The Catalysts

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

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

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

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

From Crackle: A Jewish Man's First Bacon

Like A Begging Dog

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

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?

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

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

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.