Whether it's with Gary Johnson on the Libertarian party ticket, or an independent run possibly with Jesse Ventura - supporters like me want to see you continue.
I recommend a "money bomb" to gauge support.
Sane Rants On Stuff
Monday, September 3, 2012
Sunday, January 29, 2012
Does Birth Control Select for Tyranny?
As I've written in previous posts, the choice to have children can reveal motivations. Who is it that wants a relationship with a helpless person? Who wants total, absolute control over that person?
Tyrants, that's who. If a woman accidentally gets knocked up because she's enjoying life, that's one thing. But if someone intentionally plots a way to take totalitarian control over another - that's troubling. Gives daddy government new meaning. And explains to me why the Republican candidates this round have demonstrated extreme fertility. Bachmann even recruited into her matriarchy.
Tyrants, that's who. If a woman accidentally gets knocked up because she's enjoying life, that's one thing. But if someone intentionally plots a way to take totalitarian control over another - that's troubling. Gives daddy government new meaning. And explains to me why the Republican candidates this round have demonstrated extreme fertility. Bachmann even recruited into her matriarchy.
Friday, January 27, 2012
Potatoes and Racism
In the 1800s Antoine-Augustin Parmentier wanted to help the French people. Knowing anti-authoritarianism, the fetish for the forbidden, was inherent in the french culture; he portrayed the food as a delicacy for royals and set a guard around his potato garden plot. This of course let to theft from his garden and wide cultivation of the common tuber - the result he desired.
Man inherently wants to be free, and will endeavor against coercion even to act in ways not in his best interest. I started smoking as a young teen specifically because it was illegal. It is my opinion that much of the draw to drugs is their illegal status. This leads to the confounding contradiction where legislating morality engenders immorality.
In 1996 I took on the burdensome, unrewarding, and unpopular task of the con side of affirmative action for a debate class. One of the arguments by my opposition was that social justice required a pendulum approach, that the inequality imposed on minorities in the past must be imposed on the collective white race for the sins of their fathers. This multi-generational tit for tat (sans forgiveness) leads to perpetual conflict and a forever swinging pendulum - and is a philosophy more likely to lend velocity to the wrecking ball at the end. I argued that a color blind government would bring the pendulum to rest. I hold by that argument.
The swinging pendulum has brought with it political correctness. Some words are only permitted if your skin is the right color, for example. This has created what I call a "racism fetish". Individuals who would never, under regular circumstances, say an untoward word; become compelled to exercise the less palatable verbage in reaction to the (sometimes subconscious) desire for freedom of speech. Championing liberty, and applying empathy and tolerance to the reactionary intolerant; is my recommendation for moving forward.
Man inherently wants to be free, and will endeavor against coercion even to act in ways not in his best interest. I started smoking as a young teen specifically because it was illegal. It is my opinion that much of the draw to drugs is their illegal status. This leads to the confounding contradiction where legislating morality engenders immorality.
In 1996 I took on the burdensome, unrewarding, and unpopular task of the con side of affirmative action for a debate class. One of the arguments by my opposition was that social justice required a pendulum approach, that the inequality imposed on minorities in the past must be imposed on the collective white race for the sins of their fathers. This multi-generational tit for tat (sans forgiveness) leads to perpetual conflict and a forever swinging pendulum - and is a philosophy more likely to lend velocity to the wrecking ball at the end. I argued that a color blind government would bring the pendulum to rest. I hold by that argument.
The swinging pendulum has brought with it political correctness. Some words are only permitted if your skin is the right color, for example. This has created what I call a "racism fetish". Individuals who would never, under regular circumstances, say an untoward word; become compelled to exercise the less palatable verbage in reaction to the (sometimes subconscious) desire for freedom of speech. Championing liberty, and applying empathy and tolerance to the reactionary intolerant; is my recommendation for moving forward.
Sunday, October 16, 2011
Evictionism
I really liked Walter Block's video on evictionism:
I like it mostly because it exposes that, in an ideal world, the right to life/right to body (choice) debate would be a false dilemma (fallacy). I disliked Walter's focus on when it's "ok" to kill an unborn child (it's never ok - though I thought otherwise before I learned about evictionism). However, it may be ok to evict a baby; I consider rape an obvious case for this, consensual sex is harder to justify (though I agree you can't form a contract with the unborn).
In my head, the procedure would go:
- woman tells doctor she doesn't want baby
- doctor performs procedures as though a wanted child was in danger and needed to be delivered prematurely
- child is placed in (donation/charity funded) medical care (possibly an "artificial womb")
- the child is made available for adoption
Friday, September 23, 2011
Reconciling Maslow's Hierarchy with Libertarianism
SUMMARY
One
of the key breakthroughs of libertarianism is the acceptance of the
non-aggression principle (NAP), which states that one may not morally
initiate aggression against another. The NAP focuses on violent
force, however, this principle may be applied to other areas of man's
existence. Maslow's hierarchy of needs (MHN) attempts to generalize
man's priorities. Combined with Universally Preferable Behavior
(UPB) and praexology, the author argues for a more encompassing moral
framework which satisfies the iterated prisoner's dilemma (IPD)
through the moral argument “let the punishment fit the crime”
(LPFC).
ELLABORATION
Within
each man lies a personal utopia, a nirvana where moral action is
rewarded. Maslow has described priorities which must be satisfied
for man to bring their utopia into existence. Part of that pyramid
requires interaction with others, however, not all action is mutually
rewarding. The most unrewarding of human interaction is one where
the parties are threatened at the bottom of Maslow's pyramid: a
conflict to the death. Assuming the conflict is not instantaneous,
it may be trivially described by the IPD. Analysis of the IPD has
led to “tit for tat with forgiveness” (TFTWF) as an ideal
solution. TFTWF means that if I initiate an interaction, I start off
with a (trivial) agreement move, and don't respond negatively unless
met with a negative move (note the parallel with the NAP). If my
“opponent” gives a negative move I return with a negative move.
However, this leads to a prolonged negative spiral if the opponents
continue with negative moves. Instead, researchers found that a
random positive move could break the spiral, improving the outcome
for all parties. This situation has been expressed by Ghandi with,
“an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind”, and in the Christian
doctrine with, “turn the other cheek”.
However,
life is not trivial. People don't make “positive moves”.
Culture differences and personal preferences alone make this
difficult. Further, moves have different weights for individuals,
and generally within a community. In western cultures these weights
are usually expressed through laws, mores and folkways, and these
prioritized social norms with their associated punishments roughly
correspond to MHN in a tit for tat relationship; murder has a death
penalty, offensive language may be met with ostracism. This is tit
for tat, with the level of punishment on the same level as the
offense; in case of murder the punishment is a mirrors the offense
and is ostensibly equal, however, the offensive language is met with
an asymmetrical punishment but at the same level of the hierarchy.
What
goals may be morally pursued in the context of conflict? A cessation
of the conflict, remedy for victims, and rehabilitation of offending
parties are all viable. We have already discussed conflict cessation
in terms of TFTWF and MHN: one may not act initially with willful
aggression, and may morally attack any target of the opponent's at
the same or higher level in the hierarchy. However, one is only
rational to attack if attacking that target will accomplish one of
the viable goals. It may be in the offended party's self-interest to
“forgive” if no goal can be accomplished by retaliating,
especially if forgiveness move has a probability of returning the
parties to win/win. Retaliation may also lie on a continuum, where
partial forgiveness is possible. For example, a spendthrift might
get partial debt forgiveness, possibly in return for taking a class
on finance (rehabilitation).
What
you don't want, is for the tit for tat negative spiral that occurs on
one level of the hierarchy to plunge the opponents into the next
level down. This is where a conflict over gift registry leads to
calling the wedding off, and then a crime of passion. Not good.
WHAT
ABOUT STARVATION?
So
what happens when Joe steals Mike's food because Joe is starving?
That's a violation of the NAP (private property). While Mike would
be moral taking something of value from Joe, starving people rarely
have much of value to take. Instead, rehabilitating Joe with the
expectation of remedy may be a more rational choice. LPFC and TFTWF
are satisfied; and I would argue this is the best strategy to take
when the need levels are crossed: when need levels are crossed in the
case where the offending party has violated a higher need,
forgiveness, rehabilitation, and remedy are the most appropriate
course of action.
A
more sinister problem is violent wealth redistribution. Ignoring
problems such as corruption, property rights, and the praexological
strategy of the assisted, can the act be considered moral? No. In
part, because the act threatens a low level of the hierarchy on
someone who would provide the charity at a higher level (charity
occurs at high levels of the MHN). The violation of Mike's hierarchy
at a low level keeps him from reaching a level where he would give
willingly; instead demolishing higher levels and engendering the
desperation associated with providing for the new lower level. This
leads to a society of embittered, desperate, resentful people,
instead of the giving society it claims to foster.
Monday, August 22, 2011
liberty links
- the philosophy of liberty
- george ought to help
- the non-aggression principle
- the road to serfdom
- rothbard
- free domain radio
- the daily paul
- libertarian subreddit
- lew rockwell
- peter schiff's libertarian news blog
- ron paul friends/campaign for liberty
- max keiser
- mises.org
- free talk live
- what really happened
- no agenda
- max igan
- school sucks
Friday, July 22, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)