The Venezuelan National Assembly was duly elected, while the embattled dictator Nicolas Maduro was the winner of a "sham election under absurdly rigged conditions" according to Democrat Senator Dick Durbin, though he himself is hardly a supporter of the many and broad rights of the individual. The National Assembly of Venezuela appointed Juan Guaido its interim president, which it is empowered to do by the Constitution of Venezuela. According to many American Democrat Socialists, the U.S. anointed Juan Guaido and has no business meddling in Venezuelan affairs, though what the U.S. actually did was to recognize the constitutionally appointed President of Venezuela. Meanwhile, Maduro uses the military to murder and imprison any opposition as he drives more and more Venezuelans into unemployment and ever starvation.
Venezuela was among the richest nations in the world a couple of decades ago. Venezuela began a bad downward trend after the election of Hugo Chavez in December 1998. The CIA World Fact Book estimated the loss of GDP in 2015 at 6.2%, in 2016 at 16.5%, and in 2017 at 14%. The World Bank estimated the GDP loss in 2017 at 14.5% and estimates that the 2018 loss of GDP will be 18%. The CIA World Fact Book says that the per capita GDP in PPP terms in 2015 was $17, 300, which fell to $12,500 in 2017. The unemployment rate in 2017 was 27.1%. The 2017 consumer price inflation rate was 1090% and it is worse now.
The brutality of the Maduro regime and the catastrophic economic deterioration of the country do not put a dent in the international solidarity of American Democratic Socialists and like-thinking nations around the world. Russia, China, Iran, Cuba, Turkey, Nicaragua, and Hezbollah all support the Maduro regime. American socialist Bernie Sanders says the U.S. must not support a coup against Maduro, though he has usurped the Presidency of Venezuela and thanks to the National Assembly is no longer the President of Venezuela. The people are rioting against his dictatorial regime in the streets, but their opposition to his regime is not to be supported by the U.S. if Sanders gets his wishes. Meanwhile, Maduro continues on with the support of Cuban intelligence, Cuban troops, and Putin's private army of mercenaries backing him up. Protestors are shot in the streets. Bernie, the coup has already occurred and it is being led by Maduro and his Cuban and Russian allies.
California Democat Ro Khanna and the socialist pop star Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are among the many American socialist critics of an "American Coup." The Maduro - Cuban - Russian Coup is of no real concern to them. After all, socialism is to be supported by the faithful no matter what hardships it entails. So many American socialists had no problem with Stalin starving 6 or 7 million Ukrainians to death. They had no problem with Chairman Mao starving and killing about 60 million Chinese. Socialism at any cost!
As is usually the case, a religion has no problem killing massive numbers of people to achieve its ends. The god of the Israelites killed all of the people of Jericho, Sodom, and Gomorrah. The Catholic Church under Pope Innocent III called for a crusade in 1209 against the heretic Catharists who had become prevalent in southern France, then the most wealthy part of Europe. This murderous crusade is estimated to have killed more than 1 million people before the end of the century according to Homer Smith in Man and His Gods. Then there was 300 years of total devastation for vast regions of Europe as the Catholics and Protestants fought each other viciously for the soul of mankind in Europe. The Christian churches also murdered many thousands of people for having sex with others of the same sex or for being witches. Islam has a similar murderous reputation, which continues to this day. So why balk at the murders and hardships needed to set the world on a socialist path? It is as much a religion as these others.
Unless you have a shred or more of rationality in your character. If you are capable of and value independent thinking, then the answer is clear. Socialism is not for us. It is to be fought as though your life depends upon it. Your life does depend upon the defeat of socialism. We have to win this battle against international and against American socialists, because if you are like me, they will kill you. No brutality is too great for a religion like socialism.
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
31 January 2019
11 September 2017
Climate Change Settled Science: The Atmosphere Absorbs 90% or 29% of Surface Radiation
What difference does it make? Who cares whether the atmosphere absorbs 29% or 90% of the infrared radiation from the Earth's surface? Apparently NASA doesn't care, despite the fact that the settled science claims that atmospheric absorption of this radiation is key to the catastrophic greenhouse effect.
Here is a graphic from a NASA web page:
Note that the surface is here emitting thermal radiation with an power equal to 17% of the solar insolation at the top of the atmosphere up into the atmosphere. Of that 17%, 5% is absorbed by the atmosphere on passage and 12% makes it through the atmosphere into space. Therefore 5/17 = 0.29 or 29% of the surface emitted longwave radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere. This warms the atmosphere and it retards the rate of radiative cooling of the surface. This is the very essence of the so-called greenhouse effect. That effect is a critical scientific issue and one that the so-called settled science claims to understand well as the basis of its call for drastic action to prevent catastrophic man-made global warming.
This being a well-understood phenomena of the settled science, we should expect NASA to be consistent in proclaiming that 29% of surface thermal radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere. Does NASA meet our expectations for consistency? See this NASA Earth Energy Budget from, believe it or not, the same page as the above graphic on atmospheric absorption:
Now the Earth's surface radiation has swollen by 100% to 117% and only 12% makes it out of the atmosphere into space. Now the atmosphere absorbs (117% - 12%) / 117% = 0.90 or 90% of the longwave infrared thermal radiation emitted by the Earth's surface. It is much easier to make a claim that man's emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere will have dire consequences when you can present a picture of 90% surface radiation absorption in the atmosphere than when you present it as 29% absorption. Note that the story for catastrophic man-made global warming is also made to seem more plausible because surface thermal radiation at 117% just overwhelms the rates of energy loss due to water evaporation at 25% and convection at 5%. If surface radiation is just 17%, then 25% + 5% = 30% is a lot more important. As I have pointed out in other postings, the loss of the majority the Earth's surface heat by non-radiative means is critically important in establishing a warm surface temperature.
So which is it? 29% or three times more at 90%? What is actually measured is the rate at which energy is transferred from the surface to the atmosphere and beyond. Note that in the Earth energy budget schematic, the back radiation from the atmosphere is claimed to be 100%. If you subtract that from the 117% that diagram says is emitted from the surface, you get a net surface emission of 17%. In this way, NASA believes the Earth Energy Budget diagram and the upper diagram of the atmospheric absorption are equivalent, but the lower diagram sure represents greenhouse effects as more important than does the upper diagram.
What is actually measured? When you make a measurement of the radiation from the surface from a given altitude, you only know the radiation power transferred from the surface to your measuring instrument. Suppose your measuring instrument is at the same temperature as the atmosphere at that altitude. It can then only measure the energy that can be exchanged between two bodies at the respective temperatures. In other words, the 5% of surface radiation absorbed by the atmosphere would be what your meter would read at the appropriate point in the atmosphere. If you move your meter outside the atmosphere into space and have it at the appropriate space temperature, then it can read the 12% level of radiation that escaped into space. What you really know is presumably what is in the upper diagram.
So how does NASA generate the lower diagram with the 117% surface thermal radiation and the 100% back radiation? It does so by means of the hypothesis that the atmosphere is a black body radiator, as is the surface. Both radiate energy exactly as they would if they were isolated black bodies surrounded only by space at a temperature of absolute zero. What is more, they suppose that any body (greenhouse gases mostly) in the atmosphere absorbing surface radiation re-emits it only toward the Earth's warmer surface, none of that is absorbed by other greenhouse gases, and all of it is incident upon the Earth's surface, which then absorbs 100% of that radiation. This is absolutely wrong. The exchange of thermal radiation energy occurs through the medium of an electric field and the flow of photons is only as required by the electric field gradient from the warmer to the cooler body. The 100% thermal radiation from the atmosphere to the Earth's surface is a figment of NASA's imagination.
In the NASA upper diagram of the atmosphere and the power held in it, the sum of that power is 23% + 25% + 5% + 5% = 58%. In the NASA Earth Energy Budget lower diagram, the atmosphere has an absorbed power of 23% + 5% + 25% + (117% - 12%) = 158%. Now it is a miracle that the atmosphere can hold more power than the sun is supplying as is claimed in the NASA Earth Energy Budget in the first place, but faith in the authority of the settled science requires us to believe this. The upper diagram, which is much closer to the actual measurements made, does not require us to violate the Conservation of Energy. Does this not prompt the rational observer to believe that the assumptions made to generate the NASA Earth Energy Budget are wrong?
The atmosphere on average is colder than the Earth's surface. In the upper schematic, the atmosphere radiates 59% of the solar insolation at the top of the atmosphere out into space. The atmosphere is warmer in general than is space so this is what we expect both thermodynamically and as a means to conserve energy. In the NASA Earth Energy Budget, the atmosphere radiates 100% power to the Earth's surface, which absorbs it all, and it only radiates a power of 59% into space. Consequently, the atmosphere is treated as a black body radiator that radiates with a total power of 159% in the NASA Earth Energy Budget schematic. This violates energy conservation. It implies that a molecular gas thermal radiator emits radiation anisotropically, which is contrary to their own statements and viewpoint that bodies emit thermal radiation as though they were isolated in vacuum with a temperature of absolute zero. They assume that the anisotropic emission heavily prefers emission from a cooler gas molecule to the warmer surface of the Earth, rather than to a much colder space. In reality, the thermal radiation power absorbed by the infrared-active gases called greenhouse gases is emitted anisotropically, but such that it flows to colder bodies or to cold space.
The real world cares whether the atmosphere is absorbing 29% or 90% of the Earth's thermal radiation. Indeed, those who make infrared sensing devices care also. If the atmosphere really did absorb 90% of radiation emitted by bodies at a temperature of 288 K, then it would be much harder to make and use infrared sensors for imaging and for temperature measurements. Fortunately, the 8 to 14 micrometer wavelength portion of the infrared spectrum is much more than 10% of the emission spectrum for black bodies with temperatures near 288 K all by itself. This part of the spectrum lies in one of the atmospheric windows in which water vapor and carbon dioxide absorb almost nothing. See my recent post on how infrared thermometers use this portion of the infrared spectrum to measure temperatures of gray body thermal emitters and how the atmosphere is no gray body. It is very clear from the arguments made there that the claim that the atmosphere absorbs 90% of the Earth's thermal radiation at 288 K is nonsense. It is the 29% absorption value that makes sense.
The settled science behind Climate Change is full of inconsistencies and violations of science of such a simply understood nature that it is a farce. Catastrophic man-made global warming is based in a religion and politics, not in science. This is why its alarmist proponents get so upset when someone, especially a scientist, does not share their unquestioning faith. Faith is everything for this belief.
Here is a graphic from a NASA web page:
Note that the surface is here emitting thermal radiation with an power equal to 17% of the solar insolation at the top of the atmosphere up into the atmosphere. Of that 17%, 5% is absorbed by the atmosphere on passage and 12% makes it through the atmosphere into space. Therefore 5/17 = 0.29 or 29% of the surface emitted longwave radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere. This warms the atmosphere and it retards the rate of radiative cooling of the surface. This is the very essence of the so-called greenhouse effect. That effect is a critical scientific issue and one that the so-called settled science claims to understand well as the basis of its call for drastic action to prevent catastrophic man-made global warming.
This being a well-understood phenomena of the settled science, we should expect NASA to be consistent in proclaiming that 29% of surface thermal radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere. Does NASA meet our expectations for consistency? See this NASA Earth Energy Budget from, believe it or not, the same page as the above graphic on atmospheric absorption:
Now the Earth's surface radiation has swollen by 100% to 117% and only 12% makes it out of the atmosphere into space. Now the atmosphere absorbs (117% - 12%) / 117% = 0.90 or 90% of the longwave infrared thermal radiation emitted by the Earth's surface. It is much easier to make a claim that man's emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere will have dire consequences when you can present a picture of 90% surface radiation absorption in the atmosphere than when you present it as 29% absorption. Note that the story for catastrophic man-made global warming is also made to seem more plausible because surface thermal radiation at 117% just overwhelms the rates of energy loss due to water evaporation at 25% and convection at 5%. If surface radiation is just 17%, then 25% + 5% = 30% is a lot more important. As I have pointed out in other postings, the loss of the majority the Earth's surface heat by non-radiative means is critically important in establishing a warm surface temperature.
So which is it? 29% or three times more at 90%? What is actually measured is the rate at which energy is transferred from the surface to the atmosphere and beyond. Note that in the Earth energy budget schematic, the back radiation from the atmosphere is claimed to be 100%. If you subtract that from the 117% that diagram says is emitted from the surface, you get a net surface emission of 17%. In this way, NASA believes the Earth Energy Budget diagram and the upper diagram of the atmospheric absorption are equivalent, but the lower diagram sure represents greenhouse effects as more important than does the upper diagram.
What is actually measured? When you make a measurement of the radiation from the surface from a given altitude, you only know the radiation power transferred from the surface to your measuring instrument. Suppose your measuring instrument is at the same temperature as the atmosphere at that altitude. It can then only measure the energy that can be exchanged between two bodies at the respective temperatures. In other words, the 5% of surface radiation absorbed by the atmosphere would be what your meter would read at the appropriate point in the atmosphere. If you move your meter outside the atmosphere into space and have it at the appropriate space temperature, then it can read the 12% level of radiation that escaped into space. What you really know is presumably what is in the upper diagram.
So how does NASA generate the lower diagram with the 117% surface thermal radiation and the 100% back radiation? It does so by means of the hypothesis that the atmosphere is a black body radiator, as is the surface. Both radiate energy exactly as they would if they were isolated black bodies surrounded only by space at a temperature of absolute zero. What is more, they suppose that any body (greenhouse gases mostly) in the atmosphere absorbing surface radiation re-emits it only toward the Earth's warmer surface, none of that is absorbed by other greenhouse gases, and all of it is incident upon the Earth's surface, which then absorbs 100% of that radiation. This is absolutely wrong. The exchange of thermal radiation energy occurs through the medium of an electric field and the flow of photons is only as required by the electric field gradient from the warmer to the cooler body. The 100% thermal radiation from the atmosphere to the Earth's surface is a figment of NASA's imagination.
In the NASA upper diagram of the atmosphere and the power held in it, the sum of that power is 23% + 25% + 5% + 5% = 58%. In the NASA Earth Energy Budget lower diagram, the atmosphere has an absorbed power of 23% + 5% + 25% + (117% - 12%) = 158%. Now it is a miracle that the atmosphere can hold more power than the sun is supplying as is claimed in the NASA Earth Energy Budget in the first place, but faith in the authority of the settled science requires us to believe this. The upper diagram, which is much closer to the actual measurements made, does not require us to violate the Conservation of Energy. Does this not prompt the rational observer to believe that the assumptions made to generate the NASA Earth Energy Budget are wrong?
The atmosphere on average is colder than the Earth's surface. In the upper schematic, the atmosphere radiates 59% of the solar insolation at the top of the atmosphere out into space. The atmosphere is warmer in general than is space so this is what we expect both thermodynamically and as a means to conserve energy. In the NASA Earth Energy Budget, the atmosphere radiates 100% power to the Earth's surface, which absorbs it all, and it only radiates a power of 59% into space. Consequently, the atmosphere is treated as a black body radiator that radiates with a total power of 159% in the NASA Earth Energy Budget schematic. This violates energy conservation. It implies that a molecular gas thermal radiator emits radiation anisotropically, which is contrary to their own statements and viewpoint that bodies emit thermal radiation as though they were isolated in vacuum with a temperature of absolute zero. They assume that the anisotropic emission heavily prefers emission from a cooler gas molecule to the warmer surface of the Earth, rather than to a much colder space. In reality, the thermal radiation power absorbed by the infrared-active gases called greenhouse gases is emitted anisotropically, but such that it flows to colder bodies or to cold space.
The real world cares whether the atmosphere is absorbing 29% or 90% of the Earth's thermal radiation. Indeed, those who make infrared sensing devices care also. If the atmosphere really did absorb 90% of radiation emitted by bodies at a temperature of 288 K, then it would be much harder to make and use infrared sensors for imaging and for temperature measurements. Fortunately, the 8 to 14 micrometer wavelength portion of the infrared spectrum is much more than 10% of the emission spectrum for black bodies with temperatures near 288 K all by itself. This part of the spectrum lies in one of the atmospheric windows in which water vapor and carbon dioxide absorb almost nothing. See my recent post on how infrared thermometers use this portion of the infrared spectrum to measure temperatures of gray body thermal emitters and how the atmosphere is no gray body. It is very clear from the arguments made there that the claim that the atmosphere absorbs 90% of the Earth's thermal radiation at 288 K is nonsense. It is the 29% absorption value that makes sense.
The settled science behind Climate Change is full of inconsistencies and violations of science of such a simply understood nature that it is a farce. Catastrophic man-made global warming is based in a religion and politics, not in science. This is why its alarmist proponents get so upset when someone, especially a scientist, does not share their unquestioning faith. Faith is everything for this belief.
07 June 2014
Our Mind-Closing Universities and Conformity
A short post by William Murchison entitled When Higher Ed Shuts the Door on Taxpayer's Right to Know discusses the increasing trend to secrecy on the part of university boards and presidential selection committees. Murchison says:
Private universities generally only need to satisfy their alumni, students, and faculty, despite raking in huge sums of research grants from the taxpayers. This is a less tough nut to crack, especially in the Ivy League and equivalent schools, where the alumni have long been very successfully indoctrinated in the Progressive Elitist viewpoint. These Ivy League schools are very assured that virtually all of their graduates are fully committed to Progressive Elitism, partly because they select for that in their admissions and partly because the on-campus commitment to this indoctrination has long been so thorough.
So how did I escape becoming a Progressive Elitist at Brown University? By never tiring of pitched debates with up to a dozen Progressive Elitists at a time. By never being intimated, because I was able to shake the very foundations of their belief, at least for a few hours. After which they would return as though the discussion never occurred, but with no better ideas than those ideas that had failed so miserably but hours earlier. Progressive Elitism is definitely a religion for almost all such persons and they refuse to allow that religion to be evaluated and assessed by reason. But being fully committed to reason, I at least was not susceptible to their religious conformity.
Just as most people in many communities become captured by their desire to belong to a particular dominant religion, whether Christian, Hindi, Islam, or Buddhism, so too do most people in a community dominated by the Progressive Elitist religion just have to be Progressive Elitists so they will belong. So while people are complex and highly differentiated individuals, most still have a great desire to conform so they will be accepted into a community of people. If this means denying reality, including their own natures, well then reality will generally be denied. The human suffering that results knows few bounds, which is why our culture has become more and more cheerless and more and more nihilistic.
Only a community committed to reality, reason, productivity, and individuality can achieve man's greatest needs of security, freely given and valued friendships, real cooperation in mutual endeavors and relationships, the freedom to pursue our highly differentiated values generally according to our individual natures, and hence the freedom to pursue our own happiness. Such a community is rich in its choices and possibilities.
Unfortunately, those people with already low self-esteem are fearful of that very richness of choices and possibilities. The less free a society becomes, the larger the number of people with such low self-esteem and the more fearful the society becomes of individuality, choices, and possibilities. Universities, far from opening young people's eyes to the joy of pursuing life in such a rich, reality-driven society, have long been indoctrinating them to choose a conforming, low-choice, hierarchically managed society that denies them their very individuality.
The Columbia Journalism Review scores the “increasingly closed-door culture” of university boards, such as Kent State University’s, which not only conducted a secret presidential search recently but “admitted to shredding documents to cover their tracks.” How about the boards of Wayne State University and the University of Michigan, which not only kept their searches secret but suppressed the names of the finalists until both were hired. Then they told the world!One can see that given the state of commitment to Progressive Elitism and to political correctness on college campuses that it must be very nearly impossible to conduct the managerial affairs of a public college in the open. If the board and selection committees maintain political correctness and promote Progressive Elitism as they are expected to by student activists and most faculty members, many taxpayers will be appalled to see what is going on. If the board and other college controlling committees do not do as expected by student activists and faculty, they are also in very hot water. Nay, boiling water surrounded by drooling cannibals on most campuses. Given the culture of the college campus today, such public institutions of Progressive Elitist indoctrination are in a dilemma in all but the most socialistic of states.
Private universities generally only need to satisfy their alumni, students, and faculty, despite raking in huge sums of research grants from the taxpayers. This is a less tough nut to crack, especially in the Ivy League and equivalent schools, where the alumni have long been very successfully indoctrinated in the Progressive Elitist viewpoint. These Ivy League schools are very assured that virtually all of their graduates are fully committed to Progressive Elitism, partly because they select for that in their admissions and partly because the on-campus commitment to this indoctrination has long been so thorough.
So how did I escape becoming a Progressive Elitist at Brown University? By never tiring of pitched debates with up to a dozen Progressive Elitists at a time. By never being intimated, because I was able to shake the very foundations of their belief, at least for a few hours. After which they would return as though the discussion never occurred, but with no better ideas than those ideas that had failed so miserably but hours earlier. Progressive Elitism is definitely a religion for almost all such persons and they refuse to allow that religion to be evaluated and assessed by reason. But being fully committed to reason, I at least was not susceptible to their religious conformity.
Just as most people in many communities become captured by their desire to belong to a particular dominant religion, whether Christian, Hindi, Islam, or Buddhism, so too do most people in a community dominated by the Progressive Elitist religion just have to be Progressive Elitists so they will belong. So while people are complex and highly differentiated individuals, most still have a great desire to conform so they will be accepted into a community of people. If this means denying reality, including their own natures, well then reality will generally be denied. The human suffering that results knows few bounds, which is why our culture has become more and more cheerless and more and more nihilistic.
Only a community committed to reality, reason, productivity, and individuality can achieve man's greatest needs of security, freely given and valued friendships, real cooperation in mutual endeavors and relationships, the freedom to pursue our highly differentiated values generally according to our individual natures, and hence the freedom to pursue our own happiness. Such a community is rich in its choices and possibilities.
Unfortunately, those people with already low self-esteem are fearful of that very richness of choices and possibilities. The less free a society becomes, the larger the number of people with such low self-esteem and the more fearful the society becomes of individuality, choices, and possibilities. Universities, far from opening young people's eyes to the joy of pursuing life in such a rich, reality-driven society, have long been indoctrinating them to choose a conforming, low-choice, hierarchically managed society that denies them their very individuality.
22 December 2013
Harris Poll of Some American Beliefs
A Harris Interactive poll of 2,250 American adults conducted in November 2013 found the following:
- 74% believe in God, down from 82% in 2005, 2007, and 2009. This is a decrease of 2% per year since 2009.
- 83% of those 68 or older believe in God, but only 64% of those between the ages of 18 and 36 do.
- 6% of those who believe in God are neither absolutely nor somewhat certain.
- 59% are either very religious or somewhat religious, which is down from 70% in 2007. Religiosity is falling at a rate of nearly 2% a year.
- 23% are not at all religious, up from 12% in 2007, which is increasing at a rate of nearly 2% a year.
- 47% believe in Darwinian evolution (up from 42% in 2005), while 36% believe in creationism.
- 42% believe in ghosts, 36% in UFOs, and 29% in astrology.
04 November 2013
The Critical Factor in American Politics: Who Owns Your Body and Mind?
The critical question whose answer determines the balance of power in American politics today is: Who owns your body and mind?
There are three answers to this question which are given by significant numbers of Americans. They are:
1) I own my own body and mind.
2) God owns my body and mind.
3) The collective, effectively the government, owns my body and mind.
The idea that an individual owned their own body and mind was essentially a cornerstone idea of the Enlightenment and one which played a critical role in the thinking of the minds of the Founders of the United States of America and the Framers of the Constitution. The purpose of government was to protect the individual rights of the people. Only if an individual owned their own mind and body did such an idea make sense. Only then could a person have a sovereign right to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of his own happiness.
Yes, some of them thought that God also owned their minds and bodies, but that even then an individual had a right to acknowledge that or to deny that ownership. The individual, in their minds, could either freely give themselves to God or they could sin. They believed in free will.
Some who believed that God owned their minds and bodies believed the state must help God assert this ownership. Many a nation had established a religion and was all too committed to using government power to force others to make value choices these people believed God wanted them to make. In America, the early Pilgrims were such an example. Later many Calvinists in New England had similar ideas. The colony of Virginia had an established religion, The Church of England, which was funded by the colonial government. In addition to establishing churches, the colonies frequently codified many of their religious beliefs into laws. By the time of the American Revolution and in the decade that followed, many of the thinking Americans came to the conclusion that government should not play this role of trying to force people to act within the confines of religious beliefs. The need for a broader freedom of conscience was becoming widely recognized by thinking Americans.
The idea that the collective owned one's mind and body has been around probably as long as people have associated in bands or tribes. Medieval European city and nation states used this idea to build hierarchical societies in which the serf served the local aristocratic lord and that lord served the King. The King pretended to serve God, built and protected the state, and pretended to be the caretaker for the poor, dumb serfs. The serfs were to devote their lives to the nation, the King, and God.
The socialists extended this ancient idea to the state alone with no particular pretense that they depended upon God's authority to take control of the masses of the people. As socialists became more and more common, thanks largely to government controlled education, the demands of the state based on collectivist ownership increased. The Prussian government began such an expansion of the state based on socialist ideas of collective ownership of the people's minds and bodies. It provided schools, medical care, and retirement benefits to the people in exchange for fairly complete control of their lives. The Marxists advanced their version of such claims, as did the fascists and the National Socialist German Workers Party. The Progressives in America borrowed the idea of the socialist government-run state schools, heavy regulation of productive labor, control of medical care and retirement benefits, and have created their own socialist variant.
As I have noted many times, ObamaCare is based on the assertion that the collective owns every individual's body and mind. There can be no other basis for a governmental demand that each American must care for the maintenance of his or her mind and body in accordance with rules established by the government. The government is claiming the right to have its property maintained. It is telling Americans what medical care they must pay for coverage on in their insurance whether any particular individual has any need for that coverage or not. The government is doing this very explicitly on a collectivist basis. Someone needs that coverage and therefore every individual will pay for it. This requirement is so important to the government that ObamaCare will actually cause many millions of individuals to lose the insurance they have and were happy with. After all, there is nothing so important to the socialist as the principle of collective ownership and its assertion. This is not actually being done for the sake of the welfare of each American individual. No, it is being done to create a strengthened mandate that every individual's mind and body belongs to the government.
Of course this idea was asserted already in many other laws. For instance, Progressive governments have long asserted that almost any activity that earns income or salary comes under its powers of regulation, control, and taxation. American governments also believe they have the right to dictate minimum wages, which means they assert that they have the right to prevent individuals from earning a living at all. Progressive governments have long levied taxes on an individual's pay from their own labor. These are very blatant claims that an individual's labor belongs to the government. Now what is your labor but one of the most critical ways you use your mind and body to support and maintain your own life. Yet, these same governments pretend they are not violating anyone's right to life. Controlling and taxing your labor is effectively a claim of ownership of your mind and body.
The balance of power in America today is the result of a two-party system in which one party, the Democratic Party, is wholly of the belief that every individual's mind and body belongs to the collective, or effectively to the government. The other party, the Republican party, is more disparate in its parts. It is composed of three major factions, which either hold that:
1) An individual's body is only self-owned.
2) One nominally owns one's own body and mind, but ought to give them to God of one's free will.
3) God owns everyone's body and mind, but God is too weak or lazy to force everyone Himself to obey his will and acknowledge his ownership, so the government must perform this task of forcing obedience for Him.
As far as the use of government power through its monopoly on the use of force is concerned, there is little friction and little difference between Factions 1 and 2. The consequences on the use of force by government of Faction 3, however, are profound. The most critical and common issues affected are government policies with respect to sex and procreation. The portions of our society most directly affected are women and those who are lesbians, gay, bisexual, or transgender. Many American women and LGBTs find the use of force by Faction 3 of the Republican Party to be extremely threatening. More often than not, these groups find this threat more frightening than the broader and more equally applied, by gender and sexuality at least, threats to self-ownership of the Democratic Party.
I am fully in agreement that the use of government by Faction 3 for its purposes is highly immoral and highly irrational. It is threatening. But, I see the claim of collective ownership by the Democrat Party as even worse.
First, the collectivist agenda of the Progressives, in full control of the Democratic Party, has been very successful in getting the government to control our daily lives in many ways. It dictates what values we are free to pursue and it takes many hours of our time and effort from each of us by force. The amount of our labor it commands has steadily increased, but for secondary fluctuations such as major wars.
Second, more and more Americans, especially younger Americans, find the claims of Faction 3 to be wrongheaded, even as many of them embrace the idea of collective ownership of our minds and bodies. Faction 3 has poor prospects of controlling the government to do its will on a national level, because many Republicans oppose them, as do all of the Democrats. Only a very few states are so dominated by Faction 3 that there is a practical likelihood of their enacting their program. At the national level, even when the Republicans controlled the House, the Senate, and the presidency, this faction was never able to accomplish much of anything toward their agenda.
Third, the range of those aspects of human life claimed as the purview of government control by force is much larger on the part of the Progressive collectivist agenda of Democrat Party. It applies to everyone and to almost anything we do. It is without any real boundaries at all.
Most Americans say they want smaller government, yet the dominion of government keeps growing. The Republican Party is clearly the party of at least less massive government, though it is not really the party of smaller government as it ought to be. Yet most Americans favor the Democratic Party in Generic Congressional Polls. The reason is primarily due to the fear of many women and almost all LGBTs of the agenda of Faction 3 of the Republican Party. If this agenda were to be put into effect, that fear would be well-justified, but it has almost no chance of being put into effect. Yet because so many women and LGBTs vote for the Democratic Party out of this exaggerated fear, the less massive Republican Party is unable to attain enough offices to prevent the Progressive collectivist attack upon our individual rights which has been very successful in many ways.
At this time, the biggest issue of government is the repeal of ObamaCare with its takeover of 16 to 18% of the US economy, its many harmful effects on medical care and its cost to individuals, and its blatant claim of government ownership of our bodies and minds. Most Americans recognize that ObamaCare is a massively troublesome program, even if most underestimate its harms. Yet, we have seen anti-ObamaCare candidates for the Senate defeated by Democrat collectivists who favored ObamaCare and the rest of the Progressive collectivist agenda because women, young people, and LGBTs found the ideas of Faction 3 Republicans abhorrent. And even though Ken Cuccinelli, a Republican candidate for Governor in Virginia, has vowed that he will not try as Governor to implement his previous Faction 3 agenda as required by his support from the Tea Party, he is likely to lose that election to a highly corrupt collectivist, Terry McAuliffe.
There are many who believe that the Tea Party is a movement of Faction 3 Republican types. It is not so. It is primarily people more aligned with Factions 1 and 2. There are also a few Faction 3 types who have agreed that the threat of the Progressive collectivist agenda has become so great in America that they will give up trying to codify their religious beliefs in the law at least until the collectivist threat is defeated. Ken Cuccinelli is a man who has made this pledge. He has fought ObamaCare with more determination and effect than almost any politician. He is strong in his support that we each own our own labor and should be free to cooperate with others to our mutual benefit in the private sector. He understands that government should be smaller. It should be dictating fewer of our values to us and less involved in our lives. He is a strong Tea Party promoter and candidate who has agreed to live by the rules of the Tea Party to leave his religious beliefs in the private sector and not use the force of government to promote them.
It is a serious mistake to allow the Progressive collectivist Terry McAuliffe to become governor of Virginia. His strong support of ObamaCare and all things collectivist will do serious harm to the people of the state of Virginia. If you value your rights and you are voting in this election, it is a serious mistake to vote for McAuliffe or even to vote for the Libertarian candidate. The Democrat will bring nothing but evil accomplices into the state government, while Ken Cuccinelli will bring in many Faction 1 and Faction 2 Republicans instead. This will be very good for the people of the state of Virginia.
There are three answers to this question which are given by significant numbers of Americans. They are:
1) I own my own body and mind.
2) God owns my body and mind.
3) The collective, effectively the government, owns my body and mind.
The idea that an individual owned their own body and mind was essentially a cornerstone idea of the Enlightenment and one which played a critical role in the thinking of the minds of the Founders of the United States of America and the Framers of the Constitution. The purpose of government was to protect the individual rights of the people. Only if an individual owned their own mind and body did such an idea make sense. Only then could a person have a sovereign right to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of his own happiness.
Yes, some of them thought that God also owned their minds and bodies, but that even then an individual had a right to acknowledge that or to deny that ownership. The individual, in their minds, could either freely give themselves to God or they could sin. They believed in free will.
Some who believed that God owned their minds and bodies believed the state must help God assert this ownership. Many a nation had established a religion and was all too committed to using government power to force others to make value choices these people believed God wanted them to make. In America, the early Pilgrims were such an example. Later many Calvinists in New England had similar ideas. The colony of Virginia had an established religion, The Church of England, which was funded by the colonial government. In addition to establishing churches, the colonies frequently codified many of their religious beliefs into laws. By the time of the American Revolution and in the decade that followed, many of the thinking Americans came to the conclusion that government should not play this role of trying to force people to act within the confines of religious beliefs. The need for a broader freedom of conscience was becoming widely recognized by thinking Americans.
The idea that the collective owned one's mind and body has been around probably as long as people have associated in bands or tribes. Medieval European city and nation states used this idea to build hierarchical societies in which the serf served the local aristocratic lord and that lord served the King. The King pretended to serve God, built and protected the state, and pretended to be the caretaker for the poor, dumb serfs. The serfs were to devote their lives to the nation, the King, and God.
The socialists extended this ancient idea to the state alone with no particular pretense that they depended upon God's authority to take control of the masses of the people. As socialists became more and more common, thanks largely to government controlled education, the demands of the state based on collectivist ownership increased. The Prussian government began such an expansion of the state based on socialist ideas of collective ownership of the people's minds and bodies. It provided schools, medical care, and retirement benefits to the people in exchange for fairly complete control of their lives. The Marxists advanced their version of such claims, as did the fascists and the National Socialist German Workers Party. The Progressives in America borrowed the idea of the socialist government-run state schools, heavy regulation of productive labor, control of medical care and retirement benefits, and have created their own socialist variant.
As I have noted many times, ObamaCare is based on the assertion that the collective owns every individual's body and mind. There can be no other basis for a governmental demand that each American must care for the maintenance of his or her mind and body in accordance with rules established by the government. The government is claiming the right to have its property maintained. It is telling Americans what medical care they must pay for coverage on in their insurance whether any particular individual has any need for that coverage or not. The government is doing this very explicitly on a collectivist basis. Someone needs that coverage and therefore every individual will pay for it. This requirement is so important to the government that ObamaCare will actually cause many millions of individuals to lose the insurance they have and were happy with. After all, there is nothing so important to the socialist as the principle of collective ownership and its assertion. This is not actually being done for the sake of the welfare of each American individual. No, it is being done to create a strengthened mandate that every individual's mind and body belongs to the government.
Of course this idea was asserted already in many other laws. For instance, Progressive governments have long asserted that almost any activity that earns income or salary comes under its powers of regulation, control, and taxation. American governments also believe they have the right to dictate minimum wages, which means they assert that they have the right to prevent individuals from earning a living at all. Progressive governments have long levied taxes on an individual's pay from their own labor. These are very blatant claims that an individual's labor belongs to the government. Now what is your labor but one of the most critical ways you use your mind and body to support and maintain your own life. Yet, these same governments pretend they are not violating anyone's right to life. Controlling and taxing your labor is effectively a claim of ownership of your mind and body.
The balance of power in America today is the result of a two-party system in which one party, the Democratic Party, is wholly of the belief that every individual's mind and body belongs to the collective, or effectively to the government. The other party, the Republican party, is more disparate in its parts. It is composed of three major factions, which either hold that:
1) An individual's body is only self-owned.
2) One nominally owns one's own body and mind, but ought to give them to God of one's free will.
3) God owns everyone's body and mind, but God is too weak or lazy to force everyone Himself to obey his will and acknowledge his ownership, so the government must perform this task of forcing obedience for Him.
As far as the use of government power through its monopoly on the use of force is concerned, there is little friction and little difference between Factions 1 and 2. The consequences on the use of force by government of Faction 3, however, are profound. The most critical and common issues affected are government policies with respect to sex and procreation. The portions of our society most directly affected are women and those who are lesbians, gay, bisexual, or transgender. Many American women and LGBTs find the use of force by Faction 3 of the Republican Party to be extremely threatening. More often than not, these groups find this threat more frightening than the broader and more equally applied, by gender and sexuality at least, threats to self-ownership of the Democratic Party.
I am fully in agreement that the use of government by Faction 3 for its purposes is highly immoral and highly irrational. It is threatening. But, I see the claim of collective ownership by the Democrat Party as even worse.
First, the collectivist agenda of the Progressives, in full control of the Democratic Party, has been very successful in getting the government to control our daily lives in many ways. It dictates what values we are free to pursue and it takes many hours of our time and effort from each of us by force. The amount of our labor it commands has steadily increased, but for secondary fluctuations such as major wars.
Second, more and more Americans, especially younger Americans, find the claims of Faction 3 to be wrongheaded, even as many of them embrace the idea of collective ownership of our minds and bodies. Faction 3 has poor prospects of controlling the government to do its will on a national level, because many Republicans oppose them, as do all of the Democrats. Only a very few states are so dominated by Faction 3 that there is a practical likelihood of their enacting their program. At the national level, even when the Republicans controlled the House, the Senate, and the presidency, this faction was never able to accomplish much of anything toward their agenda.
Third, the range of those aspects of human life claimed as the purview of government control by force is much larger on the part of the Progressive collectivist agenda of Democrat Party. It applies to everyone and to almost anything we do. It is without any real boundaries at all.
Most Americans say they want smaller government, yet the dominion of government keeps growing. The Republican Party is clearly the party of at least less massive government, though it is not really the party of smaller government as it ought to be. Yet most Americans favor the Democratic Party in Generic Congressional Polls. The reason is primarily due to the fear of many women and almost all LGBTs of the agenda of Faction 3 of the Republican Party. If this agenda were to be put into effect, that fear would be well-justified, but it has almost no chance of being put into effect. Yet because so many women and LGBTs vote for the Democratic Party out of this exaggerated fear, the less massive Republican Party is unable to attain enough offices to prevent the Progressive collectivist attack upon our individual rights which has been very successful in many ways.
At this time, the biggest issue of government is the repeal of ObamaCare with its takeover of 16 to 18% of the US economy, its many harmful effects on medical care and its cost to individuals, and its blatant claim of government ownership of our bodies and minds. Most Americans recognize that ObamaCare is a massively troublesome program, even if most underestimate its harms. Yet, we have seen anti-ObamaCare candidates for the Senate defeated by Democrat collectivists who favored ObamaCare and the rest of the Progressive collectivist agenda because women, young people, and LGBTs found the ideas of Faction 3 Republicans abhorrent. And even though Ken Cuccinelli, a Republican candidate for Governor in Virginia, has vowed that he will not try as Governor to implement his previous Faction 3 agenda as required by his support from the Tea Party, he is likely to lose that election to a highly corrupt collectivist, Terry McAuliffe.
There are many who believe that the Tea Party is a movement of Faction 3 Republican types. It is not so. It is primarily people more aligned with Factions 1 and 2. There are also a few Faction 3 types who have agreed that the threat of the Progressive collectivist agenda has become so great in America that they will give up trying to codify their religious beliefs in the law at least until the collectivist threat is defeated. Ken Cuccinelli is a man who has made this pledge. He has fought ObamaCare with more determination and effect than almost any politician. He is strong in his support that we each own our own labor and should be free to cooperate with others to our mutual benefit in the private sector. He understands that government should be smaller. It should be dictating fewer of our values to us and less involved in our lives. He is a strong Tea Party promoter and candidate who has agreed to live by the rules of the Tea Party to leave his religious beliefs in the private sector and not use the force of government to promote them.
It is a serious mistake to allow the Progressive collectivist Terry McAuliffe to become governor of Virginia. His strong support of ObamaCare and all things collectivist will do serious harm to the people of the state of Virginia. If you value your rights and you are voting in this election, it is a serious mistake to vote for McAuliffe or even to vote for the Libertarian candidate. The Democrat will bring nothing but evil accomplices into the state government, while Ken Cuccinelli will bring in many Faction 1 and Faction 2 Republicans instead. This will be very good for the people of the state of Virginia.
28 September 2012
Obama: The American Government Respects All Religions
In his United Nations speech a few days ago, Obama said that the American government respected all religions. Apparently, Obama has had a team of moral, theological, and epistemological experts evaluating the many religions in the world and they have decided that all of these religions are worthy of respect. Or has he had this evaluation made? Perhaps the only evaluation made was his own. If he has had it made, under what power granted to the government under the Constitution did he have this evaluation made?
Was this issue put before the American people for a vote? NO. But if it had been put up for a vote and the majority had confirmed that it was their opinion that every religion was worthy of respect, what could be the result? Government decrees that therefore every American shall respect every religion will surely not result in every American actually respecting every religion. The only acts the government might take to enforce such a decree would be to suppress our freedoms of speech and press as protected in the First Amendment to the Constitution and to ignore all murders and other acts of violence or threats of violence issued in the name of a religion by whoever claimed religious freedom protection.
Obama's statement is nonsense, of course. First, it is not at all true that every religion is worthy of respect. I would argue that none are actually worthy of respect. Many others believe their own is worthy of respect, but none or few others are. Even very generous individuals toward the claims of the benefits of religion are likely to see some religions, which can be very inimical to living humans on Earth, as unworthy of respect. In my own opinion, Islam is one religion with particularly few redeeming qualities and there are still worse religions out there.
No, the American government does not respect all religions. What it does do is allow individual freedom of conscience, to include religious freedom. To allow individuals their freedoms and their right to exercise the judgments of their own mind and conscience is not to actually approve of or respect their judgments.
It is critical to understand this. If we do not understand it, then when we judge someone else' judgment to be bad, we have a tendency to want to interfere with their freedom to act on their judgment. For instance, Mayor Bloomberg does not approve of super-sized soda drinks and wants them outlawed. By right, he is free to be of the opinion that super-sized sodas are bad, but what he does not have the right to do is to outlaw them. While the super-sized soda issue is obvious to many Americans, we do as a democratic mass of voters have a tendency toward outlawing many actions we do not like, simply because we would not do them personally or because we are ashamed that we do them. Sometimes we outlaw acts which if done by most people might cause some problems, but which are actually done by few and cause no real problems at all. For instance, it would harm the Republic if everyone became a physicist and therefore no one became a farmer. Strangely, we never worry that everyone will become a physicist, but we do apparently worry that everyone will become gay.
Laws and the actions of government generally need to be based upon sound principles of governance, not just any conforming interests of a large bloc of voters. The one legitimate function of government, as rightly stated in our Declaration of Independence, is the protection of individual rights. When the American government announces that it respects all religions, it is violating the rights of Americans to decide for themselves what they think of religions. There is no way in which the pronouncement that the American government respects all religions is a requirement of its protection of individual religious freedom. Indeed, it is actually a violation of our religious freedom, which includes our being personally free to accept or reject whatever religious notions we want. Our government should have no opinion of the various religions, except insofar as it must to protect the right-based freedoms of individuals.
What then does constitute a case in which the American government must form an opinion about a religion? When people acting upon a religious idea initiate the use of force upon others and prevent others from exercising their sovereign individual rights, then legitimate government has to step in and provide the protection of individual rights which it is its function to do. The only protected religious beliefs are those which do not result in followers using force to violate the rights of others. Freedom of conscience is a most fundamental and critical right. Government should take action against a religious group or a religion only when their violations of the rights of others are well-demonstrated and clearly cause substantial harm. Yet, there are cases when government in proper fulfillment of its function must act against a religion or some subset of its adherents.
One major religion in recent times has had many believers who assert a right in the name of Allah to use force to strip non-believers of many of their individual rights. I do not believe that every or even most believers in Islam should be treated as violators of the rights of others, but it is very clear that numerous believers in Islam are such rights violators. Some are strong proponents even of death to non-believers.
This is a fact which the American government must recognize if it is to fulfill its legitimate function as the protector of the individual rights of Americans. While it is not the case that the American government should disrespect Islam, it is the case that it should disrespect those branches of Islam and those groups within it who advocate the use of force to restrict and violate the rights of non-believers. It is interesting that the non-believers whose rights are most commonly violated are people who themselves believe they are believers in Islam. There are branches of Islam which are not worthy of respect from this limited perspective of legitimate government.
So, in summary, the American government does not have the power to make a judgment that all religions are worthy of respect. The judgment that all religions are worthy of respect is itself ludicrous. If it made such a judgment, it would not be able to carry out its legitimate function of protecting the rights of Americans. In fact, it would be violating the very freedom of conscience, of which religious freedom is a subset, which it must protect. Such a judgment belongs only to individuals, not to our government. But, as usually is the case, Obama believes we must all have a collective judgment and that judgment will be rendered by big government, preferably with the Great Socialist Leader making the call.
It is apparently not a long-standing principle of the Democrat Party that all religions are respected. Under the previous Democrat President, Bill Clinton, many Americans believed that the religious freedom of the Branch Davidians was violated. I wonder what Obama had to say about that back then or whether he is now prepared to criticize Bill Clinton for the massacre at Waco. Or, we might examine Obama's claim in light of his lack of respect for normal religious freedom when a Catholic-owned company or institution other than a church deems it a violation of their beliefs when they are forced to provide health insurance to employees that covers the cost of birth control or abortions. Apparently, Obama just thinks it sounds rhetorically good to be claiming to respect all religions.
Was this issue put before the American people for a vote? NO. But if it had been put up for a vote and the majority had confirmed that it was their opinion that every religion was worthy of respect, what could be the result? Government decrees that therefore every American shall respect every religion will surely not result in every American actually respecting every religion. The only acts the government might take to enforce such a decree would be to suppress our freedoms of speech and press as protected in the First Amendment to the Constitution and to ignore all murders and other acts of violence or threats of violence issued in the name of a religion by whoever claimed religious freedom protection.
Obama's statement is nonsense, of course. First, it is not at all true that every religion is worthy of respect. I would argue that none are actually worthy of respect. Many others believe their own is worthy of respect, but none or few others are. Even very generous individuals toward the claims of the benefits of religion are likely to see some religions, which can be very inimical to living humans on Earth, as unworthy of respect. In my own opinion, Islam is one religion with particularly few redeeming qualities and there are still worse religions out there.
No, the American government does not respect all religions. What it does do is allow individual freedom of conscience, to include religious freedom. To allow individuals their freedoms and their right to exercise the judgments of their own mind and conscience is not to actually approve of or respect their judgments.
It is critical to understand this. If we do not understand it, then when we judge someone else' judgment to be bad, we have a tendency to want to interfere with their freedom to act on their judgment. For instance, Mayor Bloomberg does not approve of super-sized soda drinks and wants them outlawed. By right, he is free to be of the opinion that super-sized sodas are bad, but what he does not have the right to do is to outlaw them. While the super-sized soda issue is obvious to many Americans, we do as a democratic mass of voters have a tendency toward outlawing many actions we do not like, simply because we would not do them personally or because we are ashamed that we do them. Sometimes we outlaw acts which if done by most people might cause some problems, but which are actually done by few and cause no real problems at all. For instance, it would harm the Republic if everyone became a physicist and therefore no one became a farmer. Strangely, we never worry that everyone will become a physicist, but we do apparently worry that everyone will become gay.
Laws and the actions of government generally need to be based upon sound principles of governance, not just any conforming interests of a large bloc of voters. The one legitimate function of government, as rightly stated in our Declaration of Independence, is the protection of individual rights. When the American government announces that it respects all religions, it is violating the rights of Americans to decide for themselves what they think of religions. There is no way in which the pronouncement that the American government respects all religions is a requirement of its protection of individual religious freedom. Indeed, it is actually a violation of our religious freedom, which includes our being personally free to accept or reject whatever religious notions we want. Our government should have no opinion of the various religions, except insofar as it must to protect the right-based freedoms of individuals.
What then does constitute a case in which the American government must form an opinion about a religion? When people acting upon a religious idea initiate the use of force upon others and prevent others from exercising their sovereign individual rights, then legitimate government has to step in and provide the protection of individual rights which it is its function to do. The only protected religious beliefs are those which do not result in followers using force to violate the rights of others. Freedom of conscience is a most fundamental and critical right. Government should take action against a religious group or a religion only when their violations of the rights of others are well-demonstrated and clearly cause substantial harm. Yet, there are cases when government in proper fulfillment of its function must act against a religion or some subset of its adherents.
One major religion in recent times has had many believers who assert a right in the name of Allah to use force to strip non-believers of many of their individual rights. I do not believe that every or even most believers in Islam should be treated as violators of the rights of others, but it is very clear that numerous believers in Islam are such rights violators. Some are strong proponents even of death to non-believers.
This is a fact which the American government must recognize if it is to fulfill its legitimate function as the protector of the individual rights of Americans. While it is not the case that the American government should disrespect Islam, it is the case that it should disrespect those branches of Islam and those groups within it who advocate the use of force to restrict and violate the rights of non-believers. It is interesting that the non-believers whose rights are most commonly violated are people who themselves believe they are believers in Islam. There are branches of Islam which are not worthy of respect from this limited perspective of legitimate government.
So, in summary, the American government does not have the power to make a judgment that all religions are worthy of respect. The judgment that all religions are worthy of respect is itself ludicrous. If it made such a judgment, it would not be able to carry out its legitimate function of protecting the rights of Americans. In fact, it would be violating the very freedom of conscience, of which religious freedom is a subset, which it must protect. Such a judgment belongs only to individuals, not to our government. But, as usually is the case, Obama believes we must all have a collective judgment and that judgment will be rendered by big government, preferably with the Great Socialist Leader making the call.
It is apparently not a long-standing principle of the Democrat Party that all religions are respected. Under the previous Democrat President, Bill Clinton, many Americans believed that the religious freedom of the Branch Davidians was violated. I wonder what Obama had to say about that back then or whether he is now prepared to criticize Bill Clinton for the massacre at Waco. Or, we might examine Obama's claim in light of his lack of respect for normal religious freedom when a Catholic-owned company or institution other than a church deems it a violation of their beliefs when they are forced to provide health insurance to employees that covers the cost of birth control or abortions. Apparently, Obama just thinks it sounds rhetorically good to be claiming to respect all religions.
19 June 2009
Erecting a Ladder
Last Saturday, I helped a friend remove a large branch which had fallen on her roof in a storm earlier in the week. She had borrowed an extension ladder from a neighbor who had stored it in his yard. The rope for raising the extension had rotted away and the springs which would cause the latches to lock in place on each rung as they came into alignment with it had rusted away. We wanted to put the ladder against a particular edge of the roof over a room which made a right angle with the main part of the house from the deck. The deck was edged with a somewhat high rail and two sets of parallel wires ran outward perpendicular to the main part of the house. We needed to erect the ladder amidst all of these obstacles and then extend it to a safe height.
When we finally maneuvered the ladder into the upright position after a couple of false starts, she asked me how many Ph.D.s does it take to put a ladder up. I laughed. She has a Ph.D. in Materials Science and Engineering. We then had to use a stool to raise and lock the ladder a couple of rungs higher than we could reach from the deck. This was still not a safe height, so we brought a 5-foot ladder up from her basement and raised the extension ladder another two rungs and locked it. We took note that most any tradesman in the roofing business or tree-trimming business would have been equipped with a proper ladder and would have gotten it erect more efficiently than we had. Most American workers are fairly competent at what they do for a living.
But, I also reflected on an issue I have often thought about over the years. While I sometimes, well maybe frequently, am frustrated that most Americans give little thought to what I believe is the most essential issue of our time, and probably of most any time, namely the ever on-going fight for the rights of the individual, this does not mean that I have a low opinion of most people's ability to manage their own lives. The socialist elitists who want the government to make almost all decisions for the people, believe this is necessary because they actually do hold most people in contempt. They really do believe most people are unable to intelligently manage their own lives. Yet, when you see how well most people do their jobs, which is something most do care about and do put some real effort into doing, shouldn't you be able to understand that most people are also capable of generally managing their own lives? Besides, they showed that they could historical in the American wilderness, which we now are inclined to forget.
Now it is interesting to examine who is most likely to be an elitist who believes that others cannot manage their own lives. One such group is college and university faculty. Another is the teachers of the public school systems. Another is politicians and government employees. Lawyers and accountants are special interest groups looking for a validation for expanded government mandating the extensive use of their services. Another yet is women.
College professors have often become professors because they have a low regard for people who enter the free market and are willing to trade their productive work products with others using money as a medium to facilitate these exchanges. Professors are quick to heap scorn on these "money grubbers", losing sight entirely of the fact that money is the means to making voluntary exchanges much easier to arrange. They believe they deal in the realm of ideas, while others are simply materialists. This is a terrible oversimplification. Yes, there are many people in business who are very motivated by a desire to acquire money. But, then there are many in academia who are very desirous of prestige and the power to influence government to use force to make all of the people live by the values dictated by the professors. This is not a superior motivation. Power has served as the motivation of many a brute going back in human history to times long before money was even invented as a facilitor of trade. Few of these professors live like monks either, since most are fairly well paid. These same professors who decry the materialism of the businessman, analyze every difference of worldly goods that exists among Americans and people generally in the world and claim that all variations from equality are clear signs of injustice. They ignore the choices the people involved have made, the differences in dedication to learning and to hard work, the differences in intelligence, those of place, those due to partitioning the use of their time differently, choices of occupations based on factors other than remuneration, and those due to better or worse governments. They protest against materialism, but then they use almost entirely materialistic equality as the measure of social justice.
The teachers of the public school systems are to a degree the guardians of the children who study under their direction. To some degree, the teachers extend this accustomed mode of thinking as guardians into their relationship with the rest of society. Disproportionate numbers of the public teacher ranks are also women, who will also have maternal instincts in many cases for the care of others. The children they deal with are not yet mature adults and are not generally ready to fully manage their lives. The way the public schools work, they are not particularly encouraged or helped toward taking on the responsibilities of a self-managed individual. They are not even much encouraged to view themselves as individuals. Then, as though this is not enough to understand why teachers have a strong tendency to favor governmental nanny states, they are public employees who do benefit from transfers of wealth from the private sector to the government sector. Teachers are also union members. Teachers see their interests almost uniformly then as being tied to ever-growing governments.
Politicians and government employees are constantly looking for reasons to justify their positions and to increase their powers and budgets. This is clearly done effectively whenever they can convince the voters that many of the people are dumb sheep and need them as sheepherders. The lawyers find massive employment and income from the huge number of overly complex government laws and regulations. They play a disproportionate role in drafting the legislation that produces this end result. They work especially hard as a special interest group in control of the actual levers of government. They also enjoy the court system, which they principally control. That system's many delays, strange trial logic, and by and large, the choice of judges is all determined by lawyers. Accountants are more and more massive beneficiaries of our overly complex government taxation and regulatory requirements. Companies and individuals are forced more and more to pay accountants for help in producing the mountains of government-required paperwork on income, expenditures, employment, and taxes.
Finally, there is the predominant role of women in the socialist Democrat Party. This is the party of feminism and anti-masculinity. This is the party of those elitists who view themselves as the caregivers for the many adult children who do exist and the many more who are imagined to exist. As women have long been particularly prone to the appeal of the traditional religions, so too are they prone to a religious approach and zeal for socialism, equality of material results, the politics of envy and class warfare, the politics of group identity, anti-man environmentalism, and anti-business attitudes. They have a tendency to feel uncomfortable unless they are enveloped within a group. Male individuality, analytical thinking, and self-confidence are often offensive to them. Women are less than comfortable in the analytical thought required to gain mastery over science, technology, and economics than are men. It is not difficult to understand why the Democrat platform appeals to many of them. There are, of course, many women who are exceptions to these statements, but they are definitely a minority of women. There are also many men who are also susceptible to the Democrat platform, but for several decades, they have generally been a minority group among men.
I continue to believe strongly that most American men are capable of running their own lives with minimal interference from government. Despite the way they vote and the uncertainties that women seem to feel about having such an ability, I also believe most women are capable of managing their own lives, especially with the help of a decent man.
When we finally maneuvered the ladder into the upright position after a couple of false starts, she asked me how many Ph.D.s does it take to put a ladder up. I laughed. She has a Ph.D. in Materials Science and Engineering. We then had to use a stool to raise and lock the ladder a couple of rungs higher than we could reach from the deck. This was still not a safe height, so we brought a 5-foot ladder up from her basement and raised the extension ladder another two rungs and locked it. We took note that most any tradesman in the roofing business or tree-trimming business would have been equipped with a proper ladder and would have gotten it erect more efficiently than we had. Most American workers are fairly competent at what they do for a living.
But, I also reflected on an issue I have often thought about over the years. While I sometimes, well maybe frequently, am frustrated that most Americans give little thought to what I believe is the most essential issue of our time, and probably of most any time, namely the ever on-going fight for the rights of the individual, this does not mean that I have a low opinion of most people's ability to manage their own lives. The socialist elitists who want the government to make almost all decisions for the people, believe this is necessary because they actually do hold most people in contempt. They really do believe most people are unable to intelligently manage their own lives. Yet, when you see how well most people do their jobs, which is something most do care about and do put some real effort into doing, shouldn't you be able to understand that most people are also capable of generally managing their own lives? Besides, they showed that they could historical in the American wilderness, which we now are inclined to forget.
Now it is interesting to examine who is most likely to be an elitist who believes that others cannot manage their own lives. One such group is college and university faculty. Another is the teachers of the public school systems. Another is politicians and government employees. Lawyers and accountants are special interest groups looking for a validation for expanded government mandating the extensive use of their services. Another yet is women.
College professors have often become professors because they have a low regard for people who enter the free market and are willing to trade their productive work products with others using money as a medium to facilitate these exchanges. Professors are quick to heap scorn on these "money grubbers", losing sight entirely of the fact that money is the means to making voluntary exchanges much easier to arrange. They believe they deal in the realm of ideas, while others are simply materialists. This is a terrible oversimplification. Yes, there are many people in business who are very motivated by a desire to acquire money. But, then there are many in academia who are very desirous of prestige and the power to influence government to use force to make all of the people live by the values dictated by the professors. This is not a superior motivation. Power has served as the motivation of many a brute going back in human history to times long before money was even invented as a facilitor of trade. Few of these professors live like monks either, since most are fairly well paid. These same professors who decry the materialism of the businessman, analyze every difference of worldly goods that exists among Americans and people generally in the world and claim that all variations from equality are clear signs of injustice. They ignore the choices the people involved have made, the differences in dedication to learning and to hard work, the differences in intelligence, those of place, those due to partitioning the use of their time differently, choices of occupations based on factors other than remuneration, and those due to better or worse governments. They protest against materialism, but then they use almost entirely materialistic equality as the measure of social justice.
The teachers of the public school systems are to a degree the guardians of the children who study under their direction. To some degree, the teachers extend this accustomed mode of thinking as guardians into their relationship with the rest of society. Disproportionate numbers of the public teacher ranks are also women, who will also have maternal instincts in many cases for the care of others. The children they deal with are not yet mature adults and are not generally ready to fully manage their lives. The way the public schools work, they are not particularly encouraged or helped toward taking on the responsibilities of a self-managed individual. They are not even much encouraged to view themselves as individuals. Then, as though this is not enough to understand why teachers have a strong tendency to favor governmental nanny states, they are public employees who do benefit from transfers of wealth from the private sector to the government sector. Teachers are also union members. Teachers see their interests almost uniformly then as being tied to ever-growing governments.
Politicians and government employees are constantly looking for reasons to justify their positions and to increase their powers and budgets. This is clearly done effectively whenever they can convince the voters that many of the people are dumb sheep and need them as sheepherders. The lawyers find massive employment and income from the huge number of overly complex government laws and regulations. They play a disproportionate role in drafting the legislation that produces this end result. They work especially hard as a special interest group in control of the actual levers of government. They also enjoy the court system, which they principally control. That system's many delays, strange trial logic, and by and large, the choice of judges is all determined by lawyers. Accountants are more and more massive beneficiaries of our overly complex government taxation and regulatory requirements. Companies and individuals are forced more and more to pay accountants for help in producing the mountains of government-required paperwork on income, expenditures, employment, and taxes.
Finally, there is the predominant role of women in the socialist Democrat Party. This is the party of feminism and anti-masculinity. This is the party of those elitists who view themselves as the caregivers for the many adult children who do exist and the many more who are imagined to exist. As women have long been particularly prone to the appeal of the traditional religions, so too are they prone to a religious approach and zeal for socialism, equality of material results, the politics of envy and class warfare, the politics of group identity, anti-man environmentalism, and anti-business attitudes. They have a tendency to feel uncomfortable unless they are enveloped within a group. Male individuality, analytical thinking, and self-confidence are often offensive to them. Women are less than comfortable in the analytical thought required to gain mastery over science, technology, and economics than are men. It is not difficult to understand why the Democrat platform appeals to many of them. There are, of course, many women who are exceptions to these statements, but they are definitely a minority of women. There are also many men who are also susceptible to the Democrat platform, but for several decades, they have generally been a minority group among men.
I continue to believe strongly that most American men are capable of running their own lives with minimal interference from government. Despite the way they vote and the uncertainties that women seem to feel about having such an ability, I also believe most women are capable of managing their own lives, especially with the help of a decent man.
07 February 2009
Religion Demands Unearned Respect
On 18 December 2008, the United Nations General Assembly passed a nonbinding resolution, with strong advice to its members, that condemns "defamation of religion." You can read that resolution here. The United States, more than half of the European countries, India, and Japan opposed it. The 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference pushed strongly for it and was backed by Belarus and Venezuela. It passed with an 83-53 vote, with many abstentions.
The resolution frequently conflates racial and ethnic discrimination with religious discrimination. It implies that any unfavorable evaluation of a particular religion and its beliefs is intolerance. It deplores "the negative projection of certain religions in the media ...., particularly Muslim minorities following the events of 11 September 2001, ...."
It says "that defamation of religions is a serious affront to human dignity leading to the illicit restriction of the freedom of religion of their adherents and incitement to religious hatred and violence,"
It stresses "the need to effectively combat defamation of all religions, and incitement to religious hatred in general,"
It reaffirms that "discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief constitutes a violation of human rights and a disavowal of the priniples of the Charter of the United Nations,"
It states that "education should contribute in a meaningful way to promoting tolerance and the elimination of discrimination based on religion or belief,"
It then launches into a list of 24 numbered paragraphs. Some say:
2. Expresses deep concern at the negative stereotyping of religions and manifestations of intolerance and discrimination in matters of religion or belief still evident in the world;
5. Notes with deep concern the intensification of the overall compaign of defamation of religions, and incitement to religious hatred in general, including the ethnic and religious profiling of Muslim minorities in the aftermath of the tragic events of 11 September 2001;
7. Expresses deep concern in this respect that Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism; [This is the third time Muslims and/or Islam is specifically noted, while no other religion is specifically noted.]
8. Reiterates the commitment of all States to ..... respect for all religions, religious values, beliefs or cultures and [to] prevent the defamation of religions;
9. Deplores the use of the print, audio-visual and electronic media, including the Internet, and any other means to incite acts of violence, xenophobia or related intolerance and discrimination against any religion, as well as targeting of religious symbols [Muhammad with a bomb in his turban!];
10. Emphasizes that, as stipulated in international human rights law, everyone has the right to hold opinions without interference, and has the right to freedom of expression, the exercise of which carries with it special duties and responsibilities and may therefore be subject to limitations as are provided for by law and are necessary for the respect of rights or reputations of others, protection of national security or of public order, public health or morals;
16. Urges all States .... to take all possible measures to promote tolerance and respect for all religions and beliefs and the understanding of their value systems and to complement legal systems with intellectual and moral strategies to combat religious hatred and intolerance;
18. Underscores the need to combat defamation of religions .... through education for all, ..., including access to free primary education for all children, both girls and boys, [No mention of those Islamic areas where schools for girls are bombed by Islamic enforcers.]
19. Calls upon all States ..... to ensure that religious places, sites, shrines and symbols are fully respected and protected, ....;
21. Affirms that the Human Rights Council shall promote universal respect for all religious and cultural values and address instances of intolerance, discrimination and incitement to hatred ....;
Now, I do not believe governments should discriminate against religious beliefs as such. They can and must discriminate against one kind of action, the initiated use of force. So, if a person holds a belief, religious in nature or not, that he is allowed to use force to keep others from exercising their right to freedom of speech, to freedom of conscience, and to freedom of the press and he acts upon that belief to use force to prevent others from their equal rights, then government must protect its citizens from this initiated use of force. To do this, government may reasonably watch with special diligence those persons whose religious or other beliefs state that they may use initiated force to attain their ends. To do anything else would be irrational. Government should not assume, however, that someone holding to a tradition of belief will necessarily choose to act to initiate the use of force, even though that belief may allow and even encourage it. But, Government can watch and be prepared to pounce if such a person's actions reasonably signal an intent to act upon the violent belief.
Freedom of religion was really intended to be about freedom of conscience and it was intended that one could act upon one's beliefs, with one very important proviso. Everyone has this same right, but it would clearly be impossible for any individual to exercise his right to freedom of conscience and to use his belief system to guide his actions, if anyone had the right to impose his beliefs upon others by using force. People of different religious belief have often come into conflict with one another, even when those differences were relatively minor. After centuries of such conflicts among Christians in Europe, the philosophers of the Age of Enlightenment came in many cases to recognize a very practical need for freedom of conscience and freedom of religion. But, they also came to understand that the individual had to be allowed to think for himself and to choose his values. These chosen values were required to help guide actions he would take in living his life. But, everyone had this same need by virtue of being human, so this right to freedom of conscience was universal. In America, we developed our Constitution and Bill of Rights in recognition of this fact.
No one, and no religion, has the right to impose its values and beliefs upon others. Many religions have tried to do this historically, as have other belief systems such as socialism (whether fascist or communist) and environmentalism. No one is obliged to give those belief systems respect, though they commonly demand it. No one is required to be silent when they see reason to criticize those belief systems, though religions, socialism, and environmentalists have often tried to silence them. We are only required not to initiate the use of force.
Though Christians did often use force to advance their religion, that religion is fortunate in that Jesus was not a proponent of using force to spread his beliefs. He did not gather armies and attack nearby peoples and impose Christianity upon them. Islam, on the other hand, is the religion made up by Mohammed, who did lead armies to attack non-believers and did advocate either killing non-believers or treating them as second-class citizens in Islamic countries. He also believed that anyone accepting the religion of Islam should be killed if he changed his mind later. This unfortunate tradition of belief in the use of force as a means to spread their religion has caused disproportionate numbers of Muslims to adopt the use of terrorist tactics in our present times. Of course, there are some people of other religions who have also resorted to terrorism, but most of the present-day God-worshiping religions have fewer terrorists operating in the name of their religion.
There are several references in the U. N. resolution requiring respect to the symbols of a religion. These are clearly intended to require countries to abridge the right of the people to publish cartoons critical of Islam. This is an overt attack upon freedom of expression, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press.
It was ironic that the paragraph requiring States to provide education for both girls and boys, did not mention the fact that in those countries practicing Islam, the education of women is least valued and sometimes prevented entirely by violence in the name of the religion. Of course, this provision also stated that it was the responsibility of the state to provide education, which is wrong. Other provisions also made it clear that the state was to use education to squelch any rational discussion of the merits of various beliefs and value systems, particularly if they claimed to be of a religious nature. The State was to demand respect for all religious beliefs and values.
Frankly, all religions are made up by man. This is particularly obvious in the case of Scientology, Mormonism, and Islam, since they have roots in the recent past. In stating this fact, I am making it clear that I do not respect any religion. Furthermore, none of the religions offer an adequate and rational philosophy for living a human life on this earth. Clearly, I am defaming all religions. Clearly, I am defaming Islam more than most. All religions are false beliefs and harmful to mankind. Of course, people should be free to practice a false religion, provided they do not use force against others while doing so.
So, according to the United Nations, it is the responsibility of the United States government to force me to take sensitivity training and to force me to stop writing of these matters on this blog. It even seems clear that the U.N. is saying that I am inciting hatred and violence against all religions, especially Islam. I would deny this and say that I am simply rejecting the idea that Islam has the right to force me to respect it or to adopt its beliefs as my own. If Islam were to be amended to renounce the use of force, then I would oppose it only because it is false. At this time, I must oppose it because its principle tenets include the claim that it is proper and a duty of Muslims to use force to spread the religion. Of course, I also oppose any other system of beliefs and values which allows for the initiated use of force. This will include any effort by the U.S. government to make me respect religions or any effort by the U.N. to make me do so.
Contrary to the U.N.'s assertion, the only responsibility I have before rational law in the excution of my freedoms is that I do not initiate the use of force against others. I do not have a responsibility not to hurt the feelings of the religious. If I do so, this is not a valid reason to restrict my freedom of conscience, of speech, or of the press. That government which would do so would be a tyranny.
The resolution frequently conflates racial and ethnic discrimination with religious discrimination. It implies that any unfavorable evaluation of a particular religion and its beliefs is intolerance. It deplores "the negative projection of certain religions in the media ...., particularly Muslim minorities following the events of 11 September 2001, ...."
It says "that defamation of religions is a serious affront to human dignity leading to the illicit restriction of the freedom of religion of their adherents and incitement to religious hatred and violence,"
It stresses "the need to effectively combat defamation of all religions, and incitement to religious hatred in general,"
It reaffirms that "discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief constitutes a violation of human rights and a disavowal of the priniples of the Charter of the United Nations,"
It states that "education should contribute in a meaningful way to promoting tolerance and the elimination of discrimination based on religion or belief,"
It then launches into a list of 24 numbered paragraphs. Some say:
2. Expresses deep concern at the negative stereotyping of religions and manifestations of intolerance and discrimination in matters of religion or belief still evident in the world;
5. Notes with deep concern the intensification of the overall compaign of defamation of religions, and incitement to religious hatred in general, including the ethnic and religious profiling of Muslim minorities in the aftermath of the tragic events of 11 September 2001;
7. Expresses deep concern in this respect that Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism; [This is the third time Muslims and/or Islam is specifically noted, while no other religion is specifically noted.]
8. Reiterates the commitment of all States to ..... respect for all religions, religious values, beliefs or cultures and [to] prevent the defamation of religions;
9. Deplores the use of the print, audio-visual and electronic media, including the Internet, and any other means to incite acts of violence, xenophobia or related intolerance and discrimination against any religion, as well as targeting of religious symbols [Muhammad with a bomb in his turban!];
10. Emphasizes that, as stipulated in international human rights law, everyone has the right to hold opinions without interference, and has the right to freedom of expression, the exercise of which carries with it special duties and responsibilities and may therefore be subject to limitations as are provided for by law and are necessary for the respect of rights or reputations of others, protection of national security or of public order, public health or morals;
16. Urges all States .... to take all possible measures to promote tolerance and respect for all religions and beliefs and the understanding of their value systems and to complement legal systems with intellectual and moral strategies to combat religious hatred and intolerance;
18. Underscores the need to combat defamation of religions .... through education for all, ..., including access to free primary education for all children, both girls and boys, [No mention of those Islamic areas where schools for girls are bombed by Islamic enforcers.]
19. Calls upon all States ..... to ensure that religious places, sites, shrines and symbols are fully respected and protected, ....;
21. Affirms that the Human Rights Council shall promote universal respect for all religious and cultural values and address instances of intolerance, discrimination and incitement to hatred ....;
Now, I do not believe governments should discriminate against religious beliefs as such. They can and must discriminate against one kind of action, the initiated use of force. So, if a person holds a belief, religious in nature or not, that he is allowed to use force to keep others from exercising their right to freedom of speech, to freedom of conscience, and to freedom of the press and he acts upon that belief to use force to prevent others from their equal rights, then government must protect its citizens from this initiated use of force. To do this, government may reasonably watch with special diligence those persons whose religious or other beliefs state that they may use initiated force to attain their ends. To do anything else would be irrational. Government should not assume, however, that someone holding to a tradition of belief will necessarily choose to act to initiate the use of force, even though that belief may allow and even encourage it. But, Government can watch and be prepared to pounce if such a person's actions reasonably signal an intent to act upon the violent belief.
Freedom of religion was really intended to be about freedom of conscience and it was intended that one could act upon one's beliefs, with one very important proviso. Everyone has this same right, but it would clearly be impossible for any individual to exercise his right to freedom of conscience and to use his belief system to guide his actions, if anyone had the right to impose his beliefs upon others by using force. People of different religious belief have often come into conflict with one another, even when those differences were relatively minor. After centuries of such conflicts among Christians in Europe, the philosophers of the Age of Enlightenment came in many cases to recognize a very practical need for freedom of conscience and freedom of religion. But, they also came to understand that the individual had to be allowed to think for himself and to choose his values. These chosen values were required to help guide actions he would take in living his life. But, everyone had this same need by virtue of being human, so this right to freedom of conscience was universal. In America, we developed our Constitution and Bill of Rights in recognition of this fact.
No one, and no religion, has the right to impose its values and beliefs upon others. Many religions have tried to do this historically, as have other belief systems such as socialism (whether fascist or communist) and environmentalism. No one is obliged to give those belief systems respect, though they commonly demand it. No one is required to be silent when they see reason to criticize those belief systems, though religions, socialism, and environmentalists have often tried to silence them. We are only required not to initiate the use of force.
Though Christians did often use force to advance their religion, that religion is fortunate in that Jesus was not a proponent of using force to spread his beliefs. He did not gather armies and attack nearby peoples and impose Christianity upon them. Islam, on the other hand, is the religion made up by Mohammed, who did lead armies to attack non-believers and did advocate either killing non-believers or treating them as second-class citizens in Islamic countries. He also believed that anyone accepting the religion of Islam should be killed if he changed his mind later. This unfortunate tradition of belief in the use of force as a means to spread their religion has caused disproportionate numbers of Muslims to adopt the use of terrorist tactics in our present times. Of course, there are some people of other religions who have also resorted to terrorism, but most of the present-day God-worshiping religions have fewer terrorists operating in the name of their religion.
There are several references in the U. N. resolution requiring respect to the symbols of a religion. These are clearly intended to require countries to abridge the right of the people to publish cartoons critical of Islam. This is an overt attack upon freedom of expression, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press.
It was ironic that the paragraph requiring States to provide education for both girls and boys, did not mention the fact that in those countries practicing Islam, the education of women is least valued and sometimes prevented entirely by violence in the name of the religion. Of course, this provision also stated that it was the responsibility of the state to provide education, which is wrong. Other provisions also made it clear that the state was to use education to squelch any rational discussion of the merits of various beliefs and value systems, particularly if they claimed to be of a religious nature. The State was to demand respect for all religious beliefs and values.
Frankly, all religions are made up by man. This is particularly obvious in the case of Scientology, Mormonism, and Islam, since they have roots in the recent past. In stating this fact, I am making it clear that I do not respect any religion. Furthermore, none of the religions offer an adequate and rational philosophy for living a human life on this earth. Clearly, I am defaming all religions. Clearly, I am defaming Islam more than most. All religions are false beliefs and harmful to mankind. Of course, people should be free to practice a false religion, provided they do not use force against others while doing so.
So, according to the United Nations, it is the responsibility of the United States government to force me to take sensitivity training and to force me to stop writing of these matters on this blog. It even seems clear that the U.N. is saying that I am inciting hatred and violence against all religions, especially Islam. I would deny this and say that I am simply rejecting the idea that Islam has the right to force me to respect it or to adopt its beliefs as my own. If Islam were to be amended to renounce the use of force, then I would oppose it only because it is false. At this time, I must oppose it because its principle tenets include the claim that it is proper and a duty of Muslims to use force to spread the religion. Of course, I also oppose any other system of beliefs and values which allows for the initiated use of force. This will include any effort by the U.S. government to make me respect religions or any effort by the U.N. to make me do so.
Contrary to the U.N.'s assertion, the only responsibility I have before rational law in the excution of my freedoms is that I do not initiate the use of force against others. I do not have a responsibility not to hurt the feelings of the religious. If I do so, this is not a valid reason to restrict my freedom of conscience, of speech, or of the press. That government which would do so would be a tyranny.
15 November 2008
Hijacking Marriage
In the 2008 election cycle, bans defining marriage as only between a man and a woman were passed in California, Arizona, and Florida. The fact that this happened and did so by a wide margin, is touted as proving that the people are center-right in their beliefs, despite the fact that they voted to make a committed socialist our next President.
I do not find this reassuring for several reasons. Why?
The left views attempts of the right to impose their various religious views with respect to marriage, sex, time of personhood, and the creation of life upon everyone through the use of government force as terribly wrong. Yet religious socialists, like Obama, use the religious teachings such as the obligation to be one's brothers keeper and the story of the Good Sumaritan as the very basis for government redistribution of income and wealth. Religion and other dogmas are constantly clamoring to use governments to force everyone else into living their lives in accordance with their particular beliefs. This is seriously wrong.
The Constitution was wisely constructed to place severe limits upon the role of government in order that individuals would have maximal choice and control in the management of their own lives. Government surely has no business being in the marriage business. It does have reason to be in the civil union legal contract business, so that those who wish to enter into such contracts will be able to control such things as joint property ownership, medical decisions, and providing for children. But, this should not be confused with marriage. Marriage should be left explicitly to the conscience of the directly involved individuals. If marriage draws largely on religion for its spiritual content for them, this is their choice. If it draws such content from their own souls, this is their choice. This is not a choice for government, not even one chosen by a majoritarian principal. In such intimate and personal matters as marriage, a majoritarian government is nothing but a brutal tyranny.
The important issue in every political issue is whether the rights of the individual are honored and the sovereignty of the individual is respected. People are more able to manage their own lives well than government is. Government is brutal force and as such it is the problem, not the solution. Keep government out of marriage.
Require government not to discriminate between individuals in performing its limited functions. In particular, government has no business discriminating against all combinations of people wishing the advantages of a civil union other than that of one man and one woman. Government's role in civil union contracts is like that in a business partnership. We do not have a rule that a business partnership must consist of one man and one woman. There are plenty of examples in which a business partnership consists of two men or of two women. There are cases in which it involves six men or three men and three women. Government does not decide who can form a business partnership by examining the partner's gender or by restrictions to pairs. The civil union contract offered by government is an equivalent of another kind of business partnership and should be treated in a similar manner.
Allow the individuals involved to manage their own lives and maintain the freedom to manage your own life according to your conscience. If you concede the determination of who can be in a civil union contract and who cannot to government, then there is nothing that government cannot stick its nose into. If you wish to maintain spiritual content in your marriage, do not concede control of marriage to government. Keep marriage strictly in the private and personal realm of our lives. If we are to do this, then we must insist upon a strict distinction between marriage and government legal contracts for civil unions.
I do not find this reassuring for several reasons. Why?
- Marriage is a highly spiritual and complex bond of love, friendship, loyalty, partnership, and sexuality between individuals, which draws strongly on their minds and conscience.
- Government is not competent to manage and judge such complex interpersonal and spiritual relationships as marriage.
- Government is the use of force and force is not the means to deal with marriages.
- Government does and should offer legal contracts which are really civil union contracts, despite being fallaciously called marriage contracts.
- Because government civil union legal contracts are called marriages, many people concede to government control of the spiritual content of marriages and do not attend to providing that spiritual content in their own marriages.
- People with beliefs about what marriage should be, including those with such religious beliefs, want government to impose those beliefs on others because we fallaciously call the legal contracts of civil union by the name marriage.
The left views attempts of the right to impose their various religious views with respect to marriage, sex, time of personhood, and the creation of life upon everyone through the use of government force as terribly wrong. Yet religious socialists, like Obama, use the religious teachings such as the obligation to be one's brothers keeper and the story of the Good Sumaritan as the very basis for government redistribution of income and wealth. Religion and other dogmas are constantly clamoring to use governments to force everyone else into living their lives in accordance with their particular beliefs. This is seriously wrong.
The Constitution was wisely constructed to place severe limits upon the role of government in order that individuals would have maximal choice and control in the management of their own lives. Government surely has no business being in the marriage business. It does have reason to be in the civil union legal contract business, so that those who wish to enter into such contracts will be able to control such things as joint property ownership, medical decisions, and providing for children. But, this should not be confused with marriage. Marriage should be left explicitly to the conscience of the directly involved individuals. If marriage draws largely on religion for its spiritual content for them, this is their choice. If it draws such content from their own souls, this is their choice. This is not a choice for government, not even one chosen by a majoritarian principal. In such intimate and personal matters as marriage, a majoritarian government is nothing but a brutal tyranny.
The important issue in every political issue is whether the rights of the individual are honored and the sovereignty of the individual is respected. People are more able to manage their own lives well than government is. Government is brutal force and as such it is the problem, not the solution. Keep government out of marriage.
Require government not to discriminate between individuals in performing its limited functions. In particular, government has no business discriminating against all combinations of people wishing the advantages of a civil union other than that of one man and one woman. Government's role in civil union contracts is like that in a business partnership. We do not have a rule that a business partnership must consist of one man and one woman. There are plenty of examples in which a business partnership consists of two men or of two women. There are cases in which it involves six men or three men and three women. Government does not decide who can form a business partnership by examining the partner's gender or by restrictions to pairs. The civil union contract offered by government is an equivalent of another kind of business partnership and should be treated in a similar manner.
Allow the individuals involved to manage their own lives and maintain the freedom to manage your own life according to your conscience. If you concede the determination of who can be in a civil union contract and who cannot to government, then there is nothing that government cannot stick its nose into. If you wish to maintain spiritual content in your marriage, do not concede control of marriage to government. Keep marriage strictly in the private and personal realm of our lives. If we are to do this, then we must insist upon a strict distinction between marriage and government legal contracts for civil unions.
03 July 2008
Sustainability on Campus
In a publication called Academic Sourcebook, the lead article of the June 2008 issue is entitled "Sustainability on Campus" by Skip Derra of Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ. It describes a program in sustainability at Arizona State University. He begins with "One convert at a time is a noble goal for any altruistic endeavor, especially sustainability, which has long laid low in the grassroots of society." Convert, noble goal, altruistic endeavor, grassroots of society are words and phrases ringing of religious zeal and selfless, underdog struggle for the sake of society at the expense of self, following paths well pioneered by many religions and all forms of socialism.
ASU's president Michael Crow has made sustainability a university-wide priority. He also was much involved in creating the American College and University Presidents Climate Commitment. This is a man with a deep commitment to the politically correct worldview. So, ASU has the first freestanding, degree-granting School of Sustainability in the United States. Jonathan Fink, director of the Global Institute of Sustainability and ASU's sustainability officer says that "We work with government agencies to make sure the problems we are working on are the ones that actually will have an impact." Yes, this is a good strategy to be close to the sources of government funding and stroking the egos of the bureaucrats in them. It is also an admission that the universities are not able to discern the important problems and must turn to government, which has a long track record of not being able to prioritize problems of any sort or of providing practical solutions to those it tackles. This is the blind leading the blind, big time.
So, ASU is providing free bus passes to all faculty, staff, and students in the name of sustainability. Sounds like a nice perk. They are renting cars on a Flexcar program to encourage alternative methods of commuting. I have no idea how that saves energy, though possibly it does reduce the need for parking lots, providing the Flexcars are used enough. They have a program requiring the purchase of recycled products, though many recycled products cost more energy to produce than the original manufacture did and others offer reduced product specifications, such as recycled paper products. They have a commitment to solar energy and have a goal to provide 15% of their 4 to 7 MW of power from solar energy. I am not sure whether the 4 to 7 MW range means that they are unsure of their energy usage, unsure how much energy they will be using when they achieve their 15% goal, or this is an annual rate projected from their winter usage versus their summer usage. They are also growing some of their food on campus, planting citrus, date, and nut trees. They are also growing herbs. A picture shows a narrow strip of garden plowed next to a building. It is hard to imagine that the farming of this narrow strip will reach the efficiency of a farmer managing his agro-business. But, it may educate students to recognize a few of the plants whose fruits they eat, at least.
They do talk about the need to conserve water on the desert campus. Certainly if people are going to insist on living in human inhospitable areas such as the Arizona deserts in large numbers, they have some real sustainability problems. Learning ways to economically conserve energy is also a good thing. Finding ways to recycle products that actually make sense economically, such as recycling aluminum cans, makes good sense. But, sense on university campuses is in short supply. These programs of study would make more sense if they were coupled with close interactions with businesses other than those seeking subsidies from the government for sustainability programs.
There is a sidebar describing programs in sustainability at Stanford University, at Rochester Institute of Technology, at Portland State University, and at Berea College in Kentucky. Rochester Institute of Technology is the university at which my youngest daughter Katie is entering her senior year in a biotechnology degree program. The Galisano Institute for Sustainability there focuses on research and education in sustainable design, pollution prevention, remanufacturing, and alternative energy development. Such a program may have merit, if it is carried out as a matter of rational investigation and education, rather than as the all too popular religious and socialist crusade.
ASU's president Michael Crow has made sustainability a university-wide priority. He also was much involved in creating the American College and University Presidents Climate Commitment. This is a man with a deep commitment to the politically correct worldview. So, ASU has the first freestanding, degree-granting School of Sustainability in the United States. Jonathan Fink, director of the Global Institute of Sustainability and ASU's sustainability officer says that "We work with government agencies to make sure the problems we are working on are the ones that actually will have an impact." Yes, this is a good strategy to be close to the sources of government funding and stroking the egos of the bureaucrats in them. It is also an admission that the universities are not able to discern the important problems and must turn to government, which has a long track record of not being able to prioritize problems of any sort or of providing practical solutions to those it tackles. This is the blind leading the blind, big time.
So, ASU is providing free bus passes to all faculty, staff, and students in the name of sustainability. Sounds like a nice perk. They are renting cars on a Flexcar program to encourage alternative methods of commuting. I have no idea how that saves energy, though possibly it does reduce the need for parking lots, providing the Flexcars are used enough. They have a program requiring the purchase of recycled products, though many recycled products cost more energy to produce than the original manufacture did and others offer reduced product specifications, such as recycled paper products. They have a commitment to solar energy and have a goal to provide 15% of their 4 to 7 MW of power from solar energy. I am not sure whether the 4 to 7 MW range means that they are unsure of their energy usage, unsure how much energy they will be using when they achieve their 15% goal, or this is an annual rate projected from their winter usage versus their summer usage. They are also growing some of their food on campus, planting citrus, date, and nut trees. They are also growing herbs. A picture shows a narrow strip of garden plowed next to a building. It is hard to imagine that the farming of this narrow strip will reach the efficiency of a farmer managing his agro-business. But, it may educate students to recognize a few of the plants whose fruits they eat, at least.
They do talk about the need to conserve water on the desert campus. Certainly if people are going to insist on living in human inhospitable areas such as the Arizona deserts in large numbers, they have some real sustainability problems. Learning ways to economically conserve energy is also a good thing. Finding ways to recycle products that actually make sense economically, such as recycling aluminum cans, makes good sense. But, sense on university campuses is in short supply. These programs of study would make more sense if they were coupled with close interactions with businesses other than those seeking subsidies from the government for sustainability programs.
There is a sidebar describing programs in sustainability at Stanford University, at Rochester Institute of Technology, at Portland State University, and at Berea College in Kentucky. Rochester Institute of Technology is the university at which my youngest daughter Katie is entering her senior year in a biotechnology degree program. The Galisano Institute for Sustainability there focuses on research and education in sustainable design, pollution prevention, remanufacturing, and alternative energy development. Such a program may have merit, if it is carried out as a matter of rational investigation and education, rather than as the all too popular religious and socialist crusade.
16 January 2008
God is Man-Made
When people start talking about God, I sometimes ask them what they know about God. The answers I get most commonly are 1) "God is personal to me and I will not tell you who God is." and 2) God is good, powerful, the creator of the universe, all-knowing, and omnipresent. The first tells me nothing. The second leads to myriad questions, none of which the God-believer is prepared to answer. So, having a conversation about God with a believer is extremely difficult for one who is accustomed to the precision and the reality of science. God is not nearly as substantial as a fog. God is not as substantial as a field theory, since that can readily be known by observations of reality. No, God is a vanishing act. God is unknowable. Over and over, I am told that one simply has to choose to believe.
OK, so if I must simply choose to believe and then I have religion, why should I not choose to believe that the fate of the universe and the human race is determined by three gnomes living in a cave on the dark side of the moon. I could exercise my creative urges by thinking up a religion of my own creation. I could emulate Moses, Paul of Tarsus, Mohammad, and Joseph Smith Jr., except I could readily invent a much better religion, one which held human life in much higher regard than do the religions of the past. However, my arbitrary belief in the three gnomes would already undermine what man needs most to live his life well. What he most needs is a respect for reality, for the power of his own mind to know reality, and for his ability to live his life better because he understands reality and the requirements of the well-lived life. Rather than consign his fate to the three gnomes, it is critical that he assume the responsibility for knowing reality and for managing his own life. If man truly wishes to achieve his happiness, then he must assume these personal responsibilities.
This man has no need for a vanishing God. He understands that if God comes into existence only to the extent that he arbitrary chooses to believe in God, then God is man-made. In effect, man is God. Man has the means to know reality and man's good is the Good. For something to be good, it must be good for that being who can act to gain or to keep that good. Something can be good for a man. It is not at all clear that anything is good for a God, given the usual vague ways in which God is defined or left as a very vacuous concept. But, if we believe that God is Good, then perhaps we should see what is good for man and call that God. Then, if we can determine what is good for a man, we could come to know what his God should be. But, it is really better if we simply cut off all of this God and religion tradition and start with a cleaner and clearer way of thinking about ethics and what is good for man. These issues are complex enough without all of this prehistoric and ancient baggage. Indeed, the contents of that baggage are a disorganized, contradictory, and irrational mess. Modern man should be better able to think out the issues of ethics and value better than a bunch of ignorant ancients or medieval flim-flam artists.
The god that most people believe in now is not really a universal God. No, he is a local God. There are the gods of the Hindus, the God of the Christians, the God of the Jews, the God of Islam, the God of the Mormons, etc. Most believers, who have chosen to believe in God, have somehow chosen that God who was believed in by their parents or who is believed in by most of the people in their local community. Is it not a wonder that God who is omni-present, all-knowing, all-powerful, and the creator of the universe, is of such a different character in Arabia, India, Israel, and North America? God is apparently not very universal! But, as a man-made idea, this makes sense. Those who choose to believe, choose to belong to the local club. Why choose to be an outcast in one's home town? So, there is very little tendency to stray from the local dogma. Of course, a few hundred years ago, any straying was likely to result in one's death as a heretic in Christian regions. Today, any straying in the Islamic regions is still cause for one's execution. The clubs have not always been voluntary.
This fact that the clubs are local and have often not been kind to dissenters, makes it very reasonable to wonder if they are filled with cultists. In fact, the arbitrary nature of the belief and the fact that the beliefs have little regard for reality, makes it clear that the world's many religions are of the nature of cults. I do not think I will choose to add to these cults by adding one which believes in the three gnomes living in a cave on the dark side of the moon. I am just not enough motivated by a desire to exercise power over those who might join my cult.
There is a reason little publicized that I have heard from a number of men for being a Christian in the United States. It turns out that many men do not in fact believe in God or in Christianity. They simply find it convenient to pretend to believe. One of the reasons they regard as the most compelling for this pretense is that they think that they will be cut off from most women if they do not pretend to believe. It is usually not that they would not be able to win election to be President of the United States, no, it is that few women would ever choose to love them. I have heard this over and over again from intelligent men. They are right. Very many women will not love a man who has not made the arbitrary leap of faith to believe in the Christian version of God in these United States. You can be the best man possible and they will refuse you their love.
How odd that the religions, which are so commonly more supportive of men than women in their traditional beliefs, enjoy as their strongest advocates the loyalty of the vast majority of women in their local regions of practice? Modern Christianity has been under the primary influence of women so long now, that it has evolved into a rather feminized belief system. For instance, the Christians are now reluctant to believe in the existence of bullies, who must be opposed with force. Peace is a primary value, for which all freedoms can be traded. The Christians more and more believe that one must provide care for everyone through the medium of government. This is the maternal instinct writ large on the national scale. So, we have the Nanny State, more and more supported by Christians and women. More and more, the churches wish to be non-confrontational, which is always popular with women, who as they have taken over the public education system, have also made that a primary concern in the dogmas of public education. There is the commitment to not hurting anyone's feelings, which has materialized as political correctness restrictions on free speech, and widely practiced in the Christian churches and the public education system. The belief that everyone means to be nice, that no conflict can be allowed to occur, that peace is achieved when one party refuses to fight, that everyone's feelings are to be respected, except one's own feelings, and everyone must be mothered as an adolescent is becoming the rule wherever women rule. More and more they rule the churches and public education, making it difficult for a masculine, reality-first man to find a home in either.
OK, so if I must simply choose to believe and then I have religion, why should I not choose to believe that the fate of the universe and the human race is determined by three gnomes living in a cave on the dark side of the moon. I could exercise my creative urges by thinking up a religion of my own creation. I could emulate Moses, Paul of Tarsus, Mohammad, and Joseph Smith Jr., except I could readily invent a much better religion, one which held human life in much higher regard than do the religions of the past. However, my arbitrary belief in the three gnomes would already undermine what man needs most to live his life well. What he most needs is a respect for reality, for the power of his own mind to know reality, and for his ability to live his life better because he understands reality and the requirements of the well-lived life. Rather than consign his fate to the three gnomes, it is critical that he assume the responsibility for knowing reality and for managing his own life. If man truly wishes to achieve his happiness, then he must assume these personal responsibilities.
This man has no need for a vanishing God. He understands that if God comes into existence only to the extent that he arbitrary chooses to believe in God, then God is man-made. In effect, man is God. Man has the means to know reality and man's good is the Good. For something to be good, it must be good for that being who can act to gain or to keep that good. Something can be good for a man. It is not at all clear that anything is good for a God, given the usual vague ways in which God is defined or left as a very vacuous concept. But, if we believe that God is Good, then perhaps we should see what is good for man and call that God. Then, if we can determine what is good for a man, we could come to know what his God should be. But, it is really better if we simply cut off all of this God and religion tradition and start with a cleaner and clearer way of thinking about ethics and what is good for man. These issues are complex enough without all of this prehistoric and ancient baggage. Indeed, the contents of that baggage are a disorganized, contradictory, and irrational mess. Modern man should be better able to think out the issues of ethics and value better than a bunch of ignorant ancients or medieval flim-flam artists.
The god that most people believe in now is not really a universal God. No, he is a local God. There are the gods of the Hindus, the God of the Christians, the God of the Jews, the God of Islam, the God of the Mormons, etc. Most believers, who have chosen to believe in God, have somehow chosen that God who was believed in by their parents or who is believed in by most of the people in their local community. Is it not a wonder that God who is omni-present, all-knowing, all-powerful, and the creator of the universe, is of such a different character in Arabia, India, Israel, and North America? God is apparently not very universal! But, as a man-made idea, this makes sense. Those who choose to believe, choose to belong to the local club. Why choose to be an outcast in one's home town? So, there is very little tendency to stray from the local dogma. Of course, a few hundred years ago, any straying was likely to result in one's death as a heretic in Christian regions. Today, any straying in the Islamic regions is still cause for one's execution. The clubs have not always been voluntary.
This fact that the clubs are local and have often not been kind to dissenters, makes it very reasonable to wonder if they are filled with cultists. In fact, the arbitrary nature of the belief and the fact that the beliefs have little regard for reality, makes it clear that the world's many religions are of the nature of cults. I do not think I will choose to add to these cults by adding one which believes in the three gnomes living in a cave on the dark side of the moon. I am just not enough motivated by a desire to exercise power over those who might join my cult.
There is a reason little publicized that I have heard from a number of men for being a Christian in the United States. It turns out that many men do not in fact believe in God or in Christianity. They simply find it convenient to pretend to believe. One of the reasons they regard as the most compelling for this pretense is that they think that they will be cut off from most women if they do not pretend to believe. It is usually not that they would not be able to win election to be President of the United States, no, it is that few women would ever choose to love them. I have heard this over and over again from intelligent men. They are right. Very many women will not love a man who has not made the arbitrary leap of faith to believe in the Christian version of God in these United States. You can be the best man possible and they will refuse you their love.
How odd that the religions, which are so commonly more supportive of men than women in their traditional beliefs, enjoy as their strongest advocates the loyalty of the vast majority of women in their local regions of practice? Modern Christianity has been under the primary influence of women so long now, that it has evolved into a rather feminized belief system. For instance, the Christians are now reluctant to believe in the existence of bullies, who must be opposed with force. Peace is a primary value, for which all freedoms can be traded. The Christians more and more believe that one must provide care for everyone through the medium of government. This is the maternal instinct writ large on the national scale. So, we have the Nanny State, more and more supported by Christians and women. More and more, the churches wish to be non-confrontational, which is always popular with women, who as they have taken over the public education system, have also made that a primary concern in the dogmas of public education. There is the commitment to not hurting anyone's feelings, which has materialized as political correctness restrictions on free speech, and widely practiced in the Christian churches and the public education system. The belief that everyone means to be nice, that no conflict can be allowed to occur, that peace is achieved when one party refuses to fight, that everyone's feelings are to be respected, except one's own feelings, and everyone must be mothered as an adolescent is becoming the rule wherever women rule. More and more they rule the churches and public education, making it difficult for a masculine, reality-first man to find a home in either.
16 October 2007
50th Anniversary of the Publication of Atlas Shrugged
In October of 1957, Ayn Rand's great novel Atlas Shrugged was published. I was not aware of it, being 10 years old. Much of the rest of the world was not aware of it for some time either, much to Rand's disappointment. Not even the truly creative builders of the world, for whom she fought so hard to bring admiration, seemed to take notice of the valiant and revolutionary defense of reason, egoism, happiness, production, and of Capitalism and free trade which she had provided in the 14 years she had labored since the publication of The Fountainhead in 1943. At the recent Atlas Society celebration of Atlas Shrugged in Washington, DC (yes, the heart of the brutal anti-individualist beast itself) on the 6th of October, Barbara Branden made very heartfelt comments on how America's businessmen had failed Ayn Rand and a rational Capitalist society when they failed to rally to the defense of Atlas Shrugged, as most of academia and the media attacked it or ignored it. Fortunately, many admirers of her work came eventually to discover Atlas Shrugged, making it the book most cited after the Bible as the work which has most influenced people's lives in America. It continues to this day to be a best-seller year after year, selling 140,000 copies a year.
While large numbers of people who have read Atlas Shrugged love it, very many of them do not make that love known to many of their acquaintances and family. Her novel clearly rejected socialism in all of its variants and it was clearly not consistent with religious conservativism either. Consequently, both the left and the right rejected it, usually with considerable hatred. Another good fraction in the middle of the political spectrum ignored it because many of them are apathetic about philosophy, history, and politics.
The socialists hate individualism, since no collective, communitarian scheme can accommodate the complex individuality of man. When the individualist claims that the right to his life implies that he has the right to his own body, he must exercise personal responsibility in his own health and its care. This means that he has the right to provide himself with the best medical care he chooses and to either have or not to have medical insurance. Individualists who choose not to use their money for medical insurance, but can certainly afford it, number about 18 million of those 47 million who are said to live in the United States without medical insurance. The socialists want their audience to assume the 47 million to be poor Americans in need of governmentally assured medical insurance. Other individualists want better medical care than the government will provide and they want it when they want it, not 6 months or a year later as is common in the socialized medicine nations. Still others want to smoke or drink without having to pay punitive taxes to a Nanny state. Then we individualists think we know better how to spend our hard-earned income than a democratic mob listening to demagogues lusting for power. We view the use of our earnings as an essential manifestation of our liberty and our pursuit of happiness, as did the Framers of The Constitution. If our earnings and our property are not truly ours to dispose of, then we are not free to manage our own lives. We think the socialist is utterly presumptuous in believing he can manage our lives better than we ourselves can. But, the socialist is a brute who not only thinks he knows what our values should be better than we ourselves do, but that he has the right to hire government thugs to beat us brutally until we give into his vision of what each and every individual life should be. The socialist wants to design a cookie-cutter life for each of us and does his best to use the public schools as his propaganda tool to this end. Commonly, she or he feels very maternal or paternal in helping the great unwashed masses to make the right decisions. This view holds that most people are incapable of managing their own lives and requires that every adult be continuously treated like a child, with no prospect of ever growing up.
The religious conservative is often thought to be essentially the opposing force in our society. However, the religious conservative often shares a substantial part of the vision of the socialist. He holds that every man is a sinner and that every man needs God to help him manage his life. Man is the equivalent of a sheep, a very dumb animal, which requires the constant supervision of the shepherd. Of course, the priesthood is happy to provide the earthly portion of this shepherd function and it is their route to power and paternal presumptions. Again, the ordinary man is a child at best. Now, the government is to enforce seemly behavior according to the Bible, or the Koran, or Jewish or Hindu teachings. So, here again the individual who does not accept the authority of the Bible, the Koran or the dominant religious teachings of his region, is allowed little opportunity to manage his own life. He is thwarted in many ways from exercising his sovereign right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The religions almost always frown upon earthly pleasures to a substantial degree. Commonly, they hold prejudices against wealth and property, many aspects of free trade, many of the many joys of sex, and any vision of man as heroic. Commonly, one's sovereignty of body is crimped sexually and a woman's right to make decisions about that part of her body which is a fetus is denied. Commonly, freedom of conscience is limited when such freedom is not consistent with the regional religious teachings. So much for the right to life which must start with the right to manage one's own body and mind. Should one be homosexual, then the freedom to enjoy an equivalent partnering contract to that offered man and wife is denied. Forget about being bisexual, a bigamist, or polyamorous if one expects equal treatment before the law. Such expressions of individuality are denied by old books. No, wait, being a bigamist or more, is actually endorsed by many of the same old books invoked to deny other freedoms, but still the modern religion holds this evil. Go figure.
So, along came Ayn Rand. While very spiritual, it was the spirit of an earthly, rational, productive, and happiness-seeking man that she worshiped. She recognized that man lived by his rational faculty, which was his sole source for understanding reality. She reveled in the accomplishments of mind that many people contributed in their professional careers and thought that the system which most enabled these accomplishments was the Capitalist system of free trade in goods, services, and ideas. Religious tribalism or feudalism and socialism, whether of the fascist or communist varieties, squelched the mind and inhibited man's quest to thrive on this earth. She unabashedly identified the source of man's progress in the fruits of individual minds. She endorsed rationality, individuality, ethical egoism, productive achievement, and the quest for personal happiness.
Politically, a highly limited government, such as the framer's of The Constitution attempted to give us, was necessary if man were to be able to exercise his individual right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Unfortunately, Americans have always been ambivalent about endorsing rationality, individuality, ethical egoism, productive achievement, and the quest for personal happiness. More than any other country on earth, we tolerated, and sometimes encouraged these human pursuits, but in early times, ancient religious belief interfered and now, more and more, a cheap desire to escape personal responsibility manifests itself in socialist evasions. Along the way, our Constitution has been reinterpreted to turn a requirement that the government behave consistent with the general welfare into an opening to allow almost any government action restricting the rights of the individual if only it was claimed to be in the name of the general welfare. If this had been the intention of the Framers, why would they try so hard to enumerate the few powers that government had? If this broadening of power was not enough, many others, such as a huge broadening of the mandate to regulate interstate trade has been added. It is difficult to make an argument so convoluted and trivial that it is not held that the government has a power to restrict many human activities based upon the commerce clause. As Judge Narragansett says in Galt's Gulch in Atlas Shrugged, an amendment must be added to the Constitution saying that Congress shall make no law abridging trade and depriving the people of their property. Of course now, we must even buttress our right to free speech, which is cruelly abridged by the McCain-Feingold Act, claimed to be an election reform.
Because of American misconceptions of political freedom, we have a society in which the members are pitted against one another on the basis of the industries they work for, the size of the companies they work for, whether they are management or labor, which quintile of income they fall into, whether they own a home or not, whether they have children in the public schools or not, whether they are man or woman, whether they are heterosexual or otherwise, whether they have bought medical insurance or not, whether they are old or young, and based upon their ethnicity. Because government uses its monopoly on the use of force to take up the part of these various groups against the interests of the opposing group, there are constant battles involving those who seek the unearned and those who seek to defend themselves. These are commonly very messy battles, since they have degenerated into very complex mixtures of the legitimate desire to protect oneself and the dastardly desire to take advantage of others. What could be uglier than parents taking advantage of their children by maintaining a Ponzi scheme social security system? What could be more disgusting than one ethnic group claiming special favors from government and discriminating against other ethnic groups. Shouldn't men be judged by their individual character rather than the color of their skin? The politicians and the media by and large encourage this constant factionalization. It gives them more power and brings them more attention and money. The philosophy is clearly to create conflict and to divide and conquer.
If the individual is ever to recover and then to fully realize his right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, it will be critical that he understand that man can live in harmony with others only by adapting Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism. If the individual is to be respected, it must be understood that he lives by the product of his rational mind. When no man provides for himself by using force to appropriate the means of their living from others who have produced wealth, income, goods, and services by using their minds, then we can earn the shear joy of living as harmoniously as do the great producers of Galt's Gulch in Atlas Shrugged. By giving us such a life-affirming and inspirational view of the possibility of so much joy in living one's own life and sharing it with worthy friends and neighbors, Ayn Rand has given us a book for the ages. Atlas Shrugged should endure as has Homer's Iliad and Odyssey for showing us man as an heroic and joyous being.
While large numbers of people who have read Atlas Shrugged love it, very many of them do not make that love known to many of their acquaintances and family. Her novel clearly rejected socialism in all of its variants and it was clearly not consistent with religious conservativism either. Consequently, both the left and the right rejected it, usually with considerable hatred. Another good fraction in the middle of the political spectrum ignored it because many of them are apathetic about philosophy, history, and politics.
The socialists hate individualism, since no collective, communitarian scheme can accommodate the complex individuality of man. When the individualist claims that the right to his life implies that he has the right to his own body, he must exercise personal responsibility in his own health and its care. This means that he has the right to provide himself with the best medical care he chooses and to either have or not to have medical insurance. Individualists who choose not to use their money for medical insurance, but can certainly afford it, number about 18 million of those 47 million who are said to live in the United States without medical insurance. The socialists want their audience to assume the 47 million to be poor Americans in need of governmentally assured medical insurance. Other individualists want better medical care than the government will provide and they want it when they want it, not 6 months or a year later as is common in the socialized medicine nations. Still others want to smoke or drink without having to pay punitive taxes to a Nanny state. Then we individualists think we know better how to spend our hard-earned income than a democratic mob listening to demagogues lusting for power. We view the use of our earnings as an essential manifestation of our liberty and our pursuit of happiness, as did the Framers of The Constitution. If our earnings and our property are not truly ours to dispose of, then we are not free to manage our own lives. We think the socialist is utterly presumptuous in believing he can manage our lives better than we ourselves can. But, the socialist is a brute who not only thinks he knows what our values should be better than we ourselves do, but that he has the right to hire government thugs to beat us brutally until we give into his vision of what each and every individual life should be. The socialist wants to design a cookie-cutter life for each of us and does his best to use the public schools as his propaganda tool to this end. Commonly, she or he feels very maternal or paternal in helping the great unwashed masses to make the right decisions. This view holds that most people are incapable of managing their own lives and requires that every adult be continuously treated like a child, with no prospect of ever growing up.
The religious conservative is often thought to be essentially the opposing force in our society. However, the religious conservative often shares a substantial part of the vision of the socialist. He holds that every man is a sinner and that every man needs God to help him manage his life. Man is the equivalent of a sheep, a very dumb animal, which requires the constant supervision of the shepherd. Of course, the priesthood is happy to provide the earthly portion of this shepherd function and it is their route to power and paternal presumptions. Again, the ordinary man is a child at best. Now, the government is to enforce seemly behavior according to the Bible, or the Koran, or Jewish or Hindu teachings. So, here again the individual who does not accept the authority of the Bible, the Koran or the dominant religious teachings of his region, is allowed little opportunity to manage his own life. He is thwarted in many ways from exercising his sovereign right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The religions almost always frown upon earthly pleasures to a substantial degree. Commonly, they hold prejudices against wealth and property, many aspects of free trade, many of the many joys of sex, and any vision of man as heroic. Commonly, one's sovereignty of body is crimped sexually and a woman's right to make decisions about that part of her body which is a fetus is denied. Commonly, freedom of conscience is limited when such freedom is not consistent with the regional religious teachings. So much for the right to life which must start with the right to manage one's own body and mind. Should one be homosexual, then the freedom to enjoy an equivalent partnering contract to that offered man and wife is denied. Forget about being bisexual, a bigamist, or polyamorous if one expects equal treatment before the law. Such expressions of individuality are denied by old books. No, wait, being a bigamist or more, is actually endorsed by many of the same old books invoked to deny other freedoms, but still the modern religion holds this evil. Go figure.
So, along came Ayn Rand. While very spiritual, it was the spirit of an earthly, rational, productive, and happiness-seeking man that she worshiped. She recognized that man lived by his rational faculty, which was his sole source for understanding reality. She reveled in the accomplishments of mind that many people contributed in their professional careers and thought that the system which most enabled these accomplishments was the Capitalist system of free trade in goods, services, and ideas. Religious tribalism or feudalism and socialism, whether of the fascist or communist varieties, squelched the mind and inhibited man's quest to thrive on this earth. She unabashedly identified the source of man's progress in the fruits of individual minds. She endorsed rationality, individuality, ethical egoism, productive achievement, and the quest for personal happiness.
Politically, a highly limited government, such as the framer's of The Constitution attempted to give us, was necessary if man were to be able to exercise his individual right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Unfortunately, Americans have always been ambivalent about endorsing rationality, individuality, ethical egoism, productive achievement, and the quest for personal happiness. More than any other country on earth, we tolerated, and sometimes encouraged these human pursuits, but in early times, ancient religious belief interfered and now, more and more, a cheap desire to escape personal responsibility manifests itself in socialist evasions. Along the way, our Constitution has been reinterpreted to turn a requirement that the government behave consistent with the general welfare into an opening to allow almost any government action restricting the rights of the individual if only it was claimed to be in the name of the general welfare. If this had been the intention of the Framers, why would they try so hard to enumerate the few powers that government had? If this broadening of power was not enough, many others, such as a huge broadening of the mandate to regulate interstate trade has been added. It is difficult to make an argument so convoluted and trivial that it is not held that the government has a power to restrict many human activities based upon the commerce clause. As Judge Narragansett says in Galt's Gulch in Atlas Shrugged, an amendment must be added to the Constitution saying that Congress shall make no law abridging trade and depriving the people of their property. Of course now, we must even buttress our right to free speech, which is cruelly abridged by the McCain-Feingold Act, claimed to be an election reform.
Because of American misconceptions of political freedom, we have a society in which the members are pitted against one another on the basis of the industries they work for, the size of the companies they work for, whether they are management or labor, which quintile of income they fall into, whether they own a home or not, whether they have children in the public schools or not, whether they are man or woman, whether they are heterosexual or otherwise, whether they have bought medical insurance or not, whether they are old or young, and based upon their ethnicity. Because government uses its monopoly on the use of force to take up the part of these various groups against the interests of the opposing group, there are constant battles involving those who seek the unearned and those who seek to defend themselves. These are commonly very messy battles, since they have degenerated into very complex mixtures of the legitimate desire to protect oneself and the dastardly desire to take advantage of others. What could be uglier than parents taking advantage of their children by maintaining a Ponzi scheme social security system? What could be more disgusting than one ethnic group claiming special favors from government and discriminating against other ethnic groups. Shouldn't men be judged by their individual character rather than the color of their skin? The politicians and the media by and large encourage this constant factionalization. It gives them more power and brings them more attention and money. The philosophy is clearly to create conflict and to divide and conquer.
If the individual is ever to recover and then to fully realize his right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, it will be critical that he understand that man can live in harmony with others only by adapting Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism. If the individual is to be respected, it must be understood that he lives by the product of his rational mind. When no man provides for himself by using force to appropriate the means of their living from others who have produced wealth, income, goods, and services by using their minds, then we can earn the shear joy of living as harmoniously as do the great producers of Galt's Gulch in Atlas Shrugged. By giving us such a life-affirming and inspirational view of the possibility of so much joy in living one's own life and sharing it with worthy friends and neighbors, Ayn Rand has given us a book for the ages. Atlas Shrugged should endure as has Homer's Iliad and Odyssey for showing us man as an heroic and joyous being.
08 April 2007
Individuality and Loneliness
There is a constant tension between asserting one's individuality and feeling welcome within a group. In fact, we are all very complex and differentiated individuals and we are also mostly social animals. Many of the most difficult choices we make in life are the result of a tug of war between our desire to be ourselves and our desire to be well-regarded and welcomed by others. In a rational world full of benevolent and tolerant people, the tension in this rope would be reduced, but it would always still be significant with most of the people who may hold the other end of the rope. Of course, they will be different in their capabilities, interests, and values in most cases from ourselves. This is simply a consequence of the complexity and the many differences that exist among people.
To start life, we are different in many ways at birth. We are so complicated at the level of initial biochemistry, that many differences exist between us already. Then, we start experiencing the world and interacting with other people and we each have a unique experience with unique exposures to stimuli from reality. Then, we each make a constant stream of choices in our thoughts and in our actions which have consequences unique to our own life. In the end, there can be no question but that each of us is a highly complex and differentiated individual. This in turn means that if you put any two people on the opposite ends of the rope, there will be tension in that rope. Two sisters at opposite ends of the rope will find times when the tension is great, as will two lovers, two scientists, two farmers, two historians, two philosophers, two friends, two bloggers, two unionists, and two businessmen. The tension is always present at some level.
If we consider even just fairly common traits, we do not find it easy to match two people up on any fairly substantial, yet quite finite set of traits. People have a tendency to be distributed across wide ranges, often along a bell-shaped curve, for given traits. Of course, many people may be close to the maximum of the curve for a given trait, but any two people who are close for that trait may be far apart on the distribution curve for another significant trait. For instance, suppose you are trying to match two people for intelligence, talkativeness, energy level, political beliefs, religious beliefs, and sexual preferences. As we know, it is difficult even with such a limited set of traits to find someone who matches any given individual. In real life, especially if one is looking for a marriageable mate, the number of traits that may be of importance is much greater. We would have to add such items as desire for children, manner of handling money and finances, preferences in homes, driving technique, sharing versus specialization in chores, how to entertain friends, how to interact with each other's family, and how to respond to each other's career needs. Bringing any two lives together is a very challenging task. This is true in many realms beyond that of two marriage partners.
The rope is always under tension. Yet, we are social animals. We want to receive and give affection, we want to exchange ideas, goods, and services, and we want to enjoy and appreciate others who are goal-directed living beings faced with many of the same challenges in life that face us. So, we want to find those to hold the other end of the rope who will not yank us off our feet and will allow us to be the individuals we are. At least, this is what we do if we are rational, because we realize that it is important to also be the individual we are. Less rational people will often try to diminish their individuality to belong comfortably within a large group of people, so they can have any number of people from that group at the other end of the rope without being yanked off their feet. In the Northeastern US and California, many people looking for some large group to belong to will decide to share in the socialist and Europeanized vision of government and society. In the heartland, many people will seek this common ground in a Christian community. In India, they seek it most commonly in Hinduism and the caste system. In Northern Africa and parts of southern Asia, they find it in Islam. Of course, this and other aspects of the common culture in these areas are only a part, though a substantial part, of an effort to reduce the tension in the rope. Most of these efforts involve a considerable sacrifice of individuality and with that a pain of its own.
How much pain there was and how much people had a need to express their individuality has been made very clear by the advent of the Internet and the now widespread communication channels opened between countless individuals seeking to find those who lie on the bell-shaped curve for a given interest or trait near them. For instance, maybe as many as 0.01% of Americans consider themselves to be Objectivists. Despite this small number, there are at least a dozen forums for Objectivists to discuss ideas, each with its own unique flavor. Or, consider the general distain for explicit sex and its public discussion. Yet, the internet is heavily trafficked with hordes of people trying to express their individuality in sexuality which they would never express within their local community. The Internet has become a tool also for finding that mate who might best be a match for marriage. It provides a means to filter through far larger numbers of people than one could ever meet in one's local community or travel to see and it allows people to assert their individuality without as great a risk that it will be discovered at their church, their workplace, or by their political henchmen. So, the Internet has done wonders to redress the constraints put on a person's individuality by the desire to fit in with some group of people without totally suppressing their individuality.
But, there is still that tension of having one realm in which one can be an individual and another in which it is hard to assert that individuality. Yet, oddly, very many of those who try hard to conform in their local community are the individualists of the Internet. Many of them have now been exposed to a higher level of personal expression and therefore freedom on the Internet. As they turn back into their communities, the benefits and the knowledge that have come about other people and their yearnings are bound to have a big impact on the level of benevolence toward individuals and tolerance toward the idea of individuality. This effect will be greater on younger people who came of age on the Internet. Community conformity will be almost certain to diminish over the next couple of decades as a result.
Among many other things, this opens the door for a philosophy for living which stresses individuality. It is also a very strongly positive development because it allows those few people who are willing and able to sustain their end of the rope, when it is under the greater tension characteristic of a little-shared philosophy of life, to meet one another. We Objectivists can at least be a part of a society through the Internet. This Internet society will grow if we practice our rational philosophy rationally. As it does, more and more people who can sustain rope tensions in their local communities of smaller magnitudes will be enticed to become Objectivists. The cost of membership will have to be brought down before a substantial fraction of even the American population will be willing to become Objectivists. If we want Objectivism to become a powerful force in our local world, we must practice both Internet and local community benevolence and toleration. The activation energy for becoming an Objectivist must be decreased, or there will only be a very few Objectivists and too many of them will simply be masochists and contrarians, who will be poor representatives.
Even with the Internet, being an individualist and an Objectivist is a lonely experience. You really must be a strong and resilient person. You must have the strength to bear some rather serious loneliness. Some of that loneliness is the result of already generally being a particularly intelligent person with a strong commitment to understanding reality. That already places you far out on some bell-shaped curves. Then on top of that you reject all the popular philosophies and causes of our time. You reject religion, socialism, environmental animism, tribalism, racism, and simple-minded, relativistic diversity/multiculturalism. You stand out like a sore thumb. You seek company on the Internet then where you can search the entire world and still you find only a small number of individuals you can really admire and whose friendship can be treasured. The cost of loving reality is only exceeded by the cost of acquiring a club to join by denying reality. It remains a fairly lonely business to be an individualist and even more so to be an individualist Objectivist.
Of course, the only real Objectivist is the individualist who expresses his individuality, thinks for himself, lives a productive and creative life, and seeks his own happiness. The orthodox, the cultist, the contrarian, and the masochist do not live the philosophy of Objectivism. They are pretenders or in some cases those who would be carnivores. Life is short and there is much to do. This imposes an economy that dictates against wasting one's time in endless debates with those who will not be convinced by rational argument. One must identify those who treat reality with total respect and ignore those who have other primary allegiances. There are some who distort the findings of science, pick them selectively and in as out-of-context a manner as do the environmental animists while claiming to respect science. This is actually a very fundamental attack on science, one which will totally discredit it, if allowed to go unchallenged.
This attack on science is being carried out very broadly by those environmentalists who falsely claim that there is a scientific consensus that the recent global warming is caused primarily by man rather than by a natural increase in radiation from the sun. But, in some Objectivist forums, there are other attacks upon science. Some are attacks upon quantum theory, which while not yet a completed program, is nonetheless not at fault for the reasons often claimed. Another is an attempt to claim that science has proven that all operations of the mind are now understood in terms of classical physics, classical thermodynamics even! This argument is viewed as a keystone argument that man lacks volition and the mind is really just a very complex program that makes choices. How these choices differ from simple conditional branching in a computer program has not been explained, but these claims have met with widespread acceptance on one major Objectivist forum.
The battle to be true to reality is a never-ending battle and I wonder if I will ever find a reasonable and sustaining number of friends to join me in these battles. If I should not carry the day, at least I will never be defeated! I will be true to my own individual nature and to my primary respect for reality whether I fight alone or with a few magnificent friends. Those who fight under the banner of individuality and reality beside me, I will love.
To start life, we are different in many ways at birth. We are so complicated at the level of initial biochemistry, that many differences exist between us already. Then, we start experiencing the world and interacting with other people and we each have a unique experience with unique exposures to stimuli from reality. Then, we each make a constant stream of choices in our thoughts and in our actions which have consequences unique to our own life. In the end, there can be no question but that each of us is a highly complex and differentiated individual. This in turn means that if you put any two people on the opposite ends of the rope, there will be tension in that rope. Two sisters at opposite ends of the rope will find times when the tension is great, as will two lovers, two scientists, two farmers, two historians, two philosophers, two friends, two bloggers, two unionists, and two businessmen. The tension is always present at some level.
If we consider even just fairly common traits, we do not find it easy to match two people up on any fairly substantial, yet quite finite set of traits. People have a tendency to be distributed across wide ranges, often along a bell-shaped curve, for given traits. Of course, many people may be close to the maximum of the curve for a given trait, but any two people who are close for that trait may be far apart on the distribution curve for another significant trait. For instance, suppose you are trying to match two people for intelligence, talkativeness, energy level, political beliefs, religious beliefs, and sexual preferences. As we know, it is difficult even with such a limited set of traits to find someone who matches any given individual. In real life, especially if one is looking for a marriageable mate, the number of traits that may be of importance is much greater. We would have to add such items as desire for children, manner of handling money and finances, preferences in homes, driving technique, sharing versus specialization in chores, how to entertain friends, how to interact with each other's family, and how to respond to each other's career needs. Bringing any two lives together is a very challenging task. This is true in many realms beyond that of two marriage partners.
The rope is always under tension. Yet, we are social animals. We want to receive and give affection, we want to exchange ideas, goods, and services, and we want to enjoy and appreciate others who are goal-directed living beings faced with many of the same challenges in life that face us. So, we want to find those to hold the other end of the rope who will not yank us off our feet and will allow us to be the individuals we are. At least, this is what we do if we are rational, because we realize that it is important to also be the individual we are. Less rational people will often try to diminish their individuality to belong comfortably within a large group of people, so they can have any number of people from that group at the other end of the rope without being yanked off their feet. In the Northeastern US and California, many people looking for some large group to belong to will decide to share in the socialist and Europeanized vision of government and society. In the heartland, many people will seek this common ground in a Christian community. In India, they seek it most commonly in Hinduism and the caste system. In Northern Africa and parts of southern Asia, they find it in Islam. Of course, this and other aspects of the common culture in these areas are only a part, though a substantial part, of an effort to reduce the tension in the rope. Most of these efforts involve a considerable sacrifice of individuality and with that a pain of its own.
How much pain there was and how much people had a need to express their individuality has been made very clear by the advent of the Internet and the now widespread communication channels opened between countless individuals seeking to find those who lie on the bell-shaped curve for a given interest or trait near them. For instance, maybe as many as 0.01% of Americans consider themselves to be Objectivists. Despite this small number, there are at least a dozen forums for Objectivists to discuss ideas, each with its own unique flavor. Or, consider the general distain for explicit sex and its public discussion. Yet, the internet is heavily trafficked with hordes of people trying to express their individuality in sexuality which they would never express within their local community. The Internet has become a tool also for finding that mate who might best be a match for marriage. It provides a means to filter through far larger numbers of people than one could ever meet in one's local community or travel to see and it allows people to assert their individuality without as great a risk that it will be discovered at their church, their workplace, or by their political henchmen. So, the Internet has done wonders to redress the constraints put on a person's individuality by the desire to fit in with some group of people without totally suppressing their individuality.
But, there is still that tension of having one realm in which one can be an individual and another in which it is hard to assert that individuality. Yet, oddly, very many of those who try hard to conform in their local community are the individualists of the Internet. Many of them have now been exposed to a higher level of personal expression and therefore freedom on the Internet. As they turn back into their communities, the benefits and the knowledge that have come about other people and their yearnings are bound to have a big impact on the level of benevolence toward individuals and tolerance toward the idea of individuality. This effect will be greater on younger people who came of age on the Internet. Community conformity will be almost certain to diminish over the next couple of decades as a result.
Among many other things, this opens the door for a philosophy for living which stresses individuality. It is also a very strongly positive development because it allows those few people who are willing and able to sustain their end of the rope, when it is under the greater tension characteristic of a little-shared philosophy of life, to meet one another. We Objectivists can at least be a part of a society through the Internet. This Internet society will grow if we practice our rational philosophy rationally. As it does, more and more people who can sustain rope tensions in their local communities of smaller magnitudes will be enticed to become Objectivists. The cost of membership will have to be brought down before a substantial fraction of even the American population will be willing to become Objectivists. If we want Objectivism to become a powerful force in our local world, we must practice both Internet and local community benevolence and toleration. The activation energy for becoming an Objectivist must be decreased, or there will only be a very few Objectivists and too many of them will simply be masochists and contrarians, who will be poor representatives.
Even with the Internet, being an individualist and an Objectivist is a lonely experience. You really must be a strong and resilient person. You must have the strength to bear some rather serious loneliness. Some of that loneliness is the result of already generally being a particularly intelligent person with a strong commitment to understanding reality. That already places you far out on some bell-shaped curves. Then on top of that you reject all the popular philosophies and causes of our time. You reject religion, socialism, environmental animism, tribalism, racism, and simple-minded, relativistic diversity/multiculturalism. You stand out like a sore thumb. You seek company on the Internet then where you can search the entire world and still you find only a small number of individuals you can really admire and whose friendship can be treasured. The cost of loving reality is only exceeded by the cost of acquiring a club to join by denying reality. It remains a fairly lonely business to be an individualist and even more so to be an individualist Objectivist.
Of course, the only real Objectivist is the individualist who expresses his individuality, thinks for himself, lives a productive and creative life, and seeks his own happiness. The orthodox, the cultist, the contrarian, and the masochist do not live the philosophy of Objectivism. They are pretenders or in some cases those who would be carnivores. Life is short and there is much to do. This imposes an economy that dictates against wasting one's time in endless debates with those who will not be convinced by rational argument. One must identify those who treat reality with total respect and ignore those who have other primary allegiances. There are some who distort the findings of science, pick them selectively and in as out-of-context a manner as do the environmental animists while claiming to respect science. This is actually a very fundamental attack on science, one which will totally discredit it, if allowed to go unchallenged.
This attack on science is being carried out very broadly by those environmentalists who falsely claim that there is a scientific consensus that the recent global warming is caused primarily by man rather than by a natural increase in radiation from the sun. But, in some Objectivist forums, there are other attacks upon science. Some are attacks upon quantum theory, which while not yet a completed program, is nonetheless not at fault for the reasons often claimed. Another is an attempt to claim that science has proven that all operations of the mind are now understood in terms of classical physics, classical thermodynamics even! This argument is viewed as a keystone argument that man lacks volition and the mind is really just a very complex program that makes choices. How these choices differ from simple conditional branching in a computer program has not been explained, but these claims have met with widespread acceptance on one major Objectivist forum.
The battle to be true to reality is a never-ending battle and I wonder if I will ever find a reasonable and sustaining number of friends to join me in these battles. If I should not carry the day, at least I will never be defeated! I will be true to my own individual nature and to my primary respect for reality whether I fight alone or with a few magnificent friends. Those who fight under the banner of individuality and reality beside me, I will love.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
