Altruism debunked.
Per the Merriam-Webster dictionary--
Altruism -
1: unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others
2: behavior by an animal that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself but that benefits others of its species
OK, get up. Go make put a pot of coffee on. Before the coffee is done, we will have debunked altruism here.
Go ahead, I'll wait.
.
.
.
.
OK, now that you're back lets get this done.
Altruism is the unselfish regard for the welfare of others as you just read in the definition. Unselfish, that is to say you put others above yourself. So, to live virtuously with an altruistic ethos, you must be more concerned with others than yourself. That sounds good doesn't it? Can we get a care bear hug? Awwwww.
But, if you enjoy helping others, isn't that selfish? Are you helping them because you like to? Why, you selfish bastard! All you care about is your own happiness! Thats right, if you are helping people because it makes you feel good about yourself you are being selfish. Therefore, you can not help people because you want to if you are being altruistic. You must look to help people whom it doesn't make you happy to help. That way you can feel indifferent about it. Oh wait, but in the second part of the definition we see “is not beneficial, or may be harmful” as part of altruism. Shucks, that means even though you feel indifferently about helping someone, it had better not benefit you! In fact, it could be harmful to you and THAT would be in line with the definition.
So, to be of the utmost virtue, and that is what we strive for is it not? To be virtuous? (if you aren't striving to be virtuous regardless of your particular ethos, then why do you even live? Seriously?) You must then help those that would be harmful to you, since that is the antithesis of selfishness; helping someone else, while causing yourself harm. So, helping your enemy to kill you is the MOST virtuous thing you can do. So, if you are an altruist, I am your enemy. Therefore, you MUST destroy yourself. Go ahead, Ill wait..........
Whats that, you want to know how? My goodness, there are a brazillion ways to do it, gun, pills, acid, razor..... But I am a merciful person, you can just sit there in self reflection and analyze your own philosophy, until such time as you come up with no contradictions. And of course to be most helpful to me, you will keep your mouth shut and your fingers from a keyboard until such time as you have completed enough of your own introspection to remove all hypocrisies from your thought process. (ask Immanuel Kant how that worked out for him.)
So, coffee done yet? Cause I am!
So, grab yourself a cup and sit back and read how you can REALLY help people, and find out why selfishness IS a virtue.
Selfishness, that is to say RATIONAL self intrest (I do not deal with the irrational, but more on that at a later date) is the only virtue one need strive for. Let us take a look at the above statements about altruism and why you would be selfish for enjoying helping someone.
If you enjoy helping someone, good for you! I mean that (unfortunately, sarcasm does not have its own font, so I must go on to say I really mean that, good for you). That is selfish. You are helping someone because it brings you happiness, and making yourself happy is selfish. It is in your own rational self interest to make yourself happy. OK, other than those emo dorks, but that delves into the irrational.... I would hazard to guess that any rational person seeks to be happy. It is also selfish to provide for yourself. After all, you are thinking of yourself first, and doing whatever it takes to provide; farming, hunting, working at a job to earn a currency with which to trade for those things you need, want and in general make you happy. That is rational self interest.
“What”, you may ask “About a parent that gives up anything and everything for their children? That is selfless.” I hate to debunk that thought process in less time than it takes to drink a cup of coffee, but if I must.... It is of rational self interest to the parent to do what they need to do to help their children because.... wait for it......here it comes.... their children's' success brings them (the parents) happiness. TA DA! Likewise with wives, husbands, so on and so forth.
It is a very simple equation, with some extremely important variables to determine whether or not to help someone. It is as follows:
amount of enjoyment from helping someone + value of the person to me – (minus) amount of effort expended = probability of my helping someone.
Let us look at the constituents of this equation individually.
Amount of enjoyment: If it is going to be something I utterly HATE doing, the other portions of the equation had better be things (people) I really like, otherwise it ain't gonna happen.
Value of the person: Is it a stranger that I do not know? A friend that has earned my respect? A close buddy that has many shared experiences? My wife? All of those have a value to me in increasing amount as listed. Or more generically, how much do you care about the person that you are helping?
Amount of effort. Is it an easy task? Dirty? Does it involve maggots in the garbage? Is it simply picking up a piece of paper?
Probability of helping: yeah, if you need an explanation to this, you're a dumb ass.
So let us take a look at a concrete example to the abstract concept behind this equation.
I am driving down the road in the early evening, it is not yet sunset, but it is getting close. A person is on the side of the road with a broken down car, a flat tire let us say. And I am in no hurry to get anywhere.
So, the amount of enjoyment in this example? Meh, kinda high, I like fixing things.
Value of person? Not so high, I don't know them after all. They could be a dumb ass.
Amount of effort? Not a lot, changing a flat is fairly easy.
So the probability of my helping? not so bad.
We can change some variables there to change the outcome. Let us say it is someone I know, but who has talked bad about me (I know, someone talking bad about me, perish the thought!). Their value to me is significantly less, and therefore, I probably wont help. Make it a close buddy, and Ill drive halfway across the country to change a tire. Make it my wife, and well...all the other variables can approach infinite and Ill still help.
All of this is selfish. I am thinking about what I will have to accomplish, what it will cost me in time, effort, expenditure of resources, etc. While at the same time calculating the return, my own happiness. (Since I have willingly tied my own happiness to that of my wifes, you can see why the other variables can reach such high magnitudes!)
This is NOT however as Cheryl Crow put it “If it makes you happy, it can't be that bad”.
Bear in mind I said RATIONAL self interest. And in being rational, there can be no contradictions. You can not say that it is selfish to steal from someone, without saying that it is OK to steal from you. You can not say it is OK to murder someone without saying that it is OK for you to be murdered. So on and so forth. Nature does not allow for contradictions. Period. (why do people say that? Theres a period right THERE!)
You are your own most important possession. Yes, you own yourself. Doubt that? Then who exactly DOES own you? And if it is not you, then let me know who owns you. Id like to rent you out for some manual labor at my house! So as the owner of yourself, Liberty is the greatest tool for your own self preservation. No one else owns you, therefore you have the Liberty to live your life. Likewise with all other people, they have the Liberty to live their lives. So, if you were to do something to infringe upon someones liberty, you are saying, through your actions, if not words, that it is acceptable to remove your Liberty, including the Liberty to do the very thing you are doing to take someones else's Liberty.
yeah, thats a mouthful, let us look at a concrete example. You are a farmer. You want more crops, therefore you feel you have the Liberty to farm someone else's land. Well, in so doing you are saying that it is OK for someone to take your Liberties, so they cut off your arms so you can no longer farm someone else's land. Not exactly in your self interest is it? On the other hand, the selfish thing to do is, farm your land as best as possible, respecting others rights to their land. In so doing peace and harmony can ensue. Everybody sing Kumbaya! Your arms will be intact, your neighbors will not mutilate you, and you will have as many crops as your efforts, intelligence, and overall productiveness can produce. Sure, you can ask for help from your friends, and if they go through the equation themselves, they might just help out! After all, the more beets you grow, the more currency you can obtain, and then the more radishes you can purchase from me, provided you're not an ass hat.
So there we have it. The end result of altruism is destroying yourself. The end result of rational self interest is singing kumbaya with your neighbors over beets and radishes.
Have a selfish day!
Friday, October 9, 2009
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Quit using the Force already!
What sets apart a government form all other institutions created by man? What makes a government so unique?
Force. And I am not referring to Midi- chlorians!
All governments have the same tool at their disposal for serving their purpose. The lawful monopoly of the initiation of the use of force. Even asshat dictatorships have this right. The thugs carrying out the dirty work of the HAIC (head asshat in charge) are doing so under the 'lawful' right granted to them by the government. I use the term lawful extremely loosely in this illustration only in that the dillhole in charge is dictating the law based upon his or her whim.
The lawful monopoly of the initiation of the use of force against people is the mechanism by which all other functions of a government take place. What does that mean exactly? It means that only the government has the right to use force against someone first. This differs from the right to use force in defense in the sense that the initiation of force was used by the person in the wrong, and the person responding is only doing so to protect their rights. A person fighting off an attacker is using defensive force against the attacker who initiated the use of force. A government however, is granted the right to initiate such force, such as a police officer detaining a suspected thief The thief does not have the right to use force against the government representative (the police officer) who does have the right to initiate the use of force.
All decrees from a government have this backing of force. If it is not explicitly defined, the threat of force backs the decree. Taxes, for example are taken by the threat of force. Although in a free society, most people pay taxes voluntarily, the threat of the use of force backs the laws that define what taxes are to be taken. For a practical example of this concept, try not paying your taxes, and not hiding the fact. Unless your name is Timothy Geithner, the use of force will be brought upon you.
No other institution has this ability. No private organization can initiate the use of force upon a person without the backing of the government. An example being a homeowners association. They have the ability to force a person to comply with their bylaws ONLY with the backing of the government and consent of the individual. A person subject to the rules of the association will have signed a contract to that effect. If, as an example a person fails to pay their dues, the people of the association can not forcibly take them, without involving the government in the form of the courts and police.
A private organization lacks the ability to use force to control a free persons activities without said persons consent. i.e. Walmart can not force you to spend a single penny in their stores, without you willfully participating in the transaction. And likewise, no individual, or private group of individuals can force a business to sell them a product. (at least in a free society)
The Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution define what rights a government has the ability to use force in the defense of. Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness (sidenote: pursuit of Happines was changed from Property due to the founders belief that salvery would never be ended in america if they left it as property [note 1]) are the inalienable rights of the people, and as such, the government of the U.S. Was established to protect the citezens of the U.S. Against threats to those rights. The Constitution defines what functions each part of government have in the defense of said rights such as the legislative branch having the power to lay and collect taxes amongst others, (Article 1), the executive branch having the power of the Army, Navy and militias of the states amongst others(Article 2), and the judicial branch having the power of the courts amongst others (Article 3).
This means that all citizens of the United States of America have the right to Life Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. With these rights comes the understanding that they are universal amongst all free people, and in order to maintain the rights to yourself, you must also strive to maintain the rights of all other free people. Which means everyone has these inalienable rights, provided, they do not infringe upon others inalinable rights in their pursuits. i.e. I can not start a farm on property that you own, or force you to pay for my services if you have not previously consented to do so as in doing so, I would be infringing upon your liberties and as such declaring that I myself do not have those same liberties and thusly negating the entire concept. Only the Government has the right to do so, as defined by the Constitution.
Why is this of such great importance? Because it would appear that a vast majority of citizens in the U.S. Have forgotten this, along with the representatives in the government itself.
The view has shifted from a government that maintains the rights of the people to a government that controls the activities of a people. That is not the government of a free society.
Allow me to invoke someone who might be a bit of an expert on the Constitution on this matter.
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
~Thomas Jefferson ~
That is to say, it is sinful and tyrannical to force someone to pay for those things deemed necessary by the government if they are not defined within the documents thereof. The military may be absolutely abhorrent to some people, but it is defined within the constitution and therefore is a right by which Congress has the power to lay and collect taxes upon. (sidenote: I am of the opinion that if you believe the military is absolutely abhorrent in a free society, you're a dill hole that has no concept of life, and I hope you get overrun by dictators who relish in physical torture of their subjects and their subjects children but that is neither here nor there). Likewise with the court system. In so far as its structure rather then practice. It is defined as such to protect the rights of the people and has the backing of the taxes, taken under the threat of force, to enable it to perform its function. (the abhorrence of the legality of abortion to segments of the population is predicated on the definition of the beginning of life and is not a discussion I will entertain at this time)
The same can be applied to all other functions of the government as defined by the Constitution of the United States. Some politicians have said that they do not like the constitution because it does not go far enough. It does not, they say, define what the government can or must do.
They are morons.
It is spelled out in the most eloquent terms possible. The government can only do what is necessary to protect the rights of Life Liberty and Property of its citizens. It is limited as such because of the right of the government to initiate the use of force. To do anything other than protect those rights is using force against innocent citizens when no crime has been committed by them. For example, a government that uses money collected in the form of taxes to fund artwork which may be found to be abhorrent by the very people paying taxes is a misuse of the power granted a government. It is, at its essence forcing someone to pay for something they find abhorrent, since the taxes are collected with the threat of force. Were the artwork not produced, no rights of the individual paying the taxes would have been violated and therefore is a misuse of the right of force, which is an infringement on the persons Liberty. The very thing the government of the United States was instituted to protect.
For those that wish for the government to pay for healthcare of people, although it is not defined anywhere in the constitution, I must ask, Have I in anyway infringed upon your rights of Life Liberty and Property? Have I taken your life? Threatened to take your life? Held you forcibly and infringed upon your Liberty? Have I taken something of yours without an equal exchange with consent? Then where do you find the right to infringe upon my rights to my own Life, Liberty and Property? Where do you get the right to use the Government as a proxy to initiate the use of force against me to pay for something I find abhorrent when I have not infringed upon the rights of anyone? The statement of General Welfare in the constitution has been used to defend such breeches of the trust of government but it is well documented and can be found in the writings of Madison and Jefferson where the concept of General Welfare does not entitle the government to do more than is defined in the Constitution itself. (more on that in a future essay)
The concept of the monopoly granted to a government in the initiation of the use of force is a concept which has been trampled upon so severely that without immediately reversing course it will lead to at best an Oligarchy (that means you G.E.!) and at worst a Dictatorship. Neither option is conducive to the concepts of Life Liberty and Property, and is most certainly the antithesis of a free society.
Next up, Altruism, debunked in less time than it takes to brew a pot of coffee.
[note 1] The inalienable rights of Life Liberty and Property are requirements with which a person survives. It was changed from Property to Happiness due to the institution of slavery which labeled slaves as property. The founders wrote extensively on the subject and had slavery not been in practice, Property would be listed.
For a more detailed analysis of this concept stay tuned to future essays.
Force. And I am not referring to Midi- chlorians!
All governments have the same tool at their disposal for serving their purpose. The lawful monopoly of the initiation of the use of force. Even asshat dictatorships have this right. The thugs carrying out the dirty work of the HAIC (head asshat in charge) are doing so under the 'lawful' right granted to them by the government. I use the term lawful extremely loosely in this illustration only in that the dillhole in charge is dictating the law based upon his or her whim.
The lawful monopoly of the initiation of the use of force against people is the mechanism by which all other functions of a government take place. What does that mean exactly? It means that only the government has the right to use force against someone first. This differs from the right to use force in defense in the sense that the initiation of force was used by the person in the wrong, and the person responding is only doing so to protect their rights. A person fighting off an attacker is using defensive force against the attacker who initiated the use of force. A government however, is granted the right to initiate such force, such as a police officer detaining a suspected thief The thief does not have the right to use force against the government representative (the police officer) who does have the right to initiate the use of force.
All decrees from a government have this backing of force. If it is not explicitly defined, the threat of force backs the decree. Taxes, for example are taken by the threat of force. Although in a free society, most people pay taxes voluntarily, the threat of the use of force backs the laws that define what taxes are to be taken. For a practical example of this concept, try not paying your taxes, and not hiding the fact. Unless your name is Timothy Geithner, the use of force will be brought upon you.
No other institution has this ability. No private organization can initiate the use of force upon a person without the backing of the government. An example being a homeowners association. They have the ability to force a person to comply with their bylaws ONLY with the backing of the government and consent of the individual. A person subject to the rules of the association will have signed a contract to that effect. If, as an example a person fails to pay their dues, the people of the association can not forcibly take them, without involving the government in the form of the courts and police.
A private organization lacks the ability to use force to control a free persons activities without said persons consent. i.e. Walmart can not force you to spend a single penny in their stores, without you willfully participating in the transaction. And likewise, no individual, or private group of individuals can force a business to sell them a product. (at least in a free society)
The Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution define what rights a government has the ability to use force in the defense of. Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness (sidenote: pursuit of Happines was changed from Property due to the founders belief that salvery would never be ended in america if they left it as property [note 1]) are the inalienable rights of the people, and as such, the government of the U.S. Was established to protect the citezens of the U.S. Against threats to those rights. The Constitution defines what functions each part of government have in the defense of said rights such as the legislative branch having the power to lay and collect taxes amongst others, (Article 1), the executive branch having the power of the Army, Navy and militias of the states amongst others(Article 2), and the judicial branch having the power of the courts amongst others (Article 3).
This means that all citizens of the United States of America have the right to Life Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. With these rights comes the understanding that they are universal amongst all free people, and in order to maintain the rights to yourself, you must also strive to maintain the rights of all other free people. Which means everyone has these inalienable rights, provided, they do not infringe upon others inalinable rights in their pursuits. i.e. I can not start a farm on property that you own, or force you to pay for my services if you have not previously consented to do so as in doing so, I would be infringing upon your liberties and as such declaring that I myself do not have those same liberties and thusly negating the entire concept. Only the Government has the right to do so, as defined by the Constitution.
Why is this of such great importance? Because it would appear that a vast majority of citizens in the U.S. Have forgotten this, along with the representatives in the government itself.
The view has shifted from a government that maintains the rights of the people to a government that controls the activities of a people. That is not the government of a free society.
Allow me to invoke someone who might be a bit of an expert on the Constitution on this matter.
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
~Thomas Jefferson ~
That is to say, it is sinful and tyrannical to force someone to pay for those things deemed necessary by the government if they are not defined within the documents thereof. The military may be absolutely abhorrent to some people, but it is defined within the constitution and therefore is a right by which Congress has the power to lay and collect taxes upon. (sidenote: I am of the opinion that if you believe the military is absolutely abhorrent in a free society, you're a dill hole that has no concept of life, and I hope you get overrun by dictators who relish in physical torture of their subjects and their subjects children but that is neither here nor there). Likewise with the court system. In so far as its structure rather then practice. It is defined as such to protect the rights of the people and has the backing of the taxes, taken under the threat of force, to enable it to perform its function. (the abhorrence of the legality of abortion to segments of the population is predicated on the definition of the beginning of life and is not a discussion I will entertain at this time)
The same can be applied to all other functions of the government as defined by the Constitution of the United States. Some politicians have said that they do not like the constitution because it does not go far enough. It does not, they say, define what the government can or must do.
They are morons.
It is spelled out in the most eloquent terms possible. The government can only do what is necessary to protect the rights of Life Liberty and Property of its citizens. It is limited as such because of the right of the government to initiate the use of force. To do anything other than protect those rights is using force against innocent citizens when no crime has been committed by them. For example, a government that uses money collected in the form of taxes to fund artwork which may be found to be abhorrent by the very people paying taxes is a misuse of the power granted a government. It is, at its essence forcing someone to pay for something they find abhorrent, since the taxes are collected with the threat of force. Were the artwork not produced, no rights of the individual paying the taxes would have been violated and therefore is a misuse of the right of force, which is an infringement on the persons Liberty. The very thing the government of the United States was instituted to protect.
For those that wish for the government to pay for healthcare of people, although it is not defined anywhere in the constitution, I must ask, Have I in anyway infringed upon your rights of Life Liberty and Property? Have I taken your life? Threatened to take your life? Held you forcibly and infringed upon your Liberty? Have I taken something of yours without an equal exchange with consent? Then where do you find the right to infringe upon my rights to my own Life, Liberty and Property? Where do you get the right to use the Government as a proxy to initiate the use of force against me to pay for something I find abhorrent when I have not infringed upon the rights of anyone? The statement of General Welfare in the constitution has been used to defend such breeches of the trust of government but it is well documented and can be found in the writings of Madison and Jefferson where the concept of General Welfare does not entitle the government to do more than is defined in the Constitution itself. (more on that in a future essay)
The concept of the monopoly granted to a government in the initiation of the use of force is a concept which has been trampled upon so severely that without immediately reversing course it will lead to at best an Oligarchy (that means you G.E.!) and at worst a Dictatorship. Neither option is conducive to the concepts of Life Liberty and Property, and is most certainly the antithesis of a free society.
Next up, Altruism, debunked in less time than it takes to brew a pot of coffee.
[note 1] The inalienable rights of Life Liberty and Property are requirements with which a person survives. It was changed from Property to Happiness due to the institution of slavery which labeled slaves as property. The founders wrote extensively on the subject and had slavery not been in practice, Property would be listed.
For a more detailed analysis of this concept stay tuned to future essays.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
No Comment
Mr. Ted Kennedy has died today.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32491712/?gt1=43001
Mary Jo Kopechne could not be reached for a comment.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32491712/?gt1=43001
Mary Jo Kopechne could not be reached for a comment.
Friday, August 14, 2009
The (not so) Jolly Green Giant
I once heard some celebrity in a sound bite say “The debate is over” when referring to global climate change.
She was correct.
In fact, I will contend that there should never have been any debate in the first place. The climate is changing. It always has been. The only constant in the universe is change, not even Einstein's Cosmological Constant has held up! The Earths climate has been changing since the day Orpheus crashed into it and created our moon, and most likely before that too. The evidence is everywhere. Deserts that have been in our history since the dawn of human civilization were once lush tropical habitats before homo-erectus stood erect. The striations in exposed rock tell the tale of climate change through time in handy-dandy stripes, ready for the casual observer to stop and read the tale.
So why is there debate?
There is only one force known to man that can create debate as powerful, vitriolic and skewed as what has been going on lately.
Politics.
“Green” has become a powerful tool of the politicians. The battle lines have been drawn, every side has taken their positions, and the shots are fired back and forth on a daily basis. Each side claims they are correct. And at present, all of the sides are so entrenched in the data collecting and processing evolution that no accurate data makes it to the surface. For any side. Can you picture a politician of any flavor coming out and saying “OK, we did some independent research and it turns out that man has had no effect on climate change”. Or, “The independent labs of 'Data Only Laboratories' has shown that mankind is speeding global climate change by 15%, which is a contradiction to my previous statements, so I must re-evaluate my position based on this new information.”
Yeah, and Joan Rivers is Au Natural.
The presence of politics in any form of study begins to distort the data instantly. Politicians must constantly justify their existence to the (dumb)masses, and having an enemy to fight against is the easiest way to do so. How many politicians have you heard say “I'm fighting for you!” You can see this dramatically presented both in the movies that have been created supporting the “data' and the responses to those movies presenting data refuting them with each side claiming the other is the enemy and we must stop them.
The politicians distort the data in many ways, sometimes by intentional omission, sometimes with corrupted “scientists”, but most often, they peddle the power they hold to the highest bidder. Adding “scientific research grants” for groups favorable to their “cause” to bills and amendments. This in itself is abhorrent behavior and should be put to a stop, but it does not end there.
Fortunately for those in political positions, a goodly portion of the general public is all to fast to take up arms in this battle. People arguing with other people based upon a cursory understanding of the statistics and charts that are skewed from the start. Many of those people doing the arguing have the belief that the harder they battle, the more they will be rewarded when “their side” wins, adding a zealous fire to their actions. A large portion of this bunch would be hard pressed to even describe the difference between a sedimentary and igneous rock! When presented with raw facts, not filtered through the prism of their “power peddler” of choice, they often resort to attacking the messenger rather than analyzing the data objectively.
This may not be an intentional design by the politicians, but it certainly helps their positional security. So long as the pawns are doing the fighting, the power pieces can remain unscathed behind the lines....”Fly my pretties, FLY!”
While the foot soldiers battle and weaken each other, the political puppet masters gather more and more strings with which to control their subjects..err.. constituents. It is us, the citizens of America (and the world for that matter) that are on the loosing end of this battle. With each piece of “Green” legislation that passes, we loose more of our personal liberty. As “Green” becomes a mandate, by definition, choice diminishes. There are plenty of examples to illustrate this. The 100Watt incandescent light bulb is to be abolished in America soon. Auto manufacturers are being mandated to make “Green” vehicles. Smart Meters are becoming a requirement in some locations. And the most vicious attack on liberty to date, Cap and Trade of carbon emissions. Each of these examples demonstrates just who is winning the debate on global climate change, the very people that started it. By controlling the actions of people in the name of “Green” they achieve the ultimate goal they are after, control of people. With the above mentioned examples you can see the control. People will have to buy a particularr type of light bulb (which happens to be manufactured en masse by a large political campaign doner.) No longer can you shop around for the vehicle you want, you must buy the mandated type regardless of your desire to pursue your own happiness. Mandated to create a vehicle to a certain specification, the true creative engineers will not have the resources to explore greater advances. And in the ultimate slap in the face, you must petition the “almighty controllers of carbon” to allow you to be more productive, your hat in your hand, a humble stature as you beg to produce.
Is it any wonder that on a global level the countries that are already totalitarian and dictatorial, “Green” is not even on their list of things to ponder. They have already gained the control of their populous and do not need a Trojan horse to garner more. Where as in nations of (semi) free peoples, “Green” is being rammed down harder than bitter medicine to a 2 year old.
Control and power, not money, is the currency of those that wish to peddle their influence. Money has no backing when you have the power to attain your goals with coercion and legislation. Money has no influence when you have the power to devalue it on a whim. Each of the players in the struggle for power believes they have the “immunity idol” under their shirt and that they will be safe from tribal vote when the dust settles. In reality, the only name being written on the parchment is “Liberty”. And in the end, the tribe will have spoken and Liberty will be banished from the island of Earth.
So, to prevent this from happening, I invoke the words of Rodney King, “Can't we all just get along?” and direct our resources to the true enemy....”The Power Peddlers”.
As a final thought, if carbon dioxide is exhaled every time we speak, should we be putting a cap and trade on the speeches of politicians?
She was correct.
In fact, I will contend that there should never have been any debate in the first place. The climate is changing. It always has been. The only constant in the universe is change, not even Einstein's Cosmological Constant has held up! The Earths climate has been changing since the day Orpheus crashed into it and created our moon, and most likely before that too. The evidence is everywhere. Deserts that have been in our history since the dawn of human civilization were once lush tropical habitats before homo-erectus stood erect. The striations in exposed rock tell the tale of climate change through time in handy-dandy stripes, ready for the casual observer to stop and read the tale.
So why is there debate?
There is only one force known to man that can create debate as powerful, vitriolic and skewed as what has been going on lately.
Politics.
“Green” has become a powerful tool of the politicians. The battle lines have been drawn, every side has taken their positions, and the shots are fired back and forth on a daily basis. Each side claims they are correct. And at present, all of the sides are so entrenched in the data collecting and processing evolution that no accurate data makes it to the surface. For any side. Can you picture a politician of any flavor coming out and saying “OK, we did some independent research and it turns out that man has had no effect on climate change”. Or, “The independent labs of 'Data Only Laboratories' has shown that mankind is speeding global climate change by 15%, which is a contradiction to my previous statements, so I must re-evaluate my position based on this new information.”
Yeah, and Joan Rivers is Au Natural.
The presence of politics in any form of study begins to distort the data instantly. Politicians must constantly justify their existence to the (dumb)masses, and having an enemy to fight against is the easiest way to do so. How many politicians have you heard say “I'm fighting for you!” You can see this dramatically presented both in the movies that have been created supporting the “data' and the responses to those movies presenting data refuting them with each side claiming the other is the enemy and we must stop them.
The politicians distort the data in many ways, sometimes by intentional omission, sometimes with corrupted “scientists”, but most often, they peddle the power they hold to the highest bidder. Adding “scientific research grants” for groups favorable to their “cause” to bills and amendments. This in itself is abhorrent behavior and should be put to a stop, but it does not end there.
Fortunately for those in political positions, a goodly portion of the general public is all to fast to take up arms in this battle. People arguing with other people based upon a cursory understanding of the statistics and charts that are skewed from the start. Many of those people doing the arguing have the belief that the harder they battle, the more they will be rewarded when “their side” wins, adding a zealous fire to their actions. A large portion of this bunch would be hard pressed to even describe the difference between a sedimentary and igneous rock! When presented with raw facts, not filtered through the prism of their “power peddler” of choice, they often resort to attacking the messenger rather than analyzing the data objectively.
This may not be an intentional design by the politicians, but it certainly helps their positional security. So long as the pawns are doing the fighting, the power pieces can remain unscathed behind the lines....”Fly my pretties, FLY!”
While the foot soldiers battle and weaken each other, the political puppet masters gather more and more strings with which to control their subjects..err.. constituents. It is us, the citizens of America (and the world for that matter) that are on the loosing end of this battle. With each piece of “Green” legislation that passes, we loose more of our personal liberty. As “Green” becomes a mandate, by definition, choice diminishes. There are plenty of examples to illustrate this. The 100Watt incandescent light bulb is to be abolished in America soon. Auto manufacturers are being mandated to make “Green” vehicles. Smart Meters are becoming a requirement in some locations. And the most vicious attack on liberty to date, Cap and Trade of carbon emissions. Each of these examples demonstrates just who is winning the debate on global climate change, the very people that started it. By controlling the actions of people in the name of “Green” they achieve the ultimate goal they are after, control of people. With the above mentioned examples you can see the control. People will have to buy a particularr type of light bulb (which happens to be manufactured en masse by a large political campaign doner.) No longer can you shop around for the vehicle you want, you must buy the mandated type regardless of your desire to pursue your own happiness. Mandated to create a vehicle to a certain specification, the true creative engineers will not have the resources to explore greater advances. And in the ultimate slap in the face, you must petition the “almighty controllers of carbon” to allow you to be more productive, your hat in your hand, a humble stature as you beg to produce.
Is it any wonder that on a global level the countries that are already totalitarian and dictatorial, “Green” is not even on their list of things to ponder. They have already gained the control of their populous and do not need a Trojan horse to garner more. Where as in nations of (semi) free peoples, “Green” is being rammed down harder than bitter medicine to a 2 year old.
Control and power, not money, is the currency of those that wish to peddle their influence. Money has no backing when you have the power to attain your goals with coercion and legislation. Money has no influence when you have the power to devalue it on a whim. Each of the players in the struggle for power believes they have the “immunity idol” under their shirt and that they will be safe from tribal vote when the dust settles. In reality, the only name being written on the parchment is “Liberty”. And in the end, the tribe will have spoken and Liberty will be banished from the island of Earth.
So, to prevent this from happening, I invoke the words of Rodney King, “Can't we all just get along?” and direct our resources to the true enemy....”The Power Peddlers”.
As a final thought, if carbon dioxide is exhaled every time we speak, should we be putting a cap and trade on the speeches of politicians?
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Rather Appropriate
In light of recent events, one could make quite an argument about what is being thrust upon the citizens of America.
Instead of a long winded, structuraly sound argument, I shall post a simple quote.
"We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stageof the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force."
- Ayn Rand
(if Mr. d'Anconia or Mr. Galt exist, I am ready.)
Instead of a long winded, structuraly sound argument, I shall post a simple quote.
"We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stageof the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force."
- Ayn Rand
(if Mr. d'Anconia or Mr. Galt exist, I am ready.)
Monday, June 1, 2009
To: Mr. Geithner,
I think the people of China said it best when they said
BWAH HA HA HA HA HA HAAA!!!!!!
http://www.france24.com/en/20090601-china-united-states-geithner-deficit-treasury-bonds-dollar
Hey, I hear there is going to be another season of Last Comic Standing. And I have a hunch they don't do background checks on your taxes!
BWAH HA HA HA HA HA HAAA!!!!!!
http://www.france24.com/en/20090601-china-united-states-geithner-deficit-treasury-bonds-dollar
Hey, I hear there is going to be another season of Last Comic Standing. And I have a hunch they don't do background checks on your taxes!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)