It's a bad question. It can mean so much that it really means nothing. So I ask them if they believe in God. And if they say they do -- then, I know they don't believe in life.... Because, you see, God -- whatever anyone chooses to call God -- is one's highest conception of the highest possible. And whoever places his highest conception above his own possibility thinks very little of himself and his life. It's a rare gift, you know, to feel reverence for your own life and to want the best, the greatest, the highest possible, here, now, for your very own."

These individuals do not love life. For, they believe in a Jesus equivalent. They believe the politician is the greatest thing since sliced bread, that the politician makes life worth living. Politicians do not make life better. Government does not make life better. One makes his life better. Improving one's life, achieving happiness, is a personal pursuit. It is not something achieved through government handouts, or politicians' careers.

Unfortunately, this is how these individuals are behaving. They believe this particular politician has infinitely improved their lives. This is a sick dependence comparable to the disciples of Jesus. These individuals have ground themselves down into human fodder to prop up the careers of individuals who will orchestrate thievery, murder, and the initiation of force behind a governmental-guise that at a distance appears as legitimacy. These individuals have destroyed themselves. Made themselves nothing more than support beams. Therefore, if their candidate fails, they collapse, for they believe they have no purpose.

It is true that a support beam without a platform is useless; however, men are not support beams. Men are never fodder, holding up a creature as a God. Men make their own purpose, by living their own lives, for their own happiness. Reducing one's self to a resource for others, is a complete contradiction of one's nature as an independent reasonable individual; therefore, it can only assure misery.

Obviously, these individuals are not as happy as they could be. Relying on other's successes to make one happy, to affirm one's own exist, never achieves happiness. However, they think they are happy now because they think all the promises of their God will come true. Unfortunately, over time, they will become disillusioned. They will see their Jesus is just another power seeking politician caring only for government's existence, not the individuals at all. Consequently, they will become unhappy. Obviously, the opponents supporters are now unhappy, once again because they relied on his success and not their personal accomplishments for happiness. Of course, this process will continue to repeat itself as it has in the passed until individuals' improve their philosophy.

However, those that realize this, realize how vicious government is regardless of what color and mascot it is dressed in, will be happy, or have a better potential to be happy than these individuals. The ones who realize this are not relying on any politician to succeed to affirm their own existence. They honestly could not care, or care very little. Instead, they solely care about their own lives, their own happiness. Therefore, they will not seek happiness from others success, from the ascent of a Jesus like others. Instead, they will go out and achieve happiness themselves.

World War II: A War Amongst Capitalists?

2008-11-07T13:00:00.000-05:00

Yeah, it does not make any sense. However, this is what my Arabic professor argued last week. If not obvious by his argument, he has extreme leftist/Marxist leanings. Therefore, there are already a host of other problems with moral warping, which I will not address here.

My specific problem with this argument was the skewing of definitions, specifically the definition of capitalism. He maintained that most of the states involved in World War II supported capitalism, while I maintained that few if none supported capitalism. The obvious exclusion is the Soviet Union; however, I think he even agreed with this. Furthermore, he may see the Soviet Union as the victim since it did not participate in the war until Nazi Germany attacked it. However, this should not be construed to imply that my professor supports the Soviet Union. Undoubtedly, he finds its practices atrocious. He specifically brought up the fact that Stalin murdered 20 million of his own people.

With the Soviet Union out of the way, obviously Nazi Germany would be the next exception we could both agree upon. Unfortunately, this is not the case. He continued to maintain that Nazi Germany was capitalistic. In response, I pointed out that capitalism was based on voluntary exchanges between individuals; therefore, Nazi Germany, which used government force to maintain corporations could not be capitalistic. He then attempted to make a distinction between capitalisms, as if there are multiple categories. He said I was speaking about the idealist Adam Smith capitalism. I do not remember that much about Adam Smith from history school, I am sure my thought and his share some similarities; however, I understand the definition of capitalism as a wall between state and economy. I am not sure if Adam Smith understood this. In any regard, my professor then stated he was talking about real capitalism, which Nazi Germany is. In reality, he was still wrong. There is no separations between capitalism. There are degrees of capitalism; however, a state that is even just one degree below capitalism is not capitalistic. There is either the free voluntary exchange of materials amongst individuals, or there is not for there may be just one exception. Nazi Germany was rife with exceptions. The United States was also rife with exceptions because of President Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal. I am sure Britain was similar. Italy also had a mix between socialism and capitalism; thus, making it not capitalism. Japan probably also had some exceptions. Of course, I only read small sections of the wikipedia articles for Japan, Germany, and Italy, so I could be wrong about some of them if not all. However, I am pretty sure I am right that World War II was not a war between capitalists.

In any event, I was addressing the problem with definitions. The problem with my argument with my professor was that we had completely different definitions of capitalism. I have no idea what he was defining, but it certainly was not capitalism. Unfortunately, he did not realize that what he was explaining was not capitalism. Of course, he did not make a mistake. It was not as if he thought one was supposed to take a left to get to the grocery store, when the grocery store was really on the right. The problem was that he really truly believed capitalism was something else. I am not sure how he defines it, but from what I gather he believes that capitalism is solely based on profit earnings. Therefore, if one gathers more profits with fascism and practices that, then that is capitalism. However, that is not capitalism at all. Capitalism has a completely different definition my professor apparently does not understand. Unfortunately, my professor will continue to stand by this false definition even if I provide him with the Merriam-Webster dictionary definition:

An economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

Individuals must understand that words have exact definitions. There are, of course, several definitions to multiple words depending on how the word is used in a particular context. However, the word dog can not refer to an animal that is a cat. The word capitalism can not refer to an economic system that has socialist elements. If any word could identify any person, place, thing, action, description, concept, etc. then words would have no meaning at all. Additionally, individuals must also admit to the possibility that they can be wrong. They must also demand conclusive evidence proving their falsehood in order to realize it. Granted, I did not provide conclusive evidence. I did not show my professor this definition. However, from his stand point, he can never be wrong because capitalism is always what is in his mind despite what dictionaries say. This was evidently conveyed when he stated that I was talking about idealist Adam Smith capitalism. The objective in saying this was to maintain that he was correct, not to understand the truth. He maintains correctness on the definition of capitalism because he talks about real capitalism not fake idealist Adam Smith capitalism. I always admit I could be wrong. For example, I stated earlier that I could probably be wrong about how capitalistic each state during World War II was. However, if someone is going to prove me wrong, they must supply conclusive evidence. Obviously, that would not require too much since I only briefly read the wikipedia pages. However, I am sufficiently sure I am correct about the definition of capitalism, since I just retrieved it from a dictionary and it pretty much said what I had argued.

Environmental Studies Response 8

2008-11-06T13:00:00.000-05:00

Here is my eighth reading response for my Environmental Studies class.

In The Omnivore’s Dilemma, author Michael Pollan describes how hybrid corn seed has doubled crop yields twice since 1930. This illustrates science’s incredible value, especially in regards to food production; however, part of Richard Levins’ Science and Progress: Seven Developmentalist Myths in Agriculture appears to favor “folk knowledge” over science.

The hybrid seed’s results are astounding. In 1920, the average corn yield was twenty bushels per acre. When hybrid seed was introduced in 1930, corn yields climbed and leveled out in the 1950’s around eighty bushels per acre. Presently, improved hybrid seed has increased corn yields to between 160 and 200 bushels per acre. Such an achievement displays science’s greatness and necessity. Furthermore, it indicates that in the future, science will accomplish more challenging feats, such as genetically altering seed so crops can grow in unbearable climates.

However, despite science’s clear extraordinary value within this sphere, Levins argues that scientific knowledge is not superior to folk knowledge. According to Levins, assuming “that science is the only way to knowledge” is “a chauvinist, class-based, and sexist contempt for the intellectual achievements of third world peoples, workers, and women of all countries” (Levins 437). Levins continues, arguing that modern science is not the only way to gather knowledge because “all peoples learn, experiment, and analyze” (Levins 437). However, that is not folk knowledge, but science without lab coats and gloves. When a farmer controls variables like fertilizer and water, and determines that his crops require more water, he has used science not folk knowledge. Whether on a personal level, like this example, or in a lab making hybrid seeds, science not folk knowledge has improved farming.

Levins needs to clarify his argument, specifically by defining folk knowledge differently from science. Otherwise, on this point it appears, Levins is backward, “scientific knowledge is modern” (Levins 437)
Levins, Richard. “Science and Progress: Seven Developmentalist Myths in Agriculture.”

Environment an Interdisciplinary Anthology. Ed. Glenn Adelson, James Engell,

Brent Ranalli, and K.P. Van Anglen. 1^st ed. New Haven: Yale University Press.

434-439.

Why I Did Not Vote

2008-11-05T11:36:00.002-05:00

Since last semester, I have been considering whether or not I would vote in this election. Though I had decided not to vote month ago, the decision was official yesterday when I let the election pass by without paying it the slightest bit of attention. My reasons for not voting in this election, and probably for future elections include the similarity of the two candidates, my unwillingness to consent to government violation of my natural rights, and the fact that democracy does not make sense.

Obviously, most individuals will argue that Barack Obama and John McCain are completely dissimilar. However, this is false, simply because each candidate wanted more government and more war. Obama wants a larger government for social programs. McCain wants a larger government for security. Though Obama does want to withdraw troops from Iraq, he does want them to participate in more peace keeping operations. McCain wants troops to remain in Iraq, and participate in operations throughout the Middle East. Expanding the government whether for social programs or security violates individuals natural rights. Social programs relies on government robbery of individuals' property. Security relies on government restrictions on individuals' life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Expanding war in both cases does not achieve government's purpose. Government is supposed to protect the natural rights of the individuals residing within its boundaries. Peace keeping missions does not accomplish this. Peace keeping missions attempts to protect other individuals' natural rights. That is not the American military's responsibility. The American military's responsibility is to sit on America's borders, aim its guns outwards, and shoot those trying to shoot at those residing in America. This should not be construed as meaning that immigrants should be shot. Immigrants are not shooting at those residing in America, they are trying to become other individuals residing within America, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Finally, American military operations in the Middle East, specifically in Iraq, is also not protecting the natural rights of individuals' residing within America. The American military should indeed kill terrorists trying to kill those residing in America, and if they are in the Middle East, then special operations soldiers should go there and resolve the problem. However, toppling foreign governments and attempting to build democracies is completely contrary to the American miltiary's purpose. Instead of protecting the natural rights of those residing within America, it is just violating the natural rights of those living within another country. Even if the American military removes a brutal dictator like Saddam Hussein and allegedly liberates Iraqi individuals the entire occupation results in breaking and entering, murder, robbery, imprisonment, and restrictions on Iraqi individuals who have initiated no force. Furthermore, it is the responsibility of Iraqi individuals to alter their government through force or more peaceful political change. That is not the purpose of the American government.

Secondly, a vote constitutes consent to a candidates entire platform. Therefore, by voting for either Obama or McCain I would be consenting to larger government and more war. I would be consenting to everything I listed above. I refuse to consent to that. I do not recognize any of their positions as legitimate. This is probably why I will continue to abstain from voting in the future. Even if there was a candidate I completely agreed with, his paycheck still comes from government robbery of individuals natural right to property via taxes. I will not consent to being robbed at gun point so someone else can earn a paycheck.

Finally, democracy does not make sense. There seems to be this assumption that democracy results in virtuous decisions. This is false. Democracy guarantees no virtue. Democracy is not constructed to guarantee any level of moral quality whether negative or positive. Democracy only guarantees agreement. Therefore, democracy is an incredibly poor decision making method. It is designed to make a decision, it is not designed to make the best decisions. I do not wish to participate in a faulty process, especially in one that is ultimately allowed to decide whether my natural rights will be protected or violated. Democracy only guarantees that one will be decided on, it does not guarantee that the best decision will be made, that it will be decided individuals' natural rights are to be protected.

I have tried to consider if there was ever an election I would participate in. Thus far, I think I may participate in an election if Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. were revived, Hitler was running for president, and the others were in his cabinet, and a liberal was running against them. That liberal could be McCain, Obama, a reincarnated Reagan, even George W. Bush. I may consider voting for the liberal, to make sure I would not have an even more psychotic and vicious government. However, this, of course, will never happen. Furthermore, if it was happening, I may just decide to move. Additionally, this situation only changes the first premise. Now the candidates are dissimilar. However, I would still be consenting to the violation of my natural rights. I would just either consent to a whole bunch of them being violated, or just a few. Also, the decision is still being left up to majority rule. This decision is too damn important to leave it to majority rule, to democracy. The best decision must be made, not just any decision. Thus, if I am to participate in any future election, I must discover that I am mistaken. Obviously, that is a possibility, I acknowledge I could be completely and utterly wrong. Furthermore, I will admit I am wrong, if I discover how.

Environmental Studies Response 7

2008-10-27T21:03:00.002-04:00

Here is another reading response for my Environmental Studies class.

Environment an Interdisciplinary Anthology’s biodiversity chapter implies that nature is inherently valuable. However, the articles With Mouth Wide Open and Human Domination of Earth’s Ecosystems inadvertently disprove this claim, for to justify it they rely on man’s existence.

Value presupposes a valuer. If an item is unvalued, it is worthless. For example, if Product A is developed and sold, it clearly has value because developers use it to earn profits, and consumers purchase it. However, if everyone including the developers dispose of Product A, it becomes worthless. Product A is not worth $3 because it costs $3 to produce; Product A is only worth $3 if individuals are willing to buy and sell it for $3. If no one wants Product A, it is worthless.

The same is true for nature; it is worthless unless it is valued. Fortunately, nature is valued by man. This is evidenced by With Mouth Wide Open’s and Human Domination of Earth’s Ecosystem’s attempts to scare and shame readers. The articles state, “Man is destroying the cod, and once it is gone, he can no longer eat it,” and “Man is destroying ecosystems and species, once they are gone, he can no longer see them and use their resources.” Essentially, nature has value because man exists. Therefore, man should not preserve nature for the sake of preserving it, but for the sake of preserving something he values.

Of course, some argue man should preserve nature even if he does not value it because animals value it. However, that must be proven. Just because Animal A eats Plant B does not mean Animal A values Plant B. Animal A’s instinct programs it to eat Plant B. Is that value, or is that distinctly different from man, who derives happiness from what he values?

Environmental Studies Response 6

2008-10-16T10:27:00.001-04:00

Below is the sixth reading response for my Environmental Studies class.

Several environmental mediums, such as Annie Leonard’s The Story of Stuff depict corporations as ignorant, voracious, and obese top-hat-wearing instigators and perpetuators of environmental problems. However, corporations have serious motives to solve environmental issues.

Leonard argues that in the past, present, and future corporations destroy nature to earn profits. However, corporations’ profit motive ensures that they will not continue to destroy nature. Corporations desire to create the cheapest and most effective products because individuals want them and they are inexpensive to make. Essentially, profit motivates corporations to create ideal products, but ideal products cannot be constructed before inferior ones. Furthermore, ideal products are environmentally friendly, for they use inexpensive renewable fuels, produce clean and harmless unobtrusive waste work as well as their predecessors, and cost the same. Simply imagine a car with these attributes. Any corporation that created it would become exceedingly wealthier.

Since most environmentalists blame corporations for instigating and perpetuating environmental destruction, they turn to the government to provide solutions. However, the government has no motivation to do so. If the government was motivated, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s recommendations to develop water conservation techniques and efficient farming would already be accomplished, for the state subsidizes water utilities and farmers. However, these subsidies eliminate any motivation to develop, for they remove all fear of bankruptcy caused by a competitor’s superior product. Water utilities and farmers never worry about profits because they are always guaranteed money from the government.

Environmentalists must remember that corporations’ environmentally harmful past is not vicious. Attacking corporations for their former inferior environmentally harmful products is like attacking the man who invented fire because he did not invent the light bulb. The light bulb is the ideal; however, man has no idea how to make it unless he makes fire first.

Collective Punishment

2008-10-07T19:57:00.002-04:00

Last week in my Environmental Studies class one student argued that there need to be global regulations on birth. That is correct, some super-state, as if there is not enough government already, needs to pass a law governing all the people of the world, which would restrict the number of children each individual can give birth to.

This statement immediately reminded me of collective punishments. Through my experience I find that they are most prevalent where children are involved like elementary schools or youth organizations like the Boy Scouts. These bullshit punishments penalize an entire group for the prohibited actions of specific individuals. Simply, individuals who have not violated any rules are disciplined because someone they are next to did. This does not teach individuals to stop committing certain acts. The only thing individuals learn from these punishments is that they are not individuals; that their lives have been forcibly tied to other men. Thus, they also learn that since all lives are tied to one another any individual can force another individual to stop committing an act for the sake of preserving the virtue of a human knot. Of course, this is completely false, and is just another source of the prevalence of warped morality.

These false teachings were indeed the root of the student's comment. He was acting like an individual who had been punished this way numerous times. He now assumes all human lives are latched; thus, it is his responsibility, as one of the shackled, to punish all the shackled for some of them are having too many children. First, I am not sure if this is even a vice, and it certainly does not violate any individuals' natural rights; therefore, there can be no government regulation of the act. However, that individual is not thinking like this. He is thinking like the child punished with collectivism, punished for the vices and rule breaking of individuals next to him. Thus, he now acts and thinks as if that system of punishment is just. Clearly, it is not for it punishes those who have done nothing wrong. It punishes those who happen to be similar to others or near others at the time of the prohibited act. Subsequently, he now propagates that thinking. He is a teacher of this warped philosophy through his punishment of others. He is now a fountain of moral corruption.

Additionally, collective punishment is also somewhat like racism. In fact, racism is a form of collective punishment. In my post on racism I pointed out that it identifying an individual negatively based on the actions of his ancestors. That is partially it. There is also negative identification based on arbitrary physical factors shared by a group of individuals. In any event, they are both very similar because it judging all similar individuals based on the actions of a few individuals. However, since men are independent individuals, using this collective judgment is irrational. Man's liberty separates him from other men. Therefore, if he is disconnected from a particular action, he cannot be associated with it, for his liberty allowed him to choose not to participate in the acts of other men.

This also holds true for attaching positive qualities to similar individuals based on the actions of some of them, or having pride in positive actions based on the fact that one is similar to the actual actors. Specifically, one should not have pride in his culture. He may admire the actions of particular individuals; however, he cannot say he has personal pride in them as if he participated in some collective act. In fact, there was no collective act. In fact, the individual is just riding on the coattails of another individual who happens to be similar to him in some way. One must be proud of his own accomplishments, not partake is a false collective pride that he earned only because he was born with similar physical characteristics as the actors. Once again, the fact that he has liberty, the fact that his mind is disconnected from the actor, the fact that he may have the choice to participate with the actor or not, indicates that he cannot seek merit for actions he did not commit. Essentially, collective punishment, judgment, merit, any form of collectivism is impossible without a collective mind; liberty, meaning independent minds protect individuals from collective punishment or judgment and bar individuals from stealing the merits of other actors.

Environmental Studies Response 5

2008-10-06T14:06:00.001-04:00

Another reading response for my Environmental Studies class.

The scientific evidence presented in Environment an Interdisciplinary Anthology and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2007 synthesis report was certainly impressive and difficult to challenge. However, physical science does not direct government policy; that is philosophy’s purpose.
The science presented in these readings is most admirable, even to those who do not understand all the specifics, such as how CO2’s interaction with the atmosphere causes global warming. Science in general is admirable because it illustrates man’s desire and passion to understand physical reality, and that his mind has an almost infinite potential to comprehend and solve problems. One example of science’s admirability is displayed in the readings’ description of using an ice column to analyze and compare past CO2 levels to the present.
However, a problem arises when scientific discoveries are used to justify governmental policies. Governance is not science’s responsibility, for no amount of digging, exploring, drilling, or chemical testing will reveal virtues. Virtues are uncovered via morality not physical facts. Therefore, proper governance is solely philosophy’s responsibility, for it unearths morality.
Unfortunately, environmentalism appears to only be focusing on science when it is actually a two-step process also requiring philosophy. First, scientific evidence must be accumulated and confirmed; the environmental issue and its potential harm to man are solely answerable by science. Second, philosophy must determine the virtuous resolution. For example, philosophy determines if violating individuals’ property rights for the sake of lowering CO2 emissions to resolve the environmental issue is virtuous or vicious. Obviously, vice is to always be avoid, while virtue is to always be pursued. However, simply following the first-step and jumping to moral conclusions undoubtedly results in an unacceptable and avoidable mix of virtue and vice.

Environmental Studies Response 4

2008-10-02T13:00:00.000-04:00

Here is the fourth response for my Environmental Studies class.

Judging from Paul Hawken’s The WTO: Inside, Outside, All Around the World, and Thomas Friedman’s Politics for the Age of Globalization, it appears some do not understand that globalization necessitates liberty.

Globalization is essentially the disintegration of state and national borders via individuals’ increasing potential to interact with others beyond those borders. Furthermore, divided individuals can only interact if they are not restricted by the borders’ creators. Thus, globalization requires liberty. However, Hawken muddles globalization with the World Trade Organization (WTO), and Friedman believes globalization requires expanding government paternalism, both of which oppose globalization’s liberty component.

Hawken’s mistake is clearest when he describes the United States filed complaint with the WTO regarding the European Union’s (EU) acceptance of independent Caribbean farmers’ bananas, but refusal of Chiquita Brands International’s. The WTO decided the EU was biased towards the independent farmers, and forced the EU to also accept Chiquita. This is not globalization, for businesses were utilizing the government’s monopoly on violence to force products upon individuals. Additionally, the EU’s restriction of Chiquita bananas also contradicts globalization. Globalization demands grocers independently choose what products to sell.

Friedman argues, globalization requires the government “to equip each [individual], and… society at large” (256). When the government assumes this responsibility it invariably violates rights and corrupts accountability. For example, Friedman proposes government loans for starting personal businesses. Firstly, this requires redistributing wealth, which necessitates thievery. Secondly, unlike a bank, the government can steal more money. Therefore, the government has no interest in restricting loans. Consequently, several unqualified individuals would receive loans. Furthermore, there would be prolonged low interest payment plans; thus, the hassle is limited if the business fails. Essentially, these loans depreciate personal responsibility.

Hawken must realize that globalization fosters freedom not oppression, while Friedman must learn that some of his recommendations hinder globalization.

Friedman, Thomas. “Politics for the Age of Globalization.” Environment an

Interdisciplinary Anthology. Ed. Glenn Adelson, James Engell, Brent Ranalli, and

K.P. Van Anglen. 1^st ed. New Haven: Yale University Press. 251-261.

Hawken, Paul. “The WTO: Inside, Outside, All Around the World.” Environment an

Interdisciplinary Anthology. Ed. Glenn Adelson, James Engell, Brent Ranalli, and

K.P. Van Anglen. 1^st ed. New Haven: Yale University Press. 261-268.

Environmental Studies Response 3

2008-10-01T13:00:00.001-04:00

Below is the third reading response for my Environmental Studies class.

In his chapters on administrative rationalism, democratic pragmatism, and economic rationalism John Dryzek emphasizes a higher value for citizenship than individuality, though the reverse is warranted.
Dryzek’s purpose for these chapters is to explore different methods of solving the environmental problem. The two basic methods are addressing the problem collectively through government, or individually and voluntarily. Dryzek argues collectivism is the best model, for it is a “flexible process involving many voices, and cooperation across a plurality of perspectives” (100) that also preserves camaraderie. According to Dryzek, collective methods like nationalizing nature into parks creates “repository[ies] of common trust and community pride,” and “emblem[s] of what it means to be a Canadian, an American, a Costa Rican, or a Japanese.” These “are experiences that Walt Disney could never provide” (139). Unfortunately, Dryzek’s argument implies significant violence.
Regardless of whether or not nationalizing nature better preservers it than privatization, nationalization relies on the government stealing from individuals. Either the government would steal land to nationalize, or it would steal money to sustain the nationalized land. Additionally, Dryzek favors collective problem solving, i.e. democracy, because “nobody wants a hazardous waste treatment facility in their backyard” (105); therefore, when that possibility arises, the community can veto or regulate it. This is violence. It is individuals who do not own the property deciding how the owner may use it. That is thievery and oppression. The peaceful way to black a hazardous waste facility’s construction is purchasing all the possible sites of such a facility. Subsequently, one owns the land and has the right to decide how it may be used. Another peaceful method is simply moving.
Obviously, many will argue that most individuals lack the resources for purchasing land or relocating. However, insufficient resources do not legitimize the violation of others’ natural rights.

Environmental Studies Response 2

2008-09-30T13:00:00.001-04:00

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

2008-09-29T13:00:00.001-04:00

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

2008-09-28T12:37:00.002-04:00

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

2008-09-26T22:12:00.003-04:00

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

2008-09-24T22:05:00.002-04:00

"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?

2008-09-19T10:26:00.004-04:00

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

2008-09-03T22:19:00.002-04:00

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

2008-09-01T21:17:00.002-04:00

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."

Smart People and The Day The Earth Stood Still

2008-08-20T22:54:00.004-04:00

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

2008-08-15T14:01:00.004-04:00

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

2008-08-14T21:15:00.002-04:00

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

2008-08-14T11:18:00.000-04:00

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

2008-08-07T21:24:00.002-04:00

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

2008-08-07T20:29:00.002-04:00

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

2008-08-07T20:26:00.001-04:00

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

2008-08-02T17:01:00.002-04:00

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.

Dubliners and On Bullshit

2008-07-31T18:03:00.004-04:00

Over the past month I have read two books that I have only had time to review now.

The first book I read was James Joyce's Dubliners. I first "read" this last year during my senior year of high school. The reason read is in quotations is because during high school - at least the high school I went to - there was no enough time to actually do all the work. Actually, there was enough time, but because the school day was so exhausting - the combination of waking up early and sitting in rows like fattening cattle all day while a figure drawls on and scribbles on a board can be tiresome - there was no way for me to muster the energy to do all the work. I would also end up staying up late trying to complete my work because I would not start it immediately the moment I returned home. Going to bed at 2 in the morning and waking up 5 hours later is a real blow to energy. Therefore, I would just be more tired the next day after a boring day of school, meaning I could do less work. Basically, I read the first two chapters of Dubliners. However, I thought those two chapters were fantastic. I was amazed with the writing style; a simplicity they still caused vivid images in my minds eye. Thus, a year later, I decided to read the whole book at my leisure without concern for assignments.

What is fantastic about Dubliners is that the author, James Joyce, himself was a Dubliner, meaning a resident of Dublin. However, Joyce hated Dublin. In fact, as I understand it he hated all of Ireland. Obviously, there were certain aspects he probably liked, but he did have an overwhelming problem with the Irish remaining in Ireland. Unlike Joyce, the Irish had this strange innate sense of pride in Ireland. At least it is depicted as innate pride in Dubliners. The novel offers no explanation as to how the Irish became so pride of Ireland. The novel also does not classify it as simply pride. In the novel, pride is broken down into different loyalties like for family, government, culture, homeland, etc. The particular loyalty being examined only becomes evident when the character is placed in a particular circumstance. For example, the twelfth short story in Dubliners, Ivy Day in the Committee Room, is about the characters' loyalty to government and their homeland. The problems with this loyalty then exposes that Ireland is doomed to suffer the same unproductive politics. Basically, every story shows how a particular loyalty is irrational, meaning limiting on the individual. The eighth short story - at least I think it is the eighth - A Little Cloud perfectly captures the damaging effects of irrational loyalties. One Irishman meets an old friend, who I believe was actually English not Irish. The Irishman has ended up with what would be comparable to the average suburban life of today. The Englishman, however, travels the world, visits exotic places. The latter is living the life he always desired to live, while the former is not. The Irishman questions the Englishman why he never returns and doesn't he miss being home. The Englishman, of course, does not, and honestly says he only returns to Ireland and England for a few distinct and favorable characteristics the rest of the world cannot offer.

Essentially, Dubliners concerns escaping from the prisons of family, culture, homeland pride, etc. Obviously, family can be a positive element in someone's life, but in most instances it is not. Consequently, like culture and patriotism it becomes a weight against one's own desires, success, and thus happiness. Therefore, the theme of the story is be selfish, do not be selfless towards any variation of the collective that cloaks itself in the illusion of virtue, for it will only make one miserable. All of the short stories show this later effect, which is my only disappointment. I would like to see one hero escape the loyalties towards Ireland, one hero realizing his own happiness not grinding himself into fodder for a collective. However, I believe Dubliners makes a very strong case by not depicting the heroes but the sufferers - I would not necessarily call them villains, may be misguided. Sometimes a depressing tale is more effective than an uplifting one. Furthermore, I believe many of the short stories can be applied to the reader's own life. The short stories involve situations that are actually quite generic. Everyone experiences one of these stories, or know an immediate relative or friend who has. Therefore, the stories could not be related to if they were heroes tales. Consequently, the reader might miss the theme, for he would not see the mistakes the characters are avoiding. In this situation, the characters make the mistakes, and the reader will more likely think, "I have made this mistake," or "I am doing this right now."

The second book, On Bullshit, is non-fiction. It was originally a short essay by Harry G. Frankfurt that analyzed the concept of bullshit. I believe he wrote the essay in like the seventies or eighties, but only recently has it been printed by a book.

When the term book is used, and one combines it with analysis the image of a fat text is probably evoked. However, remember this was originally an essay, and when it was printed as a book nothing was added. What is produced is something about the height and width of a pocket Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution one can purchase from Cato. Furthermore, there is probably less text in this 67 page book than the pocket Constitution.

Frankfurt begins by stating that the concept of bullshit has never really been analyzed. Throughout the book he does reference an earlier essay by Max Black called The Prevalence of Humbug. Though Frankfurt does recognize there is a similarity between humbug and bullshit he refuses to accept them as synonymous, for they are different words; therefore, they must have different meanings no matter how slight. For example, angry and furious are similar but not synonymous. Furious has a far more negative connotation than angry. One who is furious is definitely more mad than one who is angry. Since Frankfurt states that humbug and bullshit are different and the concept of bullshit has never been thoroughly explored before he makes it clear that this essay On Bullshit will not produce definite answers. It is only a first step in understanding the concept. If anything, it produces hypotheses ready to be tested.

Early on in the book Frankfurt also separates bullshit from lying. Once again like humbug and bullshit there is a similarity between lying and bullshit, but seeing as how they are different words they must have different meanings, even if only slightly. The rest of the book primarily explores this difference. What Frankfurt concludes is that a lie is the direct opposite of a truth. Therefore, a liar must actually be aware of the truth because the liar's motive is to convey something that is false. For example, if one person wants to defraud another through a sale, like that of a car, the defrauder must know how much the car actually costs. The defrauder must know the car costs $15,000 if he wants to defraud the customer, for he wants to make more than what the care is actually worth. He must then know the true worth of the car, so he is sure to construct a falsehood, a lie, that opposes the truth. $80,000 would definitely oppose $15,000. Of course, this is not a perfect example because he could also pick $2 which would oppose $15,000, it would still be a lie, but he would not be defrauding someone. For another example, if the one wants another person to commit a vicious act he must first know what virtuous acts are. If he was just guessing he might accidentally select a virtuous act.

Ultimately, Frankfurt decides that bullshit is that last example I provided, meaning guessing, which I think is fascinating. The greatest part in the book is when Frankfurt explains that bullshit is a greater enemy of the truth than lying. Basically, one who is bullshitting wants to sound a certain way without actually knowing much about how that way is supposed to sound.
For example, if an Average Joe is asked about his view on the environment he wants to sound like he knows what he is talking about. Unfortunately, Mr. Joe, since he is an Average Joe, does not know anything about the environment. He does not know what an environmental expert would say. Therefore, Mr. Joe makes up stuff. He guesses what is supposed to sound right. The difference between this and lying is that Mr. Joe does not know the truth, he just guesses. That is why bullshit is a greater enemy of the truth than lying, for lies acknowledge that truth exists. A liar must know the truth, for he motive is to counter act it. The bullshitter's motive is to sound like he knows the truth without actually knowing the truth. Consequently, he just guesses, enters a game of crap shoot. This is, of course, very fitting for the word bullshit. Frankfurt does not explain the bull part all that much, but he does spend significant time explaining that bullshitting is like shit neither as any real form or any concern for form.

The last line of On Bullshit is the best line, aside from the one explaining that bullshit not lies is the greatest enemy of the truth. In the last line Frankfurt states that sincerity is itself is bullshit. I interpreted this as meaning how people use sincerity now. Originally, sincerity meant to be honest and genuine. However, people today often feign sincerity. One most often hears the word sincere in a context like, "Please try to be sincere." This is usually stated after one person has conveyed that he really does not care at all. Therefore, he must bullshit. He tries to sound sincere without actually knowing how one is supposed to sound sincere, for he previously implied he does not care at all. However, another interpretation, the correct one obviously, relates to the lines previously before it. Frankfurt argues that humans are unstable being in a constant state of change; thus, sincerity is bullshit. I would have to agree, if only humans were in a constant state of change. I believe individuals decide who they are going to be very early on. Throughout life they change very little. Frankfurt seems to believe humans are like leaves in the wind, they change on arbitrary whims. If this were true sincerity would always be bullshit. Under my argument, where people decide who they are early on, sincerity is easy, they have known who they are very early on. However, multiple collectives order individuals to be different than who they are. Furthermore, one individual may be part of multiple collectives that contradict each other; thus, causing the individual to experience more pressure from the collectives. In the end the individual may become confused. If he were to accept him self, he would probably know exactly what he wanted. However, with collective pressures contradicting one another and contradicting him self, he cannot be sincere. If he were he would be shunned face a type of exile, which he probably could not bare, evident by his participation in several collectives. Therefore, when he tries to be sincere he is only saying what he thinks he should say, what he thinks he should sound like, to appease a specific collective. Sincerity then becomes bullshit again.

Paquin's Ionic Column - Drug-tests

2008-07-29T21:30:00.000-04:00

New article and link.

Student Drug-tests Teach Wrong Lessons

Across America, boards of education are implementing student drug-tests like they are handing out free candies. They are not good candies either. They are more like those hard candies from the Wilson administration a grandmother would offer. What makes these candies so unsatisfying is not that they violate natural rights, but that they teach the wrong lessons.

In actuality, under the correct circumstances, student drug-tests do not violate natural rights. If all schools were privatized, and children were not required by law to attend school, drug-tests would not initiate force. In this circumstance an individual chooses to attend school; he is not forced to. Furthermore, the schools are private; they may accept any individual for whatever reason. Therefore, attending school would be a privilege not a requirement. One would not have any sort of citizen’s right to be provided with education. One would have to follow the requirements of the institution if he wanted to be accepted. Passing a drug-test could be one such requirement.

As it stands now, drug-tests may violate natural rights. An individual may keep aspects of his life private; he does not have to share them with others if he so chooses. This is protected by and individual’s natural right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. However, it is debatable as to whether or not a child is entitled to full natural rights, for his reason is not fully developed. Also, most schools only require drug-tests for extracurricular activities. Since individuals are not mandated by law to play a sport or drive on school property, extracurricular activities are privileges like privatized non-mandated education would be.

However, other schools merely randomize student drug-tests, which more likely violates natural rights. Randomizing drug-tests is just like drug-testing everyone, except less students are tested, and the students do not know if who will be tested and when. Regardless of whether or not the tests are randomized, those tested are still forced by law to attend school. Subsequently, school is not a privilege. Of course, this is only true for public schools.

Obviously, the goal of drug-tests is not to exile children from education. The goal is to help students with addictions. Of course, this is contradicted by the fact that schools do not test students for cigarette or alcohol use. However, even if the tests encompassed all addictions they would still do more harm than good, for drug-tests do not teach children to say no to drugs. Drug-tests teach children that it is virtuous to force blood and urine samples from individuals to determine if they are living healthy lives. School drug searches teach similar lessons. When police officers and dogs enter the school sniffing and searching for drugs children do not learn to say no to drugs. Instead, children learn that it is virtuous to riffle through individuals’ property to determine if they are living healthy lives. Drug-tests and drug searches teach children that using violence, initiating force, violating individuals’ natural rights of life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and property is virtuous, if it is used to determine if people are healthy.

In a democracy this is where the tyrannical nanny state begins. The nanny state does not develop from the government. The nanny state develops from the people who vote for tyrannical politicians. People choose to vote for nanny politicians because they are taught that nanny policies, drug-tests, drug searches, smoking bans, trans fat bans, etc. are virtuous. They learn this as children when their parents and government carry out lesser nanny policies. Therefore, when they can vote, they choose to make the next step towards a nanny tyranny. In a democracy the government is not corrected by first electing better politicians. That is second. The first step in correcting a democratic government is teaching children better lessons; teaching the Truth. Drug-tests do not guarantee less drug use in the future, but more tyranny.

Films From Past Week

2008-07-29T18:17:00.002-04:00

Memento - four and a half stars

This is a hands down amazing film. Some people might be more familiar with this director's other films, Batman Begins and The Dark Knight. In this film Christopher Nolan tackles what others might consider impossible. As it was told to me, Nolan came up with this idea while on a family road trip. His brother Johnathan Nolan, which assisted in writing Batman Begins and The Dark Knight was discussing a short story he wanted to write. The story was about a man with a brain condition that made it impossible for him to develop new memories. He developed this condition when his wife was allegedly murdered. Apparently the man walked in while his wife was being rapped, and he was hit over the head. Thus, the physical and mental trauma developed this brain condition. Subsequently, the man tries to find his wife's killer and murder him. Furthermore, the story is told in reverse order. Consequently, the reader would experience something similar to the main character. They would know where he was going, where he was going to end up, but they would have no idea what led him to that place. Again, this was designed to be a short story, and it sounds impossible for the screen. The whole time Johnathan was explaining the story, Christopher kept saying, "I want this to be a movie." So, he made it a movie even before his brother finished the story.

There is one quote in the film the captures it's entire purpose, and I somewhat used it already. In the beginning of the film Leonard Shelby (Guy Pearce), the man with the condition, explains to Burt (Mark Boone Junior), the man at the motel front desk, that he has a condition where he can not generate new memories. Burt explains that he has already told him about it. Then Burt says, "It's like you know where you're going, but you don't know where you've been." The movie is then filmed to model this. It starts with the last image of the story. Then it shows the immediately previous memory. In the beginning the memories are maybe ten to fifteen minutes long, but as the film progresses the memories become shorter.

By the end of the film, which is the beginning of the story, it is revealed a local cop named John "Teddy" Gammell (Joe Pantoliano) who has been helping Lenny has actually been lying to him for years. In the beginning of the film, the end of the story, Lenny is shown shooting Teddy in the face. Thus, leaving the audience to wonder, "Why would he shoot the cop who is helping him?" The obvious assumption is that Lenny's condition has made him incredibly confused. Teddy actually states this before he is about to be shot. However, Teddy has been lying to Lenny. Apparently, Teddy helped Lenny kill his wife's murderer - a certain John G. - years ago. However, Lenny did not remember it; therefore, he started searching for another John G. Teddy then started selecting John G.'s that were criminals in order to satisfy Lenny, while getting bad guys off the streets. However, what is even more disturbing is that Lenny's wife may not have been murdered. Because of Lenny's condition he may have given his wife too much medication. Teddy reveals all of this to Lenny, but says it does not matter because Lenny will not remember. However, Lenny keeps notes, lots of clever notes and pictures to remind himself. He realizes Teddy's real name is John Gammel like the John G. he has been looking for. Consequently, Lenny scribbles another note to himself saying that John G.'s license plate is Teddy's license plate. He also writes on Teddy's picture that he is a liar and not to be trusted. Thus, it is revealed why Teddy is killed.

Honestly, I have some philosophical problems with this film. Lenny and Teddy are going around the country murdering people. Teddy, of course, receives punishment, and rightly so because he has essentially been orchestrating all these murders. Furthermore, once Teddy is dead Lenny may not have the ability to seek out anymore John G.'s. However, I would prefer to see Lenny receive some kind of punishment or separation from society. However, what is also disturbing is that Lenny could have killed Teddy right when he told him the truth. Instead, Lenny sets up another little chase for himself. Either he is admitting that Teddy should not be killed, or that he would like to play detective again. Regardless of these problems I maintain that Memento gets four and a half stars because of the amazing accomplishment presented in a thrilling engrossing manner. Slowly, I believe I am coming to realize it is fine for a film to be entertaining. It does not make the film art, it does not make it great, but it also does not make the film filth. Memento lacks philosophically, but it is a grand achievement worth praising. The lack of message is not cause enough to cast it aside.

Step Brothers - Two stars

Come on Will Ferrel. What is going on. Anchorman - hilarious. Blades of Glory - hilarious. Talladega Nights - kind of funny. That stupid basketball movie I cannot remember the name of - horrible. Step Brothers - not much better. My cousin gave this movie the perfect description - more misses than hits, but when it hit, it hit well. I would think two grown men acting like fourteen year old would be hilarious. Unfortunately, it got kind of boring. It was the same jokes over and over again. They are teenage boys that like weird toys. They want to stay home and eat Cheeto's, while also starting an enormous entertainment company. They like Chewbacca masks and porno. Their older brother is an asshole. All fine and good the first time around, but then enough is enough. There were plenty of missed opportunities like when Dale (John C. Reilly) first had sex. That should be huge in the mind of a teenager, but it was barely discussed.

The one place Step Brothers is earning stars is theme. Unfortunately, it comes late in the film, which appears to be the standard with these frat pack comedies. The message is that people should be who they are, and it is perfectly captured when Brennan (Ferrel) and Dale become productive members of society that no longer like singing, drumming, shark week, boats, or hos. The father (Richard Jenkins) can not stand the sight of his son and stepson being destroyed, so he tells the story about how he wanted to be a dinosaur and his father told him not to be. Brennan and Dale then embrace their true identities, which really means they do what they want to do, the like and do what makes them happy. In turn, they actually become successful. Their world wide entertainment business does not get that large, but they open karaoke lounges across the state. Success is the realization of one's values, meaning success is being happy, and that is exactly what happened to Brennan and Dale.

Mystic River - four stars

What starts as a film concerning another police case develops into a story of small town organized crime. The majority of the story focuses on the police investigation of the murder of Katie Markum (Emmy Rossum), and whether or not a strange acting Dave Boyle (Tim Robbins) committed the murder. The whole event reunites three childhood friends, Dave Boyle, James Markum (Sean Penn), and Sean Devin (Kevin Bacon). James is obviously the father of the victim, and Sean is the state police detective investigating the case. Over time it becomes clearer and clearer that Dave probably murdered Katie. He saw her in the last bar she was in on the night in question. On that night he returns home late with someone else's blood on him and a cut across his torso. He acts strangely and seems to descend into insanity talking about werewolves and vampires. When it appears clear to James that Dave is the culprit the unknown organized crime angle is revealed. James has some of his local partners in crime get Dave drunk at the beach where he then murders him at night fall. However, at the very same time Sean captures Katie's true murderers. Apparently, Dave did not murder Katie or the mugger he suggested but a known pedophile. Consequently, Sean is now looking for Dave. James then reveals he murdered Dave, but Sean does nothing. Annabeth Markum (Laura Linny) James' wife then thanks him for killing Dave even though he was innocent because it shows what he will do for his family. She then gives an excellent Lady MacBeth-esque speech about how he could be king of the town. The final seen shows Sean on one side of the street and James on the other side while at a parade. Sean then aims his finger like a gun and pulls the trigger. James only holds up his hands as if to say, "What do you want."

Usually, I find that these crime thrillers meet par maybe three to three and half stars. However, there is something else going on in this film. The whole development of James as the father of a victim to crime thug is interesting. There is only the slightest hint of his nature at the beginning when he is depicted as an eight year old talking back to an alleged cop. The story line concerning whether or not Dave is the murder is also somewhat thrilling; however, it relies on the fact that the movie does not show you one scene. It only shows you the scene as a flashback when Dave is about to be murdered. I would rather see this alibi scene in chronological order. Then the film might evoke a different feeling. Instead of a thrilling suspicion of Dave a hatred for all the other characters who suspect him with limited evidence. This theme concerning the need for evidence in punishing criminals, a theme of presumed innocent until proven guilty, is already in the film. The ending, of course, is all about this. Additionally, there is a fantastic scene where Sean's partner Whitey Powers (Luarence Fishburn) impounds Dave's car as if it were stolen. Basically, he steals the car with police force and ingenuity. He then processes the car finding multiple blood types. One belongs to Dave and the other is the same blood type as Katie. However, it is also the same blood type as the pedophile Dave killed. Powers asks Dave about this blood in the trunk, but Dave outsmarts his plan. He points out that the car was allegedly stolen; therefore, the people who stole the car must have done something because he knows nothing about it. Circumventing police procedures that protect liberty does not pay in the end.

The element I thought could use more development is the relation of the beginning to the rest of the story. As a child Dave is abducted by someone posing to be a police officer. This is what makes him act strange. All the physical and mental trauma damaged him for life. This does provide some motivation for killing the pedophile, for he was sexually abused during the abduction. However, the pedophile story is only revealed at the end of the movie. The event also casts suspicion on Dave. Being a victim of child molestation makes him more likely to sexually abuse and murder others. Another connection between the early childhood event and the rest of the movie is that all three characters were together when Dave is abducted. After that they do not remain friends. There is only the casual hello around the neighborhood. However, Katie's murder brings are three individuals back into the same story line. These are all the dots I see in relation to that scene and the whole storyline, but I do not see how they connect. Maybe I am missing something. I am sure to watch the movie again at some later point. Laura Linny's Lady MacBeth, Sean Penn's attire when he murder's Dave, and the ending parade scene are enough motivation for me alone. Maybe at that point I will understand why the story is about Dave's abduction.

Paquin's Ionic Column - Democratic Despotism

2008-07-22T20:18:00.001-04:00

Here is another Ionic Column, and the link.

Democratic Despotism

German political theorist Carl Schmitt argued that the best state creates the law yet lives outside the law (Schmitt Political Theology 19). For example, if the state declares killing innocent men illegal, Schmitt’s ideal state has the authority to kill innocent men without repercussions. Additionally, Schmitt’s state also decides what is normal (Schmitt “Definition of Sovereignty” 13). For instance, it is certainly abnormal for killing innocent men to be legal; however, Schmitt’s state has the authority to decide that legal-killing of innocent men is normal. Clearly, Schmitt’s ideal state is immersed in vice. Unfortunately, democracy is not much different.

Democracy’s problem is that it decides by majority rule, which is only concerned with agreement, not Truth. When a group assembles for the purpose of democratic decision making the group members are not trying to determine what the best or virtuous decision is. The group members are only striving to achieve fifty percent plus one; Truth and morality are not even afterthoughts.

Clearly, majority rule is not a virtuous decision-making-method since it classifies success as fifty percent plus one and not the moral quality of the decision. However, individuals assume majority rule is a virtuous decision-making-method. Moreover, individuals assume the virtuous method begets virtuous decisions. Of course, this is not the case at all; however, because of this assumption, majority rule’s decisions are excused from moral scrutiny. Essentially, democracy operates with a moral blank check.

Since majority rule’s decisions are assumed virtuous, a democratic state can create the laws, while operating outside the laws. Taxes are a perfect example. By majority rule, a democratic state decides that thievery – seizing another’s property without the owner’s permission – is illegal. However, the same democratic state can decide by majority rule that taxes – state acquisition of citizens’ funds without the individual citizens’ consent – is legal. Thievery and taxes are exactly the same, but individuals see no conflict. Individuals view the state as correct for outlawing thievery and correct for collecting taxes. This is exactly how Schmitt wanted a state to operate.

Majority rule’s assumed virtuous decisions also allow a democratic state to decide what is normal. War is a fantastic example. It is undoubtedly abnormal for one individual or state to attack an innocent individual or state. Initiating force against innocents – individuals or states that have not attacked the aggressor – is the acme of abnormality. However, democratic states consistently decide this is normal. The Iraq, Vietnam, and Korean wars are fine examples. Other excellent examples are the Spanish-American War, the Mexican-American War, Prohibition, and the War on Drugs. Unfortunately, once again, individuals of a democracy generally accept the state’s classification of initiative war as normal, at least early on; opposition only grows much later. Though the eventual opposition does not adhere with Schmitt’s ideal state, the fact that the opposition is not immediate indicates majority rule does have some ability in deciding the norm.

Democratic states do not perfectly capture Schmitt’s ideal state, for Schmitt strongly opposed democracy for its long legislative decision making process. Schmitt argued that the ideal state was led by one decision maker, or what he called a sovereign. The fact that democracy is controlled by an assembly, requiring long legislative processes to decide, is what makes democratic states minutely better than Schmitt’s state. However, the nature of majority rule makes Schmitt’s state and democratic states of the same character; the only difference is that democratic states need more time to decide.

Schmitt, Carl, “Definition of Sovereignty,” in Carl Schmitt, Political Theology:

Four Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty, trans. George Schwab

(Cambridge: MIT Press, 1985), 5-15.
Schmitt, Carl, Political Theology Four Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty, trans.

George Schwab (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1985).

The Dark Knight

2008-07-19T16:31:00.006-04:00

A solid five stars.

If one has not yet seen The Dark Knight, I recommend that one does not read this review. Even if this review may not contain many spoilers, the film should be viewed with little foreknowledge as to what will happen. It is wonderful movie magic, though not necessarily an actual magic trick. It is what I have always wanted in a film and story; a tale with a purpose. A story that exists not for the simple sake of telling a story, but a story for the sake of a message or theme. The events of the story raise moral questions, and the characters openly discuss this dilemmas. The theme is not hidden. The viewer does not have to guess as to what he should learn. The Dark Knight is a creative message. It is a fictional example for the creator to say, "Here. This is what I mean," for some times a non-fiction essay appears to lack the practicality and the reader dismisses it.

Additionally, The Dark Knight is one of the best interpretations of Batman, like Batman Begins was one of the best analysis of his origin. The Dark Knight also contains the greatest interpretation of the Joker, which is also the greatest villain of all time. However, do not forget Two-Face. Some seem to forget this villain for the outstanding performance of the Joker by Heath Ledger. Aaron Eckhart's Two-Face is also one of the best portrayals of Two-Face. The Joker is the polar opposite of Batman, and Two-Face marks the downfall of a nearly virtuous man, a white knight that becomes a man seeking revenge. Harvey Dent morphs from Gotham's savior to the young Bruce Wayne depicted in Batman Begins before he attempts to kill his parents' murderer, Joe Chill.

First, I will begin with Batman. He has always been my favorite super hero. Infinitely superior to the loathsome Superman. Batman celebrates man. He has no supernatural abilities. He did not come from another planet. He only has reason. His mind allows him to control his body, become physical fit. Invent gadgets to give him an edge in fighting crime. Uncover clues and put them together to track down criminals. However, most importantly, his reason allows him to understand morality, and throughout The Dark Knight, Batman tries his best to stay on this fine line of moral truth. I will admit he does stumble a few times; however, director Christopher Nolan does not mistake Batman's vices for virtues. Nolan shows these vices so that they are understood as vices, so that virtue can be understand.

I usually do write much about vice, virtue, truth, morality, etc. I will not admit I exaggerate their importance, but I will admit I am repetitious on the topic in my writing. However, as I am writing about The Dark Knight I am not being repetitious, I am not being too overbearing on the topic. The film is about this. The film is about man, reason, truth, objective morality, reality, virtue and vice. Batman is not the mark of virtue, as I have stated he has his faults. However, he is of the virtuous big three: Batman (Christian Bale), Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman), and District Attorney Harvey Dent. Batman is the worst of the three and Dent is the best of the three. The problems with Batman is that he is a vigilante, meaning he acts outside of the law. This is not to say the law is virtuous and one should always follow it; however, some laws are based on protecting natural rights, are based on protecting against vice. Therefore, some of Batman's actions are vicious. He does use vice to beget virtue, which I am no supporter of. He destroys property, endangers lives, harms individuals that should not necessarily be harmed in order to achieve some virtue, which actually is not all that virtuous. However, this is the essence of Batman. An individual that experience one of the worst initiations of force as a child, and has dedicated his whole life to compensating for that. Some examples of Batman's vicious or at least morally questionable behavior involve his violent interrogation of the Joker. A man already arrested, but not yet convicted for his crimes, his hit and thrown into walls. Batman also tosses a mob boss, who was arrested and made bail, from a short height to break his ankle. Batman then uses this pain to question Sal Maroni, the mob boss, (Eric Roberts) as to where the Joker is hiding. However, the greatest example of moral dilemma is when Batman creates a wiretapping device to track down the Joker. Every phone in Gotham is then recorded and turned into a sonar device, offering a complete 3-D blue print of the city, its inhabitants, and their actions. He asks Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman) to man the machine and track the Joker for him, while he waits on the street for the location. Fox responds by saying it is immoral, unethical, to much power for one man, and that he will resign from Wayne Enterprises after helping this one time. Batman accepts this, but tells Fox to enter his name into the computer when he is done. When the Joker is captured, the mission complete, Fox enters his name and the device self destructs. Therefore, Batman is not wholly vicious. Obviously, the wire tapping is no good. However, is does question those extenuating circumstances. The Joker has threatened to annihilate a city, he has been good on his word in the past, he is indeed a man of his word, could this be an acceptable time to violate some natural rights for a greater good? I completely disagree, Batman obviously does not. However, as I have stated before he is not a hero, but at least he has enough good sense to destroy the machine once it is no longer needed, and when it is needed, he puts it in the hands of a trustworthy individual.

The ending of the film also offers another great layer to the Batman, and displays the virtue of lying. The Joker has been captured, his atrocious plans stopped, but the Joker reveals while Batman and the authorities were busy trying to capture him, he had convinced Dent to exact his revenge on the cops that killed is wife to be Rachael Dawes (Maggie Gyllenhaal). The Joker just laid out an experiment with a moral dilemma, which I will explain later, and the citizens of Gotham, even the criminals passed with flying colors. However, the Joker remarks that the Gothamites' spirit will now be shattered; they will no longer be able to commit such virtuous acts, for their savior, the greatest Gothamite, the White Knight, Harvey Dent has descended into utter vice. Batman saves Gordon and his family from certain death at the hands of Two-Face, and Two-Face dies as a result. Gordon agrees with the Joker's statements, saying that the Joker won and Gotham is lost. Batman then says that no one must ever be told as to what Dent did. Gordon remarks that is impossible, for Dent killed five men, two cops, and threatened his family. Batman tells Gordon to call in to the Gotham PD that he, Batman, has killed those people and threatened his family. Gordon hesitates at first, but then follows through when Batman remarks, "I am whatever Gotham needs me to be." At this moment, Gotham needs Batman to be the villain, they cannot take another blow. Then, the last lines of the movie are Gordon revealing to his son, why Batman is Gotham's Dark Knight.

At first I was incredibly skeptical of this ending. The entire film they had been fighting against the amorality and irrationality of the Joker. They were fighting for truth and virtue. Then at the end they are going to lie about Dent's fate, his descent into villainy. Then I realized there is no vice in that. Dent is already dead. He is already separated from the innocent. He will not continue initiating force, violating natural rights. There is no need to arrest him and try him. Batman, though he may violate some natural rights, will not initiate any more force than he did in the past. He will still destroy property in high speed chases, and punch criminals at moments they should not be punched, but he will not be murdering people like Dent did. Therefore, for the time being Batman wants to accept Dent's vices. Batman will subject himself to the pursuit of the police for murders he did not commit, so that the Gothamites, average people who do not have a coherent grasp on truth, reality, and morality do not give up on the pursuit of these qualities all together and accept vice. Batman is willing to be the scapegoat so that all the criminals Dent put away, all the mob men he was trying at the time, are not released. Though Dent did act viciously in the end, he was virtuous for separating criminals from the innocents, for at the moment, he was Dent the White Knight, not Two-Face.

Second, the Joker. Ledger's Joker is what Batman fans have always been promised of the Joker but never received. He is an amoral man, he admits this outright, stating to Dent that there is no morality but the one individuals make. The Joker is the spokesperson of the moral relativist movement. He is the pinnacle, which is the pit, of the movement that believes in no truth, the absolute of no absolutes. He is what man will become if man continues to not pursue truth. He is the essence of irrationality. Therefore, he sees no problems with any of his actions. He does not see murder, thievery, threatening, violating natural rights, initiating force as bad. He also sees nothing as good. Furthermore, he is convinced, deep down, this is the truth, and deep down, every one knows this is the truth, and deep down, no one will pursue what he incorrectly assumes to be fake virtue.

His appearance matches this philosophy, or lack there of. Vanity is for the good. He does not care about how he looks, how he walks, how he talks, how he presents himself. He does not strive to be a clean, concise, man. He does not strive to be anything. He just lets himself decay into the appearance of an animal. He then dons the Joker appearance because to him, life is Joke. This is prefect captured in the Joker's first line, "I believe whatever doesn't kill you just makes you... stranger."

Obviously, the Joker's actions also mirror his beliefs, or once again, lack there of. The best example is when the Joker says the city will be his at night fall, and anyone who does not like that, should leave. Ferriess are used in the evacuation, and the Joker is able to stop two ferries dead in the water. One is loaded with law abiding Gothamites, the other, with criminals. Over a loud speaker the Joker reveals that each ship will discover that their craft is wired to bombs - it indeed is. He then reveals each ship has a detonator; however, it detonates the opposite ship. Thus, the criminals' detonator would explode the law-abiders' ship, and the law-abiders' detonator would exploded the criminals' ship. The Joker says they have until midnight - about fifteen to twenty minutes - to act, or he will blow up both ships. In the end, neither ship blows up. After much heated debate and waiting, the passengers on each ship decide to sit and wait. This is true virtue, something the big three virtuous characters did not have. All passengers choose not to pursue vice - initiating force against other - to achieve virtue - protecting their own natural rights.

Fortunately, Batman stops the Joker before he can blow up both ships, then the great relationship between Batman and the Joker is revealed. Batman tosses the Joker off the side of a building, but then catches him with a grappling hook, and pulls him back to safety. This is the second time the Joker tries to get Batman to kill him and Batman refuses. The Joker then says to Batman, "You are truly incorruptible." While swinging upside down in the air the Joker explains that neither of them will kill one another. Batman is too virtuous, and the Joker has too much fun putting Batman in horrible moral dilemmas. The Joker explains that they need one another. Batman needs to fight villains, the Joker needs someone to pursue him, someone who will not give in, someone who will always fight through his moral tests.

Finally, there is Harvey Dent/Two-Face. He begins as Gotham's White Knight. The District Attorney who will eradicate all crime and save Gotham. He pursues it on a virtuous path, there is nothing in his past or through the movie as Dent that he does wrong. Even when he takes a criminal to a warehouse and threatens to kill the man if he does not answer questions truthfully, Dent is nearly absent of vice. I am skeptical of the situation; however, at first, it appears Dent is already a vicious man. He has a coin that he flips. If it is a heads, the criminal lives, if it is tales the criminal dies. The first flip is heads, but Dent says he will just keep flipping. On the second flip Batman arrives and stops the act, saying, "This is not something you leave to chance." Dent says he is not leaving it to chance. This is not explained at that moment, but later int he film, it is revealed that the coin has two heads. Dent's coin will always land on the side of virtue, just like Dent will always act virtuously. However, after his wife to be Dawes is killed and he survives with a damaged face, Dent becomes Two-Face. His coin has also been morphed. In the explosion one side becomes scratched and charred, representing vice, Dent's willingness to initiate force, which, of course, he leaves up to the coin. This full metamorphosis is made with the help of the Joker. He uses Dent's experience to try and prove that there is no morality. He explains that he was not behind the Dent-Dawes death trap, but the mob was, and the mob's dirty cops. The Joker states that those cops will get away, they are protected, and all Dent's work warring against the mob and corruption has been useless. Dent then acts as Two-Face. He tracks down all the people involved in Dawes' death, putting them to the chance of his coin. When Two-Face is confronted by Batman, Two-Face says he is just trying to get what is fair. This is incredibly similar to the young Bruce Wayne, who wanted equality in Batman Begins - his parents death equalized by his murdering of his parents' killer. The concept of an eye for eye, that vice proportionally responding to vice is virtue. Basically, like the young Wayne, Two-Face believes that the justice system is broken and utterly backwards. Something Dent knew to be false.

Batman Begins and The Dark Knight especially should have completely altered the way people view comic book films. Already, Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk have tried to follow the path, Iron Man far more successfully than The Incredible Hulk. People are starting to realize that comic books are not dorky games of cops and robbers. They are explorations in truth and morality. They have the potential for excellent stories, meaning stories with themes, with purposes. Like Batman in Gotham city, The Dark Knight has "changed things... forever... there ain't no going back."

Wall-E and The Blues Brothers Review

2008-07-17T14:54:00.005-04:00

Currently, I am planning for three film review posts in a row. The previous post had four reviews, this post will have two, and then on Saturday there will be one review. In an earlier post I said I would be grouping film review posts together in order to allow more time for other topics. Unfortunately, I poorly planned when I would release these posts. Furthermore, I am only reviewing one film on Saturday because I will have just seen The Dark Knight, which has been the movie I have most anticipated this year. Therefore, I wanted to get all the other film reviews out of the way so I could focus on The Dark Knight, and my poor planning resulted in three film review posts in a row. If all goes according to plan, the next non-film post will be released on Sunday.

Wall-E - three stars

As with the previous film reviews Wall-E has some mixed themes, making the movie nearly hypocritical. However, there is enough positive elements in order to earn Three Stars.

The movie begins with a picture of earth after all the humans have left. Sky scrappers are abandoned, and at first look it appears large rock formations have actually been sculpted by the winds and rains of time to tower over the buildings. However, on a closer examination, these rock formations are actually towers of human garbage that have been neatly compacted into cubes by Wall-E, a Waste Allocation Load Lifter Earth-class robot. The film then begins to follow Wall-E who used to work in the company of other Wall-E's, but they all malfunctioned. Now, it is just Wall-E, going about loading, lifting, and allocating waste on Earth. The movie then begins to follow Wall-E as he wheels through garbage, garbage towers, and abandoned buildings. One of these is an enormous store called Buy n' Large (BnL), which is like a BJ's/Wal Mart kind of store. Every product is made by BnL. There are hundreds of BnL billboards, even one on the moon advertising BnL outlet stores coming soon. However, that day did not come soon enough because, as a perpetually active video billboard advertises, all humans had to reserve there space on the BnL space ship, Axiom, so they could leisurely spend the next five years in space while the Wall-E's cleaned up all the garbage. In the same time, and later in the film, Shelby Forthright (Fred Willard), CEO of BnL also appears to be the president, meaning that BnL is the free market and the government.

Obviously, it is no good to have the government and business so intertwined; however, this is the first place the film is unclear, and it begins to develop the first theme-mixing hypocrisy. All the garbage and BnL everywhere is clearly trying to cast man in a bad light. Man is wasteful, uncleanly, complacent with one buying option, and irrationally selfish or voracious like an animal. Yeah, yeah, I have heard it all before, and all before I have pointed out why this is nonsense. This man-is-bad-theme will be contracted later in the film. However, the BnL-government relation is more confusing. Since big business is being depicted poorly, I am assuming the scenario is that BnL took over the government, or maybe more appropriately, "greedily bought it out because all it wants is money." However, as I see it, the very opposite could have occured. The government could have nationalized BnL. This is never explained, and it leaves me confused as to what the theme is. Each scenario purports a completely different moral theme. Since it is unclear, the purpose of the movie is unclear. However it does not stop there.

As I already explained, the movie poorly depicts big business, selfishness, man in general. However, this movie was released by Pixar, which is owned by Steve Jobs, the founder of Apple. That is the company that makes ipods, itunes, iphones, laptops, and a whole bunch of other really cool technological stuff that man's mind has been able to create and which is now mass produced by big business. Furthermore, Wall-E has his own ipod in the movie, and the other robot EVE, looks like an ipod. So, just how anti-man and anti-big-business can Wall-E be? Obviously, man and big business cannot be that vicious since both of those produced the movie. Therefore, the film's anti-man and anti-big-business message could not have been released without man and big business. If one needs the elements one is attacking in order to make the attack, the attack is probably unsound. For a simplistic example, if one identifies bananas as vicious, but needs a bunch of bananas to throw at bunch of bananas, the bananas cannot be vicious. A better example may be identifying Nazis as evil and arguing they must be destroyed. However, then one raises his own Nazi army to destroy the Nazis. They cannot be both vicious and then used for virtue. This is utter hypocrisy.

However, the theme become even more mixed when EVE, an Extraterrestrial Vegetation Evaluator arrives. Obviously, that word vegetation means the environment is involved. Apparently, the humans have been in space for 700 years, and can only return when there are plants on Earth. That is why then send down EVE's. Wall-E discovers a plant earlier in the film, and shows it to EVE when she arrives. EVE then returns to the Axiom. Wall-E follows because he is so madly in love with EVE. While on the Axiom, the audience finally sees what man has been reduced to. Obese, boneless blobs, perpetually reclining in hover chairs. Only with the arrival of the plant do the humans begin to shape up. Wall-E accidentally disturbs some hovering humans, and with the disturbance they begin to notice things around the Axiom, like that they have a pool and that there are other humans on board. When the captain sees some dirt fall off of Wall-E he is inspired to research where it came from. He then spends hours researching earth from the mere soil it is made of to dancing.

There is a little fight between some robots and the humans because apparently Forthright decided 700 years ago that man was not returning to Earth because the Wall-E's broke and the toxin levels were to high. The robots can only follow orders, but the captain realizes the plant proves there are no more toxins, so it is safe for them to return. Once they reach earth the credits begin to roll showing cartoons designed like cave paintings of the obese humans with robots rebuilding earth. However, they rebuilding like they are actually the cave men who made the pictures. They are fishing in the river with a net, they are sewing seeds by hand, handing their laundry out to dry, etc.

Here are the problems with all this nonsense. Once again the plant, the environment, is being given way too much credit. Without the environment man must leave earth and become lazy obese humans who are not curious and do not share any human contact. When the environment arrives man then becomes active, curious, and experiences human contact again. That itself is absurd. Trees do not make man active, curious, and desire human contact. Those are selfish human pursuits, and man would never give them up once the environment becomes extinct.

The second problem is another mixing of themes. Remember, the movie is trying to argue that man is worthless. The entrance of the environment purports that man is especially worthless without the environment. Once man has the plant, the environment, and returns to earth, man must rebuild, from scratch. Has everyone completely forgotten the spaceship the Axiom? The only environmental thing on that ship is the water in the pool, and that is probably loaded with chlorine. A frog would probably die just dipping one of its slimy toes in there. Even though the Axiom had no environmental aspects man was able to live on there for 700 years. The Axiom proves that man is great, and much greater than the environment. Man does not need the environment because he can create technology. However, what is really disturbing is the part where man rebuilds earth from scratch. Somewhere on the Axiom must be all the information to create more technology like the Axiom. It is disgusting that man must fish with nets in a river when he has his greatest technological achievement that alleviates all that physical labor parked right behind him. Furthermore, if man did create the Axiom he would not be obese and lazy. When man has that technology he will know how to control his own body. Man will be able to make every body healthy and physically fit. Man can then relax, enjoy luxury, without the fear of harming himself. This is a contradiction that puts a serious dent in Wall-E.

However, the film does get three stars, and that may be because I am a hopeless romantic, maybe, I do not really come off as one. However, every scene with Wall-E and EVE made me smile. EVE is first not receptive of Wall-E, probably because she thinks he is a fool. I understand, Wall-E can come across as an ignorant goof ball. Yet, Wall-E is incredibly curious. He wants to understand everything. He is the reason why EVE finds the plant. I am not sure if EVE is an environmentalist, but she was designed to find plants, and she takes great pride in the work. This work is equivalent to discovery, the love of a quest, the desire to understand. Therefore, EVE is incredibly curious like Wall-E. Except, EVE is smarter and she is really only concerned with finding plants. She is like a scientist. Wall-E is more of a cultural man interested in the arts. Particularly, a move called Hello Dolly which is constantly playing on his video ipod. EVE eventually understands the similar values between her and Wall-E, when Wall-E is also interested in protecting the plant from the other robots who want to launch it into space and have it explode. Also, a video of Wall-E obsessed with EVE's well being when she goes into sleep mode helps EVE come to that understanding. Therefore, it supports a perfect theme of love, a selfish value of one's own virtues in another.

The Blues Brothers - three and a half stars

Me oh my, what a ridiculously hilarious comedy. This is a deliberately passed comedy much like The In-Laws and A Fish Called Wanda; however, it does have a few absurd moments much earlier on. Unfortunately, the film kind of lags no and again in the earlier parts unlike the previous two. The problem may be that The Blues Brothers is trying to be a comedy from the start, yet also pace its comedy. The In-Laws and A Fish Called Wanda are stories first, the comedy comes later. Thus, they are able to pace the absurdity. However, the lagging is not too much of a problem, and personally I think the car chases can carry the whole movie. Even if the rest of the movie was atrocious I would consider giving the film two and a half may be even three stars on the absurd high speed pursuits alone.

The car chases are excellent commentaries on ridiculous action sequences in actual action movies. Several superhero films come to mind. Buddy cop films like Bad Boys II also comes to mind. Any movie where there is a chase with massive million dollar destruction is the butt of The Blues Brothers' joke. In those chase sequences the blues brothers drive through a mall while being chased by cops and purposely crash into stores. Later int he film basically a million police officers along with some country western singers and Nazis are sent to capture the blues brothers. Car after car topples offer embankments like lemmings. Car after car crashes into one another forming a fifty car pile-up, yet the cars keep coming, un-phased by the mountain of twisted metal. The army arrives, SWAT teams arrive, the fire department arrives, all of them cramming to fit through one door way. Hundreds of snipers line the buildings around a courtyard. SWAT members repel down buildings. All of this to stop two unarmed blues singers who fled arrest for driving with a suspended license, exceeded the speed limit in doing so, all for the sake of paying taxes on some church building. Comedy gold. The only thing that comes close to this commentary on absurd action is Hot Fuzz.

The other great element of this story is that the blues brothers are punished for their crimes, unlike the stealing in The In-Laws and A Fish Called Wanda. Unfortunately, the government is not punished for its ignorance, recklessness, and excessive force.

Four Film Reviews

2008-07-17T14:53:00.001-04:00

Over the past week I have viewed four films, and as promised, I will review them in one post. Also, I will review the films from worst to best.

Wanted - Half a Star

This film is loosely based on the graphic novel of the same name. Actually, the only relation between the two is the name and that they concern villains. The graphic novel analyzes super villains through their point of view, and in a world where they have killed all the super heroes. The movie concerns a fraternity of assassins that keeps balance in the world through kill orders from fate and destiny. Fate, is not a person, but a magical loom, which is a machine that sews cloth. Sloan (Morgan Freeman), the head of The Fraternity, exams the cloth for overlapping strands. This creates a binary code used to decipher letters, and thus names of targets. That is correct. Fate communicates with The Fraternity through cloth. Cloth decides who should be killed. Clearly, these people are villains, and the movie depicts them as such... well... kind of... sort of... not really.

Wanted is actually more closely related to the themes of The Matrix and Fight Club. The movie begins with Wesley (James McAvoy) trudging through a meaningless existence as an account manager, though his previous title was service accountant, but some PR firm said they should manage not service their clients. Wesley has a girlfriend, who hates him, and a friend, who is banging Wesley's girlfriend, but thinks Wesley is the man. Wesley loathes his life and his self, but does absolutely nothing about it. That is until Fox (Angelina Jolie) comes around and says that his father was the greatest Fraternity assassins acting on the orders of fate, correction cloth. While visiting The Fraternity, Sloan says that Wesley's destiny is to be the next great assassin and kill his father's murderer, Cross (Thomas Krestchmann). So far, so good, well, meaning that the story is so far consistent. The message is not so great thus far because it is emphasizing fate and ancestry. These are the essential enemies of liberty. Fate - some supernatural force is controlling one's life. Ancestry - one is to be like his father. Why even wake up in the morning? Everything is already decided. One has no choice, he may not pursue his own happiness, and since happiness is the purpose to life, why even live? However, these people are the villains... kind of... sort of... not really.

Sloan convinces Wesley to join The Fraternity, which he should not really have to do because it is Wesley's destiny. Sloan also says things like, "Seize your destiny," which also does not make sense because destiny seizes people, not the other way around. Eventually, Wesley discovers that Cross is actually his father, not the guy Cross killed. He also discovers that The Fraternity wanted Wesley to join because Wesley was the only one Cross would not kill because Wesley is Cross's son. Therefore, Wesley could get close enough to Cross to kill him. Unfortunately, well maybe not, Wesley kills Cross and only discovers he is Cross's son when Cross tells him as he is dying. Wesley then goes into a brief period of hiding because Fox is sent to kill him, essentially to tie up loose ends. While in hiding, Wesley learns that Sloan has been manufacturing kill orders because the magical cloth said that Sloan had to be killed. Sloan certainly did not want to die, so he just started making up stuff. That's right, Sloan started making up kill orders because he did not like the kill orders from the cloth. Consequently, Cross found out and waged war against The Fraternity to up hold The Fraternity's code.

So now it is a little confusing who the good guys and bad guys are. The movie has classified Sloan and The Fraternity as villains. These are the people who are just killing who ever they want to kill. They are no longer taking orders from cloth. Alright, fair enough, that is pretty evil to go around killing innocent men. However, the movie has identified Cross as the hero. He is the man who wants to keep taking orders from the cloth, meaning fate. The hero, therefore, is someone waging war against liberty and free will. He is a hit man for the tyrant fate. That is pretty villainous, but not according to the film because Cross is upholding a code. A code should only be upheld if it is virtuous. Upholding vicious codes is obviously vicious because it demands that vicious actions be committed. Cross falls into the latter category.

Obviously, Wesley chooses his father's side. Ancestry is one reason - he has no free will. Also, the film thinks upholding a code destroying free will is absolutely solid. Subsequently, Wesley begins waging war against The Fraternity. In a final shootout Wesley reveals Sloan's scheme to The Fraternity. In turn, Sloan reveals that the cloth of fate ordered everyone in The Fraternity to be killed. Sloan then offers two options - kill Wesley and allow The Fraternity to kill who they want and control the world - or - uphold The Fraternity's code and commit suicide. I propose a third option, how about everyone just walk away and live their own lives. Of course, no one chose that. Instead, one man says, "Fuck the code," and is about to shoot Wesley when Fox pulls an awesome stunt by firing a bullet in a curving motion so it kills everyone in the room including herself and excluding Wesley. The moral of the story, when fate orders from his throne for you to die, submit and kill yourself. Bravo, life is not worth living because a supernatural power, correction cloth, can decide when you should die.

Unfortunately for Wesley, Sloan escapes, but he kills him at the end of the movie as he recites a montage about how he is controlling his life. Wait? What? The whole movie was just about submitting to fate, and now Wesley is going on about how people need to control their lives. Is he controlling his life by submitting to fate? That makes no sense. So, then what is the theme of this movies? Absolutely no idea. Convoluted, incomprehensible, nonsense.

Another sour point of this film was that it was schizophrenic, which is also a problem with the next film. It has some very funny moments, placed immediately next to serious moments. I entered the film thinking it would be a serious action film, then a quarter way through I thought it was a comedy spoofing comic book action films, then it got serious again and the convoluted plot developed and I was all confused. I still am confused.

Hancock - One Star

My God who green-lights this nonsense. This movie was like three separate scripts, put into a blender, and sold as one story. It was not like one of those good blends either like a strawberry banana smoothie. No, no, no, this was if some blended fried chicken and a powdered jelly doughnut. Like Wanted this movie is horribly schizophrenic with slapstick comedy next to serious drama leaving me asking, what is this movie, what am I supposed to think, what is the theme? Theme will be addressed later. The best example of this schizophrenia I can remember is when Hancock (Will Smith) discovers that Mary (Charlize Theron), Ray Embry's (Jason Bateman) wife also has super powers. All of the sudden the theme should take an enormous sift, all new super hero themes are just available. Except then slap stick ensues. Hancock uses a fork to see if he can stab her. Obviously, he cannot, she is super. I will let the fork slide. The movie does have a comedic element, and one test is acceptable. However, then he busts a rolling pin over her head, and threatens to hit her with two frying pans. Alright, I saw that routine from the Three Stooges and they were not trying to analyze the mythology of superheroes.

The other problem with the story is that it starts out realistically addressing the problem of superheroes, meaning the millions and billions of dollars in destruction they cause while saving people. Also, Hancock is a jerk, which is a completely foreign personality for a super hero. The first third of the film is Ray, a PR specialist, trying to change Hancock's image. All very interesting, though I would have altered the theme, I am still getting to that. However, the film then changes because Mary is also a superhero, who is trying not to be super. Apparently, there were other superheroes paired up as husband and wife. When they are close they lose their powers, far away they have powers. They were created millions of years ago. Why is all this important? I have no idea. Nothing is developed. Nothing is really answered. It is like they finished filming the first third of the movie and said, "Uh oh, the movie's over. Forty-five minute! That's not long enough. Quick someone think of something. Coffee boy what should we add."

Finally, my favorite, and most important part, theme, which also appears to have gone through a blender, like Wanted's theme. The overarching theme is that suffering is virtuous and happiness. Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. I will not explain why this is wrong. I have done it several times. However, I will explain how the movie shows this. Ray has this organization called All Heart, and he wants business to join to change the world. What businesses have to do to join is to give away some product they make for free to people who really need it. This is paralleled by Hancock, a super hero who is not interested in being nice, helping others, etc. However, Ray says he should, and makes Hancock give a speech saying, "You [other people] deserve better from me. I will be better." The movie is all about sacrificing the self for others. In a final blow, there is the stranger incomprehensible mythology between Mary and Hancock. They love one another, yet when they are near one another they lose their powers and they become mortal. Love is selfishness, but by being selfish they are punished. Therefore, they must live their lives away from one another so they do not basically kill one another by causing the other to become incredibly week. Again, sacrificing the self, one's happiness, for others. However, this theme is then corrupted, it is already a corrupt theme but then it is contradicted. Mary says she is happier living with Ray. So, one needs to sacrifice for others, one cannot pursue his own desires, but Mary is being selfish by living with Ray and not with Hancock. Therefore, she should be with neither of them. The theme could have been straightened out to be more virtuous if Mary just said, "Hancock, I do not like living with you, leave me alone." Of course, no one understands that is virtuous.

The reason Hancock gets a half star more than Wanted is the basic idea. A jerk superhero that causes massive destruction on his escapades is held accountable can be a far better film than the one produced.

The In-Laws - Four Stars

This was not that atrocious remake with Michael Douglass from a few years ago. This is the original, and it is far superior, and far superior to any modern day frat pack comedy. Of course, they are completely different comedic styles. The frat pack comedies like Anchorman are cartoonish. They are like live animation Looney Toons. From the immediate first second of the film, the movie needs to be funny, but not just funny, absolutely absurd. The In-Laws slowly descends into insanity. It begins as a normal film. The first somewhat absurd but still funny moment occurs twenty to thirty minutes into the film. However, in the last thirty minutes it is just one ridiculous event after another.

Both actors are superb in their performances. Peter Falk plays an insane CIA agent; however, he is not a lunatic like General Garcia (Richard Libertini) at the end of the film. He has more of a quiet insanity one would expect from a spy. He talks about beaked flies the says of eagles carrying away babies as if it is common knowledge. Then he states their is incredible bureaucratic red tape in jungle due to the Guacamole Act of 1917 that will not allow the extermination of these frightening flies. Later he speaks matter-of-factly about his profession as a CIA agent in a bar with a cab driver. My favorite scene, however, is when he casually speaks with Allan Arkin about his pea soup after the two of them escaped a fire fight.

Alan Arkin is an astounding straight man with lines like, "Beaks. Flies with beaks." He also actually becomes progressively more insane as movie continues, which is hilarious to watch. He starts out as a calm dentist running away from trigger happy Treasury Department agents shouting, "Don't shoot me I'm a dentist," to a man who enjoys the company of General Garcia and his atrocious army choir.

The one poor spot in the film is thematic, of course. At the end of the film Arkin and Falk escape with ten million dollars from the General. They basically set up the General in a kind of espionage drug bust. They sold the General stolen confidential goods, then called in the agents to arrest him. However, they overcharged the General by ten million; therefore, they kept ten million and surrendered the other ten million over to the CIA. They also both escape punishment for stealing this cash. It would have just been simpler for them to be awarded ten million for the capture, or not even introduce it to the film.

A Fish Called Wanda - Four Stars

Another excellent comedy that masters the descent into insanity. It begins as a jewel heist, but once the jewels are moved from their location, each thief is trying to outsmart the other and get away with the goods. The characters includes, Ken Pile (Michael Palin) a man with a stutter, Otto (Kevin Kline) a jealous psycho who reads philosophy and misunderstands it, Wanda Gershwitz (Jamie Lee Curtis) a skank looking for love, Archie Leach (John Cleese) a judge looking for love. What could not be funny?

Kevin Kline is easiest the most hilarious. He is in love with Wanda and is suspicious of every guy around her. Of course, he has a right to be suspicious because she has slept or at least made out with every guy around her. However, he is also incredibly jealous, but he constantly will not admit it because "jealousy is for the weak" according to Nietzsche. In some circumstances Wanda is actually trying to seduce people to get the jewels, like Judge Leach. Unfortunately, Otto is so jealous he sneaks in to spy on them. Even at the end of the film, when Wanda chooses to run away with Leach, Otto climbs on the wing of the plane to spy on them. He is also covered in cement because Ken steam rolled him in wet cement as revenge for eating his pet fishes, raw. That is just a taste as to how ridiculous this is.

Of course, the one sour point, theme. Wanda and Leach run away with the stolen jewels. Personal, I think there is a more hilarious ending where they could all get punished, even though the little updates at the end of the film are pretty funny. Apparently, Otto becomes Minister of Justice in South Africa, and Leach and Wanda found a leper colony in Argentina.

Paquin's Ionic Column - Do Not Support Bob Barr

2008-07-16T20:39:00.001-04:00

Here's the latest Ionic Column article, and here is the link.

Do Not Support Bob Barr

Libertarians become ecstatic whenever a Libertarian politician with some name recognition campaigns for president. It happened with Ron Paul earlier this year and now it is happening with Bob Barr. However, in every case, without even analyzing the politician’s platform one can find several rotten planks. This was true for Paul, and it is true for Barr.

The fact that Barr is campaigning for president is the first reason not to support him. No individual actively seeking political office should receive support. The problem with political offices is that they are positions within an institution that has a monopoly on using force. Though the institution, government, is only supposed to use force for defending natural rights, it invariably initiates force, violating natural rights.

Government initiation of force is so prevalent it is essentially common knowledge. Therefore, most political candidates are aware they are seeking participation in a vicious institution. Barr is undoubtedly included in this group, for he is a Libertarian; his entire platform is based on curbing government vice.

However, this does not make Barr virtuous. In order for him to curb government vice, he must partake in it for some time. Furthermore, Barr will not curb every government vice. For example, taxes – government sanctioned armed robbery. Therefore, he will always be participating in some government vice. Barr is well aware of this; thus, he is seeking vice.

Additionally, if Barr was able to remove all government vice, he would have violated the Constitution to do so. Legislators have the most power in reducing government vice, for they pass and repeal laws, which initiate force. The President cannot repeal laws. Therefore, if Barr did remove all government vice, he would once again be vicious.

The other problem with seeking political office is that it includes seeking power or control over others. Only vicious men seek power; thus, politicians should never be volunteers. Even Barr is seeking power. Reducing the government’s infringement upon men’s lives means the reducer has control of men’s lives. For example, a firefighter, though reducing the flames, has control over whether or not the flames’ victims live.

The second reason not to support Barr is that he is going to lose, and that Barr knows he is going to lose. Barr is obviously intelligent. Therefore, he realizes he is a third party candidate lacking the support to win states and electoral votes; thus, he knows he will not win the presidency. However, he is still asking people for support, donations, campaign volunteering, etc. He is asking people to invest their time, money, and labor in a campaign he knows will lose. This is comparable to a businessman asking people to buy stock in his company that he knows is unprofitable. Barr is essentially asking people to buy something he knows is broken. This is a mark of skewed reasoning. A man, who knows he cannot achieve something, yet pursues to achieve it, and asks others to help him, is truly irrational.

The final reason not to support Barr is because he is religious. Government employment should not require passing religious tests because that would make the government a theocracy, which is just another way to spell tyranny. However, political candidates should have to answer for their religious beliefs. They should explain why they believe in something without any evidence. Of course, there is no logical explanation; religion is inherently irrational. Therefore, Barr is irrational, especially in regards to his morality.

The core of a religion is its moral code. However, religion is irrational; thus, the morality that follows is irrational. Since every action is a moral action, every action committed by a religious person is based on irrationality. Consequently, supporting religious candidates for political offices is to support irrationality within the government – an institution requiring the utmost reason to function properly and virtuously.

Barr is clearly infinitely superior to the presumptive alternatives, Barack Obama and John McCain, but these points alone make him imperfect. Therefore, though Barr is the lesser of the evils, he is still evil; thus, supporting Barr is supporting vice.

Customers To Blame For Poor Products

2008-07-15T18:37:00.001-04:00

I listened to the most recent episode of Talkback this past week, and as usual The Merc and Have Hope attacked big business, specifically big studios, for poor movies. Clearly, many big studio movies of poor, but this is not the fault of the studios. Of course, the studios do determine what types of movies are going to be made, but the studios' number one concern is to earn a profit. I agree with The Merc and Have Hope, money should not be the number one concern. This does appear to be a contradiction; however, being selfish does not mean being irrationally selfish, materialistic, or to be overwhelmingly concerned with money. The virtue of selfishness is to desire and strive for producing one's best. The studios are not really concerned with creating the best movies. On occasion they are. However, there biggest concern is indeed earning the most money possible. A great deal of responsibility lies on the studios for this vice. The studios do choose what kind of movies they are going to make. However, some blame does rest on the customers.

Businesses produce what customers will buy. If customers will not buy it, the business will not make it. No business sells eye mittens, no one would buy that. However, several businesses sell alcohol because people will buy that. Businesses must be concerned as to what customers will buy because if no one buys the business's products, the business will go bankrupt. Business owners and employees do not want to business to go bankrupt because they like their jobs, they like creating products. Sometimes their priorities do get out of order. Eventually, some businesses stop being concerned with creating great products, and become solely concerned with making money. However, even in those situations, the business is still concerned with what the customer will buy.

Unfortunately, most customers are ignorant and complacent. Most customers like really bad products, and are satisfied with the less then mediocre. This is true for movies. Most customers like 27 Dresses, What Happens In Vegas, 88 Minutes, American Gangster, The Incredible Hulk, The Happening, etc. If customers hated those movies, like they should, the studios would not make them. The studios would not make any money on those movies, so they would stop making them. Therefore, The Merc and Have Hope need to start attacking customer ignorance and complacency. They should not stop attacking big businesses, but they should attack big businesses for the right reasons. Once again, big businesses should be more concerned with making good products and not making lots of money, that is true selfishly. However, The Merc and Have Hope need to address that business should not be completely unconcerned with money. They need to point out there is only so much the studios can do in producing good movies, for they still need to make money. It is the customer, the individual's desire for better products that will cause businesses to make them.

This actually reminds me of podcast 1083 of Freedomain Radio. Stefan Molyneux explains that artists promote vicious themes. However, it is not the artist that must be replaced, for as long as the customers respond to the artists vicious themes, the artist will continue to promote them. Molyneux points out that the first element that must be replaced or changed in order to destroy and correct the machine of evil is the family. Parents must stop promoting vicious and false morals to their children. Then their children will grow up, become the artists, and promote virtuous and true themes. Also, as the children are growing up, they will demand virtuous and true themes from the artists.

Paquin's Ionic Column - Vote Selling

2008-07-14T21:19:00.001-04:00

The latest Ionic Column article is below, but here is the link.

Vote Selling Protected By Natural Rights

Max Sanders faces prosecution for attempting to auction his vote for president on eBay. However, the government is the true villain because it is violating Sanders’ natural right to property.

Selling one’s vote is indeed vicious because it is an irrational basis to select a politician. Government officials must be incredibly rational because to function properly and virtuously, the government requires superior reason. Therefore, as one of Sanders’ persecutors said, “…elections should be a contest of ideas and not of pocketbooks.” However, selling one’s vote does not initiate force; therefore, the government has no business in halting this vice.

Sanders’ oppressor also said, “There are people that have died for this country for our right to vote.…” This tyrant is absolutely correct. People have fought and died so Americans could elect government officials. However, before people can elect politicians they first need a vote.

One does not have a natural right to a vote. One only comes to have a vote because the government is required to annually give citizens – legal residents who are 18 years of age or older – one vote for every election in which they may participate. A vote is a piece of property given by the government. Therefore, when the government gives someone a vote, it may not control how that someone uses his vote, for the government no longer owns the vote. A charity may not give a man free soup and then forcibly prohibit him from pouring it down the drain, for the charity has transferred ownership of the soup to the man. What a man does with property he receives whether it is soup or votes is protected by his natural right to property. One may use his vote in any way he chooses, including for sale.

Unfortunately, the government incorrectly believes one does not own his vote. The government believes it retains ownership of the vote. If this is true, one does not have the right to vote. One could only use votes in ways the government allowed because the vote would be the government’s property. In this case votes exist for the government’s sake, not the people’s. Consequently, the government would not be a democracy.

Altruism's Contradiction

2008-07-12T17:38:00.003-04:00

I have addressed the seemingly infinite problems with altruism in previous posts; however, last night speaking to my cousin I brought up the stomach churning flaw that I do not believe I have yet addressed. The fact is, altruism contradicts itself.

Everyone can accept that everyone wants to be a good or virtuous person. Even the heathen wants to be virtuous, he just mistakes virtue as being reliance on mere sexual and physical pleasure. The problem is only some correctly understand virtue, while a mob of people split into factions of warped philosophies have differing but all incorrect understandings of virtue. One of these factions is a significantly large group believing that altruism is the highest virtue. These people are altruistic because they believe it makes them good or virtuous people.

This begins to reveal the sinister contradiction. The desire and pursuit to be a good or virtuous person is selfish. It is probably the most selfish desire a person can have and most selfish act a person can commit. The individual acts virtuously because he wants to make himself virtuous. There is no way to make it clearer that they pursuit of virtue is selfish.

However, altruism is inherently selfless. It is the belief that sacrificing one's self for another's benefit is virtuous. This is the contradiction. Altruists act altruistically because they want to be virtuous. They act altruistically because they are selfish. They are concerned with making themselves good people. However, altruism demands that individuals not be selfish. Selfishness is the vice opposite of altruism. Therefore, altruists selfishly try to make themselves virtue by being selfless. Consequently, according to their own belief, they are acting viciously. Of course, there is no other way for altruism to work. One pursues altruism because he identifies it as a virtue and wants to be virtuous, yet altruism identifies selflessness and virtuous; thus, acting altruistically to be virtuous is vicious according to altruism.

Obviously, altruism is truly vicious because it conflicts with man's nature; however, this just makes it more vicious because it is a moral system that forces its followers to contradict the moral system. Basically, it is a moral system that forces its followers to act viciously according to the moral system. It is comparable to a moral system that identifies writing 2+2=5 is virtuous yet also identifies that writing =5 is vicious. The followers of this moral system would then have to be vicious in order to be virtuous. Acting vicious to achieve virtue is always absolutely vicious, it is never virtuous; pursuing the greater good is always vicious it is never virtuous.

Therefore, I suggest people embrace their nature. Man's nature is egoistical. Thus, man should stop pretending he is not selfish by pursuing altruism, which actually confirms he is selfish, causes he to be vicious by contradicting his nature, and causing him to be vicious according to altruism.

Moral Knowledge

2008-07-10T14:32:00.006-04:00

I recently listened to podcast 1086 of Freedomain Radio where Stefan Molyneux explains and corrects an apparent contradiction with Ayn Rand's explanation of Objectivism and understanding morality.

According to Molyneux, Rand argues that morality is not inherently understood by man. This seems fair enough until one realizes that Rand classifies some of her characters like James Taggart in Atlas Shrugged as villains for acting viciously. The conflict here is that if morality is not inherently known, man does not know how to act virtuously. Consequently, one cannot hold people such as James Taggart responsible for his vicious acts because he just did not know how to act virtuously. For example, one cannot identify a two year old as ignorant because he does not understand two plus two equals four. The child has not yet learned that. Additionally, one cannot classify a doctor from the 16th century as ignorant for not prescribing penicillin because doctors from the 16th century were completely unaware of penicillin.

Of course, this is a problem if no one can be held accountable for their vicious acts. However, Molyneux disagrees with Rand's position, and uses Rand's own life to prove that man inherently understands morality on a basic level.

Rand grew up in Soviet Russia; therefore, she was completely unexposed to capitalism, individualism, free thought, etc. However, she understood that the Soviet Union's philosophy was wrong. If Rand is correct, someone from outside the Soviet Union had to educate her in morality. However, this did not happen. Rand was not educated on morality, but she knew communism was wrong. Therefore, Rand, and other humans must posses some innate knowledge of morality.

Molyneux goes on to say that innate moral knowledge does not necessarily mean that someone knows why something is wrong. A man will know that stealing and murder is indeed vicious; however, he may not know that the reason they are vicious is because man's nature gives every man natural rights, which no other man may violate. Thus, man can be held accountable for his vicious actions, for he knows they are vicious yet not why.

Originally thinking over Molyneux's argument, I agreed with it completely; however, after a conversation with my cousin I am not convinced that innate is the proper word to use. Molyneux's stance is that moral knowledge in humans is immediate; therefore, the moment a child is born, he understand what is virtuous and vicious. I am unconvinced that an infant immediately understands this. My cousin argued that man understands morality through perception, specifically perceiving himself as an independent individual. In other words, once a child understands that he controls his own body and thoughts, and controls no one else's body and thoughts, the child understands he is an independent individual. Obviously, the child will not be able to explain this; however, he will realize that he chooses to hit a ball and cause it to move and that he cannot use his mind to make someone else choose to a hit a ball and cause it to move.
Once a child understands that he is an independent individual, he can take the next step and understand morality by analyzing it selfishly. Independence and individuality are two elements of man's nature; therefore, when one comprehends his independence and individuality he then comprehends his natural rights. Once he understands his nature and natural rights, he understands that other individuals have the same nature and natural rights, for he observers others and sees they are the same as himself.

Therefore, understanding morality is not exactly innate; however, a child does understand his independence and individuality very early on. His physical interaction with reality will quickly lead him to understand this. Basically, life itself leads one to this understanding, and leads one to understand morality.

Additionally, discovering how man understands morality adds another element to man's nature. In the first part of the "My Philosophy" series, I explained that man's nature includes three characteristics, reason, independence, and individuality, and that these characteristics make a being man. Obviously then, animals do not posses all three of these characteristics. Molyneux's argument combined with my understanding of moral knowledge actually makes the distinction between man and animal more distinct.

I explained that reason was the ability to understand morality, or virtue and vice. Originally, I meant that reason was the potential to understand morality; however, now I understand reason also includes self identification as an independent individual. Therefore, a being that has reason understands his independence and individuality, then through a further application of reason the being understands what is virtuous and vicious, but does not understand why actions are virtuous and vicious. However, a being that has reason can ultimately discover why actions are virtuous and vicious, only after it understands what is virtuous and vicious. This obviously sets animals back even further. Not only do animals not have the ability to understand why certain actions are virtuous and vicious, but they do not even understand they are independent and individual. Since animals are controlled by instinct, the do not act for themselves. They act because their instinct ordered them to act a certain way. In order for animals to understand morality, they must first lose their instinct. At that point they can begin to understand that they are acting for themselves not to fulfill some unavoidable demanding urge. Essentially, animals have not even made the first step.

Friendship: Part III

2008-07-10T14:30:00.001-04:00

Here is the final part of my Friendship post with my second personal example.

Next, I have an example of my friendship with Charlie. This is not the individual's actual name Charlie just happens to be the next letter in the phonetic alphabet.

Originally, I sought Charlie's friendship because my self-loathing had worsened due to my continued friendship with Alpha and Bravo. I had told Charlie that no one actually liked me and I was never invited out anywhere with groups of friends to the movies, dinner, parties, etc. Friendship was still my end all and be all. In turn, Charlie invited me out with some other individuals, which I did not know. This is a bad sign from the start. If Charlie really wanted to hang out with me, he would have asked me without my moping. However, he only responded to my moping; therefore, he invited me to hang out as a sacrifice. He thought it was the virtuous thing to do to invite someone along he really was not interested in hanging out with. However, he was stating this under the smoke screen of that he really valued me and wanted to be good friends with me. So , he was sacrificing, doing something he really did not want to do, and lying.

As my relationship with Charlie continued he would try to explain to me different things I had to do to be more received by others. Fortunately, I was not all that convinced by these suggestions. These suggestions included a different dress sense, more outgoing, and basically a different philosophy. The thesis is that friendship is more important than truth and virtue. The best example of this was when Charlie, Alpha, and another one of my friends were making a class presentation. Listening to the presentation, I disagreed with one of their points. This presentation was also one involving lots of class participation, so I was not out of line by raising my hand. When called upon I gave my explanation. Later that day Charlie explained that what I did was not something people did to friends. Alpha agreed with Charlie. I explained I was trying to understand the topic as best as possible and that I was searching for truth. Charlie's response was that friendship was more important than truth. This is completely misguided, warped, sickening, and stomach churning. I had basically been living my life according to that thesis, but once Charlie said words very similar to that I knew something was wrong.

Additionally, from all these suggestions and explanations on how to be a good friend I realized that Charlie had never really valued me from the start. Almost everything I did, my entire philosophy, my behavior, Charlie thought everything was wrong. However, he called me a friend. This embodies all those sacrificial friendship contradictions I spoke about earlier. One cannot value someone if one believes the someone is vicious. However, Charlie was not trying to enable what he thought my vices were. Charlie was trying to change me, fix me. From the start my relationship with Charlie was based on repairing me. However, he did not understand that change was a personal endeavor. Changing me was his personal quest. This is not a friendship. This is a doctor-patient relationship. Furthermore, it is only valid if I asked for help. I cannot remember if I did, but even if I did ask for help it would be a strictly professional relationship. During the period of repair Charlie and I could not be friends. One cannot value someone one is changing because the standards to value are in transition.

Another sign of my problems with Charlie was that he was impossible to plan anything with. If I wanted to hang out with Charlie, I could not plant the even three days in advance. I had to talk to him the night before or the day of. Even when Charlie and I had planned events, he would change them to impossible times or just cancel them. I had this suspicion that Charlie was avoiding me. Thus, indicating that he never valued me as a friend, for he could not tell me honestly. Eventually, during my second semester of college I became tired of the run around routine. Charlie asked if I wanted to hang out when I returned from college and I told him to plan everything himself so I would not have to be concerned with it. Charlie then said that maybe we should not hang out because I did not seem interested. This is the response I sent:

"I am upset because I do not believe we are actually going to hang out. For as long as I can remember being friends with you I remember the frustration in organizing something with you. I used to attach myself to the idea that we were going to do something, you would call and cancel, forget, make plans with someone else, rearrange times inconveniently, etc. making me upset and actually depressed. Instead of being angry I would feel like crap. So now I just don't attach myself to the idea of seeing you anymore. I will not call and try to plan anything over break or anytime in the future. If you want to do something you can call me and set up all the arrangements. If you make all the arrangements I am not attached to the situation and I will not become depressed.
I'll admit you are a good friend when I get to see you; however, that is exactly the problem. I do not know if you are that much of a friend if you have consistently made it impossible for us to easily hang out. It's fine if you don't see me as a close friend; that is your choice and I would never tell someone what to do. However, do not pretend we are close friends by saying we are really good friends or best friends and then being absolutely indifferent and flippant as to whether or not we will see each other."

I followed it up with this:

"Also your indifference as to whether or not you get to see me that you convey in your first message affirms that you really do not consider me as good a friend as you have said I was. I agree we should not see each other over break."

I tried to be as calm as possible, without striking out to verbally attack. I wanted to honestly explain the situation and how I felt. This is the response from Charlie:

"so apparently this is an unequal friendship? i feel like i'm supposed to defend myself right now. i'm not going to because you know what, you're right. i don't make plans. i don't plan ahead like that. it's not what i do, and according to your selfish theories you should support that because i'm doing things my way. in that respect i do what you do 99.9% of the time and put my preferences before those of someone else. i'm sorry if that made you feel like crap but you can't tell me that now. 1. you should have brought this up sooner cause it's something that could've been fixed. 2. DO YOU EVEN KNOW HOW MANY TIMES YOU HAVE MADE ME FEEL LIKE CRAP? 3. DO YOU SERIOUSLY THINK I WOULD TRY TO MAKE YOU FEEL LIKE CRAP? AFTER EVERYTHING I HAVE DONE OVER THE YEARS? SERIOUSLY? i'm insulted and pissed that you try this make me feel guilty bit like i don't really consider you a good friend. look back over the last 5 years and think about that statement again."

There are several disturbing signs in this message that finally made me conclude that Charlie did not value me as a friend, and I could no longer be friends with Charlie.

First, Charlie says he will not defend himself. Three sentences later he begins attacking me. Being defensive is always attacking. It is saying, "Your claims are not legitimate. You are wrong. Here is why you are an idiot." It is a complete avoidance of the issues at hand. A complete lack of concern for the truth. Also, a complete lack of concern for the other individual, which is supposed to be a friend. The other problem with this is that it is a lie. It is a way to make the writer appear virtuous, as avoiding defense and tacking the attack because suffering is virtuous. However, suffering is not really a virtue. That was not even what I was asking. I was explaining how I felt and I wanted Charlie to discuss them with me, so that the truth of the situation could be uncovered. The other use of this lie is to lull the reader, assume that no attack is coming, yet then spring it on the reader.

Second, Charlie attacks my philosophy of selfishness without truly understanding it. Charlie describes Objectivism as hedonism. That is not the case.

Third, Charlie states it is too late to address the problems that I see with the relationship. This indicates Charlie has no concern for whether or not I remain his friend.

Fourth, Charlie says I made him feel like crap. This may very well be true. I do not want to avoid that issue. However, at this point, I have addressed some issues I would like addressed. Next, could have been Charlie's issues. However, Charlie has said my vices negate her vices. She turns the tables by making it appear I am attacking her. Once again he is avoiding the issue. However, it does appear he does want me to remain his friend. He is trying to make me feel guilty by making it appear I am attacking him. In turn, he assumes I will apologize and maintain the friendship, without my issues being resolved. He realizes the issues are problems, but he likes the way things are. He may like the doctor patient relationship where he says we are friends but really not. He can come and go as he pleases. He can try and fix me, making himself feel better, but then avoid me when he has had enough.

Fifth, Charlie claims he would never try to make me feel like crap. Therefore, every time was an accident, including this message. Basically, he is covering himself. His argument is, "He values me so much as a friend he would never attack me even though this message looks like an attack right not." Here Charlie tries to make himself appear virtuous in order to make me feel guilty and fall back in line as his friend.

Sixth, he ends the message by saying I should think over what I said. Once again I am the problem. I was ignorant. I was wrong. My claims are illegitimate and not worth addressing.

I sent Charlie several other messages pointing out that my issues had not been addressed, he was not listening, he was avoiding me. Charlie continued sending similar messages. I then stated that we were no longer associating and have not communicated with him yet.

This was a poisonous relationship, where I was there for Charlie to feel like he was sacrificing and surrendering to change me for the better. He was being dependent, while also staying away from me cause he never really liked me. However, when I addressed these claims he exploded. Saying I was ignorant, wrong, and vicious. This was to make me feel guilty so I would apologize to him and remain his friend. Consequently, he could continue to rely on me.

My other real problem here is that I tried to address problems honestly and I was attacked. Basically, I could not be honest with someone who was supposed to be my friend. That is not friendship. Friendship is not supposed to be imprisoning. There should not be these blockades as to what can be discussed, especially honest problems. Friendship is supposed to be part of being free. The freedom to choose one's friends and honestly speak with them. People like me will never be satisfied with many things. The government will always be a problem, culture, religion, society, people, will always be problems. People like me will only succeed happiness and satisfaction in our personal lives. Therefore, we should not include such friendships. Actually, no one should include such friendships that are like mine fields where one must dance around thinking, "Can I say this?" "Can I ask this?" That is not freedom, it is not friendship, it is not happiness, life is too short for this.

Friendship: Part II

2008-07-08T12:17:00.001-04:00

Here is the second part of my Friendship post with my first personal example.

Now, I will provide some personal examples of my friendships so the topic can be analyzed more closely. Firstly, I am not writing this in order to convince these individuals that they were wrong or that I am better. I am not interested in assuring people that they were incorrect. That is a personal understanding. The individual himself must comprehend what he did wrong; therefore, he can improve. If he does not comprehend his vicious actions, he does not understand they are vices, and he does not understand what are virtues or how to be virtuous. In regards to convincing people I am better, I am no longer interested in that. There was a time when I strove to be better than others instead of seeking happiness, or realizing my values. That is just another form of dependence. It is relying on others actions and emotions to make one happy. This is a vice. For man is independent. He should control all the elements of his own life. Happiness is the realization of one's values, not the emotions and actions of others. The reason I am discussing these past friendships with these individuals is to uncover truth because when one knows truth, one knows how to be virtuous.

First, I am going to discuss my friendship with two individuals who I will name Alpha and Bravo so as not to reveal anyone's name. This will somewhat show I am not trying to prove I am better than others, but also few besides maybe Alpha and Bravo will know who I am talking about. Therefore, Alpha and Bravo are somewhat confidential.

I began my friendship with Alpha and Bravo early in junior high and I maintained it throughout high school. However, Thanksgiving break of last year, my first semester in college, was the last time I spoke with either of them. I do not intend to initiate any contact with either of them in the future.

The reason I was looking for friendship in seventh grade because, as I explained in a previous post, events during my fifth and sixth grade years caused me to loathe myself. I then believed that I was a vicious person and the only way I could prove I was virtuous was to have friends. Consequently, having friends made me feel good. Therefore, friendship became my end all and be all. I was essentially being dependent on others to make me happy. I was not yet relying on others actions and emotions to make me happy, but I was relying on these individuals to give me happiness. Once again happiness is a personal endeavor; a realization of one's own happiness. Happiness is not dependently or collectively achieved.

However, Alpha and Bravo were also self-loathing. I do not know why they loathed themselves, but I know they did because they degraded me. As they degraded me, and a few others but mostly me, they would smile and laugh. Most of the times, when I saw them happy, smiling, laughing, they had just degraded me. They were being dependent, violating their own nature as men; thus, being vicious. They relied on my anger and self-loathing to make them happy. Often times, they would cover this by saying, "This is just how guys are friends." I do not care if this is how most guy friendships work, it was wrong. I should have terminated my friendship with them at that moment, meaning after I explained they should stop degrading me and they responded by saying that their actions were the norm. In doing that, they stated that they did not really value me. Causing me to suffer was not as important as being part of the majority. It was a warped since of morality and I should have just left. However, I remained, and by remaining I was acting viciously. I was valuing people I knew who were vicious; thus, telling them they were more virtuous than vicious. In turn, they continued to degrade me. I enabled vice. I also lied to them by remaining, for as I just said remaining in the friendship told Alpha and Bravo that they were virtuous and deserved my valuing of them when that certainly was not the case. Finally, I was vicious because I chose suffering, I chose attacks on myself, I chose to laugh at myself. Essentially, I was slapping myself in the face. I was becoming more self-loathing; thus, desiring more friends. Except, friendships could not give me enough happiness.

Consequently, I turned to degrading others like Alpha and Bravo; thus, becoming more vicious. However, I could not degrade Alpha and Bravo. In the social network I was considered the weaker, and a weaker can never degrade a stronger. Therefore, when the stronger are self-loathing they must degrade weaker individuals to make themselves feel happy. Thus, I turned to degrading another one of my friends, which I had known since elementary school. He eventually stopped being friends with me, and only recently have I begun to correct that friendship.

Finally, there is a vicious cycle that is revealed in my friendship with Alpha and Bravo. I was self-loathing, so I sought their friendship to make me feel happy. However, they degraded me, in order to make themselves feel happy, which in turn caused me to loathe myself more. In addition to degrading others I sought a stronger relationship with Alpha and Bravo to make me feel happy. Consequently, they were provided with more opportunities to degrade me, causing me to loathe myself more, and driving me closer to them. I believe degraders are aware of this cycle. They are essentially parasites that have found a way to sustain themselves forever.

Paquin's Ionic Column - Independence Day

2008-07-07T20:35:00.001-04:00

Another article. Here is the link.

Independence Day Is Not For Patriots

One should distrust those who celebrated Independence Day congregating. Those that formed mobs on D.C.’s streets, monuments’ steps, and the National Mall’s grass to look up and communally gaze upon the public fireworks display on Independence Day are suspicious. Those that spoke of the honorable feeling of camaraderie, and joined a mass of strangers waving flags and banners on Independence Day are treacherous. Those that spoke of their pride in America on Independence Day should be questioned and challenged. Collective celebrators of Independence Day are horribly misguided, for Independence Day is not for patriots.

A patriot is a collectivist. Firstly, he is a cog in a communal machine based on race, culture, ethnicity, nation, state, etc. Secondly, he is not proud of himself, he is proud of the collective, communal machine, race, culture, ethnicity, nation, state, etc. Pride is satisfaction in achieving what one perceives as virtuous. Therefore, a patriot believes it is virtuous to sacrifice one’s self for the sake of a throng. He believes that one’s life, liberty, happiness, and property are worthless unless they are surrendered to a mob. Essentially, patriotism is altruism, it is the belief that the individual does not belong to himself but to a collective. Patriotism is suicide, the self-destruction of the individual. Not only is this false and thus vicious, but it is also completely unrelated to Independence Day.

Independence Day is a selfish celebration of the individual. Historically, Independence Day is the date colonists’ separated from the British Empire. Therefore, Independence Day celebrates the fact that man may break from a collective without the collective’s consent. This right is provided by man’s nature as a reasonable, independent individual with the natural rights of life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and property. Essentially, Independence Day celebrates that man exists for his own sake and no other man. Independence Day celebrates man’s freedom from other men.

Consequently, on Independence Day do not patriotically celebrate America. The day does not concern the formation of either America the people or America the state; it concerns the Truth that one is one’s own. Instead, remember that a man’s life is his own, it belongs to no other. A man’s mind is his own, he can choose independently. A man has unique preferences; he may choose for his own sake. Finally, a man labors, extending his life over inanimate objects; thus, he may keep and use items he has earned. In turn, celebrate selfishly on Independence Day. Pursue one’s own happiness. Forget the state and unknown fellow citizens. They are never one’s concern, and Independence Day celebrates that.

Friendship: Part I

2008-07-06T19:56:00.001-04:00

Originally, I had planned to do one post on friendship with some personal examples, but it was quite long. Thus, I am separating it into three segments. First, is a definition and explanation of friendship.

I have wanted to do this post for quite some time, and I may have covered some of this in one of the posts regarding my discussions with my professors, but this time there will be some more personal information. First, however, friendship must be explained.

Friendship is selfishness. It does not work any other way. Unfortunately, few people understand it that way. Of course, I spent my high school years in a catholic school, so everyone there thought friendship was about sacrifice; therefore, my judgment on the majority may not be accurate. I doubt it though.

Friendship is choosing one person, or few persons, over all other people. By calling someone a friend one is stating, "This person is more valuable to me than Stranger Bob whom I have never met." One values some, meaning friends, over others, meaning Stranger Bobs, based on the potential friend's standards or morality. Therefore, people with similar almost synonymous moral standards are friends, or should be friends. For example, a capitalist cannot be friends with a Marxist, a liberal cannot be friends with a Nazi. The reason being that a capitalist values certain things as truly correct and truly virtuous that the Marxist will find truly incorrect and truly vicious, and vice versa. For example, a capitalist believes it is virtuous for the government to minimize its regulation so that a free market can exist. The capitalist believes every man is an individual; thus, must have the liberty to make choices and actions for his own gain. A Marxist, however, believes that it is vicious for the government to do what the capitalist thinks is virtuous. Instead, the Marxist finds maximum government regulation as virtuous. The Marxist believes that every man is just a member of a larger collective; therefore, his choices and actions must assist the mass not himself. Essentially, the capitalist would believe that the Marxist is vicious, and the Marxist would believe the capitalist is vicious. Therefore, they cannot be friends because they do not value one another. Since they do not value one another's standards, and one's actions are based on one's standards, they cannot value how one another live their lives. In order to be friends one must recognize one's own standards in the other person. Essentially, every individual wants to be a virtuous person; therefore, he is going to surround himself with other virtuous people. If he surrounds himself with any vicious person he just enables vice. This is how friendship is selfish. It is choosing one person over others. It is choosing one person based on whether or not he is virtuous. Finally, it is choosing virtuous people because one wants to be virtuous and one wants to be around virtuous people.

Unfortunately, as I stated earlier, this is not how friendship is understood. People understand friendship as sacrifice. Essentially, one should surrender element's of one's self in order to be friends with and love all others. There are several problems with this.

Firstly, once again every individual wants to be virtuous, and it is virtuous to want to be virtuous and live virtuously. Furthermore, one's standards and one's actions define one's self. Additionally, one's standards and one's actions are always based on morality. Therefore, if friendship is based on sacrifice, then friendship is also based on being vicious. If one must sacrifice qualities of one's self to be friends with and love everyone, one is choosing not to be virtuous. For example, someone believes that it is virtuous to study science and understand the natural world. However, he has chosen a friend who believes it is vicious to understand the natural world because the scientific explanations are lies about God's work, and more importantly God should be the only one to understand his creation. (The latter person is obviously a lunatic.) Therefore, the former individual, the scientist, must sacrifice some of his qualities that assist him in understanding reality. Even if he has to sacrifice these qualities just by not speaking about his work while he is around the latter person something is terribly wrong. First, by not embracing those qualities he defines as virtuous he is being vicious. Just to get this point across I am going to use a religious example. If one is a Catholic it is virtuous to receive holy communion; therefore, if one does not receive it he is being vicious. A similar situation is occurring here. The second problem with this friendship is that scientist obviously thinks the religious lunatic is vicious, for the religious lunatic thinks it is virtuous to be completely ignorant the natural world, or reality. Therefore, by being friends with this religious lunatic the scientist is choosing to value someone he knows to be vicious, and the religious lunatic understands this. Everyone, whether they admit it or not, knows that friendship is about valuing one person more than another. Thus, the scientist is sending the following message to the religious lunatic, "You have more virtues than vices. You are not vicious enough for me to ignore you. You are virtuous enough to be valued by me." Consequently, the religious lunatic's lifestyle is being affirmed. The scientist, who he values highly because he is a friend, is telling him that his vicious ignorant beliefs are virtuous. In turn, the religious lunatic will continue acting on his vicious standards. Basically, the scientist enables vice. Thus, the scientist is being vicious for two reasons. First, he is avoiding virtue at least while he is with the religious lunatic. Second, he is enabling vices.

The second problem with sacrificial friendship is that it is not friendship at all. Once again, friendship is choosing a few individuals over all others. However, sacrificial friendships tells people to be friends with and love everyone. In this case, once does not value any individual, including himself, more than any other individual. He values all people equally. Therefore, he is friends with no one.

Finally, friendship is not an end. It is not the purpose of life. It does not provide happiness. Friendship is only an icing on the cake. One should first be satisfied with one's self. One should like who he is. At this point one knows what virtue is, and he is living it; thus, he values his self. Consequently, he will be able to identify potential friendships. Essentially, one cannot value others until he values himself.

Paquin's Ionic Column - Gun Ownership And Abortion

2008-07-04T01:39:00.004-04:00

Here is another article I posted on my column. Here is the link, but there is a copy below. More posts unique to this blog are coming soon.

Pro-Abortion And Anti-Gun-Ownership Incompatible

It is ridiculous that the Supreme Court had to decide on the constitutionality of hand gun ownership bans in District of Columbia v. Heller. However, it is more ridiculous that those opposed to gun ownership usually do not oppose abortion. Abortion and gun ownership both concern man’s natural right to life. It is logically inconsistent to support one and oppose the other.

Both gun ownership and abortion can be defended without the Constitution. Only Truth and the objective morality that follows are necessary.

First, gun ownership is not an initiation of force. A man that purchases and owns a gun does not violate others’ natural rights to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and property. However, if a gun owner were to shoot an innocent person, the gun owner would be initiating force. In this scenario, the government may use force against the gun owner, but the government’s use of force is completely unrelated to owning a gun.

Obviously, the gun was used to initiate force, but ownership is not injuring, murdering, robbing, or threatening other men. The acts of pointing and shooting guns at innocent men are initiations of force; the act of owning guns is not. For example, if a man uses a computer to bludgeon someone to death, owning the computer is not the initiation of force, bludgeoning someone with it is.

Furthermore, since owning a gun does not initiate force, it is vicious for the government to ban guns. Enforcing a gun ban requires the government to use force against individuals for owning guns. Since gun ownership does not initiate force, the government cannot use defense force because no natural rights are being violated. Consequently, it is the government that initiates force, violating gun owners’ natural rights.

This is not to say that man has a natural right to own guns, but man has a natural right to liberty, pursuit of happiness, and property. A gun owner has chosen to own a gun, he is happy owning a gun, and the gun has been purchased with his money earned through his personal labor, making the gun his and no one else’s. Banning guns causes the government to violate those three natural rights, which makes the government vicious for its enforcement and contradiction of its own purpose.

Second, abortion is not an initiation of force. Abortion involves killing a fetus not a human. The difference is that man is characterized by reason, independence, and individuality. A being must have all three qualities to be man. A fetus has only one of these characteristics. It has no reason; it cannot distinguish between virtue and vice. It is not independent; it is attached to another being, relying on its host for survival. However, it is an individual; no other fetus or being is identical to it. Essentially, a fetus is a parasite that can become man. However, the potential to become man indicates that it is presently not man; therefore, it posses no natural rights. Thus, by killing a fetus no natural rights are violated, no force is initiated.

Furthermore, aborting a fetus exercises a pregnant woman’s natural right to life. Actually, both aborting and birthing exercise a woman’s natural right to life. In the latter case, a woman decides to utilize her life to produce another life. In the former case, she decides to stop utilizing her life to produce another.

Thus, if a woman’s right to life includes the choice to use her life to reproduce or not, her right to life must also allow her to preserve her own life. Choosing to birth or abort is a woman’s choice as to how she wants to use and live her life. Defending herself from an attacker is a woman’s choice to preserve her own life. Obviously, a gun is not necessary for defense, but it is certainly much easier to use than fists, rocks, knives, nunchucks, etc. Therefore, those who are in favor of abortion but against gun ownership believe that a woman may choose how she wants to use and live her life, but they do not believe she may preserve her life, defending it from attack. One cannot choose how to live one’s life if he cannot defend it.

This does not solely apply to females. The natural right to life is the same for all individuals. Since individuals may choose how to use and live their lives, they must be allowed to defend it, and easily. Defense is, of course, the essential purpose of guns. They are for protecting one’s natural rights, not violating others’, though some will use them for murder, armed robbery, etc. The government is the same. The government is for protecting people’s natural rights not violating them, though it often does murder, steal, etc. Therefore, banning gun ownership is not only an initiation of force, a logical inconsistency with those who support abortion, but also a ban on defending one’s natural rights.

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

2008-06-30T21:53:00.002-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unconstitutionality Of Executing Child Rapists Decided By Popular Demand

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2008-06-25T21:14:00.002-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summary Of My History

2008-06-24T18:03:00.006-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rear Window

2008-06-22T15:06:00.004-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Get Smart

2008-06-21T15:27:00.004-04:00

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

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

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

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

Drug Stamp Tax

2008-06-19T18:22:00.001-04:00

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

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

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

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

The Art Of War

2008-06-19T18:21:00.001-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Incredible Hulk

2008-06-15T19:24:00.002-04:00

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

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

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

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

The Happening

2008-06-14T14:54:00.001-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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