It is not the duty or obligation of the government to see that you are fed, clothed, housed, educated, or employed. It is, however, the duty and obligation of the government to see that no one, whether an individual, a group of individuals, a company or corporation, or even the government itself, stands in your way, in your own endeavor, to feed, clothe, house, educate, and find employment for yourself.
It is the duty of the government—one of its few legitimate duties—to protect your inalienable and absolute right to pursue your life, liberty, property, and happiness as you se fit, as you so choose, but only so long as your behavior is peaceful, voluntary, and honest.
The business of government is neither business itself nor the welfare of the individual. Rather, the business of the government is to protect all people equally—whether rich or poor, uneducated or educated, day laborer or corporate executive, small business owner or large business owner—in their choice of how to live their lives, just so long as their behavior does not violate or threaten to violate the rights of others.
Besides this duty and obligation of the government to equally protect the rights of all individuals, the government then only needs to get out of the way of individuals in their personal and business practices; their right to honestly contract for the use, rental, or sales of their time, their labor, or their property in a voluntary and peaceful manner.
People with their rights so protected can and will make a strong and healthy society. The greatest good for the greatest number will be achieved by such free people with their inalienable rights protected. They will work for their rational self-interest and the vast majority of them will be successful in providing for themselves and their families, at the very least.
If people are irresponsible they will suffer the consequences of their mistakes or irrational behavior. But more importantly, if they are hard-working, smart-working, and persistent they will accrue to themselves the rewards of their self-responsibility and their self-reliance.
Of course, there may be some people who do not wish to work hard or persistently, or who don’t value trying to utilize their talents to the best of their ability. There is nothing wrong with that. Such people, however, have no legitimate claim to the wealth of others who are more dedicated to the work ethic. Nor does the government have the legitimate power to take your wealth and use it for the benefit of those who you have not voluntarily seen fit to support.
There is a case to be made regarding people who, through no fault of their own, have come upon hard times and need the help of others. History has shown that churches and private charity organizations can help such people more efficaciously than government bureaucracies which, by their very nature, are wasteful and inefficient.
There can be no greater teacher than experience. When you must fully suffer the consequences of your mistaken or irresponsible actions, or fully enjoy the rewards of your right actions, you will quickly learn the most efficient and rewarding use of your mind, your body, and your property. But, of course, this can only work if the government protects the right of all people to honestly and peacefully do as they choose, then gets out of the way.
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Ravens 1, Vultures 0
I live in the foothills of the Sierra Nevada Mountains of California, about 30 miles north of Fresno. We have ravens here. No crows, just ravens. We also have vultures, turkey vultures, actually. Both species of birds are what I call the garbage men of the wild. They scavenge on roadkill and naturally dead animals. I appreciate them for their helpful niche in nature.
The other day I was on my patio and observed something that I thought was both quite interesting and amusing. Here’s what I saw.
I noticed a vulture come lazily circling into my view. It had something in its beak about the size of a ground squirrel without its tail, maybe a gopher, maybe roadkill, maybe some part of a larger dead animal.
Following that vulture came about a dozen more. All of them making big lazy circles in the sky, not flapping their wings. The vulture with the bit of, well, I’ll just call it roadkill, in its beak became the center of the circling. This was about 200 feet above the ground and about 100 yards north of me.
Then I heard the raucous call of a raven. I saw two of them flying among the vultures. Now comes the interesting and amusing part.
One of the ravens attacked the vulture with the roadkill. (Smaller birds can out-maneuver larger birds and will attack them.) I saw the raven peck the vulture on the head. The vulture dropped whatever it was in its beak. I saw it falling through the air. Then I saw one of the ravens, I don’t know which one, dive on that roadkill and grab it with its right foot right there in mid-air. That was amazing, I thought.
After three or four attempts, the raven transferred the roadkill to its beak. By now it had been joined by the other raven and they flew off, in no hurry, to the south. The buzzards did not chase after them. They just kept circling lazily in the air for a while, then slowly the group broke up and went their separate ways.
The other day I was on my patio and observed something that I thought was both quite interesting and amusing. Here’s what I saw.
I noticed a vulture come lazily circling into my view. It had something in its beak about the size of a ground squirrel without its tail, maybe a gopher, maybe roadkill, maybe some part of a larger dead animal.
Following that vulture came about a dozen more. All of them making big lazy circles in the sky, not flapping their wings. The vulture with the bit of, well, I’ll just call it roadkill, in its beak became the center of the circling. This was about 200 feet above the ground and about 100 yards north of me.
Then I heard the raucous call of a raven. I saw two of them flying among the vultures. Now comes the interesting and amusing part.
One of the ravens attacked the vulture with the roadkill. (Smaller birds can out-maneuver larger birds and will attack them.) I saw the raven peck the vulture on the head. The vulture dropped whatever it was in its beak. I saw it falling through the air. Then I saw one of the ravens, I don’t know which one, dive on that roadkill and grab it with its right foot right there in mid-air. That was amazing, I thought.
After three or four attempts, the raven transferred the roadkill to its beak. By now it had been joined by the other raven and they flew off, in no hurry, to the south. The buzzards did not chase after them. They just kept circling lazily in the air for a while, then slowly the group broke up and went their separate ways.
Non-Stick Cookware, Perfluoroalkyl Acids, and Your Health
In 1935 Du Pont Corporation used the ad slogan “Better things for better living . . . through chemistry.” I first heard it as “Better living through chemistry.” In 1999, Du Pont changed it to “The miracles of science.”
Our modern technological society could better be called our modern chemical society. We are surrounded by a chemical soup. Some of them helpful. Many of them harmful. The miracles of science and chemistry brought us non-stick cookware. At first it truly seemed a miracle. We could cook our food without it sticking to the pans. But that miracle has come with a price. One that we should no longer pay, if we value our health over convenience.
The publication Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, September 2010, 164(9):860-9, reported that “[p]erfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonate (PFOS) are manmade compounds with widespread presence in human [blood].”
A study was done on over 12,000 children and adolescents due to a lawsuit over PFOA contamination in drinking water. The lawsuit was settled pre-trial. The study showed a very high correlation “between . . . PFOA and PFOS and elevated total cholesterol and LDL-C levels” of cholesterol.
PFOA and PFOS are perfluoroalkyl acids. And while they are in many products, especially in the home, possibly one of the most abundant sources of those chemicals is non-stick cookware. When you heat non-stick cookware it starts to vaporized those chemicals, among others. You can breath them in and they will get into the food you eat. The lining of microwave popcorn bags is another source.
This family of chemicals, also known as perfluoronated compounds (PFC), can cause other health problems besides elevated cholesterol levels. Those problems include infertility, thyroid disease, cancer, and immune system problems.
And while I started out mentioning Du Pont, I wish to make clear that the 3M corporation was the major manufacturer of PFOS. It stopped producing it ten years ago under pressure from the EPA, but the chemical is still around, and still affecting our health.
For more a complete report on this issue by Dr. Mercola, go to the following site:
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/09/21/compounds-in-nonstick-cookware-associated-with-elevated-cholesterol.aspx
Our modern technological society could better be called our modern chemical society. We are surrounded by a chemical soup. Some of them helpful. Many of them harmful. The miracles of science and chemistry brought us non-stick cookware. At first it truly seemed a miracle. We could cook our food without it sticking to the pans. But that miracle has come with a price. One that we should no longer pay, if we value our health over convenience.
The publication Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, September 2010, 164(9):860-9, reported that “[p]erfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonate (PFOS) are manmade compounds with widespread presence in human [blood].”
A study was done on over 12,000 children and adolescents due to a lawsuit over PFOA contamination in drinking water. The lawsuit was settled pre-trial. The study showed a very high correlation “between . . . PFOA and PFOS and elevated total cholesterol and LDL-C levels” of cholesterol.
PFOA and PFOS are perfluoroalkyl acids. And while they are in many products, especially in the home, possibly one of the most abundant sources of those chemicals is non-stick cookware. When you heat non-stick cookware it starts to vaporized those chemicals, among others. You can breath them in and they will get into the food you eat. The lining of microwave popcorn bags is another source.
This family of chemicals, also known as perfluoronated compounds (PFC), can cause other health problems besides elevated cholesterol levels. Those problems include infertility, thyroid disease, cancer, and immune system problems.
And while I started out mentioning Du Pont, I wish to make clear that the 3M corporation was the major manufacturer of PFOS. It stopped producing it ten years ago under pressure from the EPA, but the chemical is still around, and still affecting our health.
For more a complete report on this issue by Dr. Mercola, go to the following site:
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/09/21/compounds-in-nonstick-cookware-associated-with-elevated-cholesterol.aspx
Friday, September 10, 2010
North Carolina Police State
The North Carolina Sheriffs’ Association is asking the state to pass a law that would allow the police to access drug prescription records, without needing a warrant signed by a judge, in order to search for painkiller abusers.
According to Sheriff Samuel S. Page, president of the sheriff’s association, “We take that information, we could go and check against that database and see if that person, in fact, appears to be doctor shopping and obtaining prescriptions for the purpose of resell, which is illegal.”
However, the opposition, those who do not want the doctor-patient privilege to be compromised, believe that such a law could make any person who truly suffers from pain and needs the medication a possible criminal suspect.
The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states the following: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
The law the Sheriff’s Association is wanting to get passed would negate the Fourth Amendment. There would be no probable cause, just the police going on fishing expeditions. But there is a bigger issue at stake: The right of all adults to the complete ownership and use of their bodies and minds.
The whole war on drugs is based on religious principles, that the use of certain drugs, including prescription drugs used in a non-doctor-prescribed way, is immoral. And, being immoral, they should be illegal. We’re talking about sins here. Sins are not the legitimate purview of our supposedly secular government.
I agree that anyone selling or giving minors mind-altering, possibly addictive drugs is committing a crime. That is, he or she is harming or endangering the mind and body of a person who in not old enough or experienced enough to make a consenting adult choice.
However, adults have the right to choose. If an adult wishes to use a drug, whether it is one of the presently illegal ones, or whether it is using a prescription drug as a recreational drug, that is their inalienable right. If it is not, then we have no inalienable rights, because then we would not actually own the property of our bodies and minds. The government would.
I also find this push by the police to be a bit hypocritical. It is well documented that the number one violence-causing drug in America is the true narcotic drug alcohol. And the police, as a group, has one of the highest rates, if not the highest rate of alcohol abuse.
What is a crime? Shouldn’t there be a definition as to what a crime is, besides “breaking the law?” I mean, once upon a time, in Colonial America, it was a crime to not go to church on Sunday; it was not a crime to own slaves; it was a crime to help slaves escape from slavery; it was a crime to be seen in public (a beach) in what all women now wear to the beach; it was a crime for a women to be pregnant and not be married. Those “crimes” were all based on the religious-moral beliefs of the time. But we got over it.
Here’s how I think a crime should be defined. A crime is committed by harming another person or their property, or by being an immediate and direct threat to another person or their property. It is not a crime to use drugs. My point about alcohol proves that.
Here is an example: A man can smoke three packs of cigarettes a day and drink whiskey until he pukes and passes out. He does all this in his own house and does not harm anyone else and does not threaten anyone else. He has not committed a crime. He will not be arrested. However, if that same man, goes outside and assaults his neighbor, or shoots his neighbor’s dog, or gets into a car and drives drunk, then he has committed a crime. But he will not be arrested for drinking. He will be arrested for harming someone else or, in the case of drunk driving, for being a danger to others or their property.
I am not, by any means, promoting drug use—alcohol, tobacco, heroin, prescription drugs, or whatever. That is a personal moral choice to be made by each adult. I think a chronic or habitual user of such drugs, when such use interferes with their jobs, their families, and their friends are emotionally damaged people and need help, or else they are just stupid and foolish.
I do believe in the concept of inalienable rights, which means that, as an adult, you own and own completely the property of your body and mind and can decide what to do with it just so long as your actions do not harm or endanger others. The government does not have the legitimate power to stop an adult from using drugs unless there is proof that the person is causing harm to others or is a direct and immediate threat to others.
(For a complete dissertation on this issue, go to: http://dowehaverights.blogspot.com.)
According to Sheriff Samuel S. Page, president of the sheriff’s association, “We take that information, we could go and check against that database and see if that person, in fact, appears to be doctor shopping and obtaining prescriptions for the purpose of resell, which is illegal.”
However, the opposition, those who do not want the doctor-patient privilege to be compromised, believe that such a law could make any person who truly suffers from pain and needs the medication a possible criminal suspect.
The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states the following: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
The law the Sheriff’s Association is wanting to get passed would negate the Fourth Amendment. There would be no probable cause, just the police going on fishing expeditions. But there is a bigger issue at stake: The right of all adults to the complete ownership and use of their bodies and minds.
The whole war on drugs is based on religious principles, that the use of certain drugs, including prescription drugs used in a non-doctor-prescribed way, is immoral. And, being immoral, they should be illegal. We’re talking about sins here. Sins are not the legitimate purview of our supposedly secular government.
I agree that anyone selling or giving minors mind-altering, possibly addictive drugs is committing a crime. That is, he or she is harming or endangering the mind and body of a person who in not old enough or experienced enough to make a consenting adult choice.
However, adults have the right to choose. If an adult wishes to use a drug, whether it is one of the presently illegal ones, or whether it is using a prescription drug as a recreational drug, that is their inalienable right. If it is not, then we have no inalienable rights, because then we would not actually own the property of our bodies and minds. The government would.
I also find this push by the police to be a bit hypocritical. It is well documented that the number one violence-causing drug in America is the true narcotic drug alcohol. And the police, as a group, has one of the highest rates, if not the highest rate of alcohol abuse.
What is a crime? Shouldn’t there be a definition as to what a crime is, besides “breaking the law?” I mean, once upon a time, in Colonial America, it was a crime to not go to church on Sunday; it was not a crime to own slaves; it was a crime to help slaves escape from slavery; it was a crime to be seen in public (a beach) in what all women now wear to the beach; it was a crime for a women to be pregnant and not be married. Those “crimes” were all based on the religious-moral beliefs of the time. But we got over it.
Here’s how I think a crime should be defined. A crime is committed by harming another person or their property, or by being an immediate and direct threat to another person or their property. It is not a crime to use drugs. My point about alcohol proves that.
Here is an example: A man can smoke three packs of cigarettes a day and drink whiskey until he pukes and passes out. He does all this in his own house and does not harm anyone else and does not threaten anyone else. He has not committed a crime. He will not be arrested. However, if that same man, goes outside and assaults his neighbor, or shoots his neighbor’s dog, or gets into a car and drives drunk, then he has committed a crime. But he will not be arrested for drinking. He will be arrested for harming someone else or, in the case of drunk driving, for being a danger to others or their property.
I am not, by any means, promoting drug use—alcohol, tobacco, heroin, prescription drugs, or whatever. That is a personal moral choice to be made by each adult. I think a chronic or habitual user of such drugs, when such use interferes with their jobs, their families, and their friends are emotionally damaged people and need help, or else they are just stupid and foolish.
I do believe in the concept of inalienable rights, which means that, as an adult, you own and own completely the property of your body and mind and can decide what to do with it just so long as your actions do not harm or endanger others. The government does not have the legitimate power to stop an adult from using drugs unless there is proof that the person is causing harm to others or is a direct and immediate threat to others.
(For a complete dissertation on this issue, go to: http://dowehaverights.blogspot.com.)
Thursday, September 09, 2010
Thoughts on Burning the Koran*
In the Christian religion that I was brought up on, hating is a sin. You can’t get into Heaven if you are a hater. Jesus said: “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.” (Matthew 5:44, KJB)
I have to wonder if the preacher in Gainesville, Florida, Terry Jones, who has said that he will burn a Koran on September 11th, has actually read and understood what Jesus meant. The Christian religion is supposed to be a religion of tolerance—despite all of the intolerance that those who claim to be Christians have shown in the past. I would expect a preacher to be the most tolerant of Christians because he has, supposedly, studied the Bible more that the laypeople.
What Pastor Jones is threatening to do is an act of hate, pure and simple. It is not an act of loving his perceived enemy, or of praying for those that have done us harm. It is merely a very human, very visceral act of anger and hatred. Shame on you Pastor Jones for calling yourself a Christian.
But, as to the actual act of burning a book, this is not a big deal, or shouldn’t be to anyone who is intelligent and logical. The book itself is not holy. The word of God is holy. The message is holy. The book is merely the printed word of God as—in the case of the Koran—interpreted by Muslim clerics over the ages. You can burn the book but you cannot burn the truth and the message of God.
I have to ask, considering all the uproar that this threat of book-burning has caused, how much uproar would there be in the Christian world if some Muslim Imam, say in Indonesia, decided to burn a Bible? How many Muslim clerics would condemn the act openly? Would it become the international incident that this has become? I think not.
But then, from the evidence that I have observed over the years, the Muslim religion, unlike Christianity, is not a religion of tolerance. For example: Salman Rushtie published The Satanic Verses in 1988. In February of 1989 a death fatwah (which is a legal pronouncement in Islamic countries) was placed against Mr. Rushdie. He had to go into hiding because he wrote a book that many clerics, if not all, in the Islamic world found to be offensive. That would be like the Pope declaring a death sentence on Dan Brown for writing The Da Vinci Code. No tolerance in the Islamic world.
Then there were twelve cartoonist for the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten who drew editorial cartoons depicting the Islamic prophet Muhammad. That’s a no-no in the Islamic world. But this was Denmark. The cartoonist were not Muslim. There were death threats against those cartoonist, complete with rewards for their deaths. Further, in riots in Muslim countries related to those editorial cartoons at least 100 people died.
Then there is the case of Theo van Gogh, a controversial Dutch film maker who made a film about how the Islamic culture treats women. It upset an Islamic fundamentalist. While Mr. van Gogh was bicycling to work the Muslim man shot him eight time, then tried to decapitate him. Again, taking the Dan Brown novel, The Da Vinci Code, made into the movie by the same name, what happened to Mr. van Gogh would be like a Christian fundamentalist killing the producer or director of that movie. Hard to imagine in our tolerant, Western world, isn’t it? Not hard to imagine in the intolerant Islamic world, though.
Need more. Here is a quote from the Koran (2:194): “So if anyone transgresses against you, you should pay back in equal coins.” Not exactly like turn the other cheek or pray for those who abuse or persecute you, eh? Of course, there are few really true Christians. How can a true Christian believe in revenge or going to war and killing the enemy? That is totally un-Christ-like. And no, we can’t be perfect, like Christ. But we are supposed to try and behave like Christ would want us to, aren’t we? Take that thought to its logical conclusion.
And don’t bring up the Old Testament and an eye for an eye. That is the Hebrew holy book. Christians, to be called Christians, have to accept and embrace the New Testament, about the teachings of Jesus Christ. And Christ did not say an eye for an eye. He preached tolerance and forgiveness and praying for those that were your enemy. That’s 180 degrees different than the Hebrew’s Old Testament God.
Well, Islam is Islam. Those people have, in my opinion (which has been shaped by Western philosophy, the Declaration of Independence, and the U.S. Constitution) the right to believe whatever they want. To act upon what they believe in our country is quite another thing. There is no right to murder other people over words, even words that discredit or belittle your religion.
However, for Pastor Jones and the radical Islamic jihadists, here is something else to consider: God, the Almighty Creator God, doesn’t need your help to protect Him or His Word. He can do it Himself. And, no, He doesn’t need you to work as His tool. If He wanted to, if He thought it was necessary, He could kill anyone, at any time, anywhere in the world. Therefore, He could have killed Salman Rushtie, the twelve Danish cartoonists, Theo van Gogh, or Dan Brown for that matter. But He didn’t. Perhaps He will take the matter up with them later, after they die. It is not up to you to kill them in the name of what you belief to be your God’s will. When you, as a mere human, act in an intolerant way, you are merely projecting your human emotions into the situation that you find to be offensive. Emotions are, by definitions, irrational.
Finally, for those of you who didn’t know: Jews, Christians, and Muslims are people of the book. What does that mean? That means that the first five books of the Christian Bible are held in common with the Jews and Muslims. That means that the Jews, Christians, and Muslims all believe in the same Almighty Creator God.
How, then, can we be so separated in our other beliefs? And which religion does God think is the one true religion? I don’t know. He hasn’t spoken on that Himself, only the religious leaders of those three faiths have. And, of course, those lay people who have been indoctrinated from birth by one of those various religions know, with absolute certainty, that they are the true believers.
Me? I’m in favor of tolerance. Pastor Jones. You can’t burn the Koran and call yourself tolerant or a Christian.
_______________________
* I use the spelling, Koran, instead of the more politically correct version, Qur’an, because English doesn’t have the guttural sound that I think people are trying to get by using the Q instead of the K. In English, the closest we can get to it is the K sound and I write and speak in English.
I have to wonder if the preacher in Gainesville, Florida, Terry Jones, who has said that he will burn a Koran on September 11th, has actually read and understood what Jesus meant. The Christian religion is supposed to be a religion of tolerance—despite all of the intolerance that those who claim to be Christians have shown in the past. I would expect a preacher to be the most tolerant of Christians because he has, supposedly, studied the Bible more that the laypeople.
What Pastor Jones is threatening to do is an act of hate, pure and simple. It is not an act of loving his perceived enemy, or of praying for those that have done us harm. It is merely a very human, very visceral act of anger and hatred. Shame on you Pastor Jones for calling yourself a Christian.
But, as to the actual act of burning a book, this is not a big deal, or shouldn’t be to anyone who is intelligent and logical. The book itself is not holy. The word of God is holy. The message is holy. The book is merely the printed word of God as—in the case of the Koran—interpreted by Muslim clerics over the ages. You can burn the book but you cannot burn the truth and the message of God.
I have to ask, considering all the uproar that this threat of book-burning has caused, how much uproar would there be in the Christian world if some Muslim Imam, say in Indonesia, decided to burn a Bible? How many Muslim clerics would condemn the act openly? Would it become the international incident that this has become? I think not.
But then, from the evidence that I have observed over the years, the Muslim religion, unlike Christianity, is not a religion of tolerance. For example: Salman Rushtie published The Satanic Verses in 1988. In February of 1989 a death fatwah (which is a legal pronouncement in Islamic countries) was placed against Mr. Rushdie. He had to go into hiding because he wrote a book that many clerics, if not all, in the Islamic world found to be offensive. That would be like the Pope declaring a death sentence on Dan Brown for writing The Da Vinci Code. No tolerance in the Islamic world.
Then there were twelve cartoonist for the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten who drew editorial cartoons depicting the Islamic prophet Muhammad. That’s a no-no in the Islamic world. But this was Denmark. The cartoonist were not Muslim. There were death threats against those cartoonist, complete with rewards for their deaths. Further, in riots in Muslim countries related to those editorial cartoons at least 100 people died.
Then there is the case of Theo van Gogh, a controversial Dutch film maker who made a film about how the Islamic culture treats women. It upset an Islamic fundamentalist. While Mr. van Gogh was bicycling to work the Muslim man shot him eight time, then tried to decapitate him. Again, taking the Dan Brown novel, The Da Vinci Code, made into the movie by the same name, what happened to Mr. van Gogh would be like a Christian fundamentalist killing the producer or director of that movie. Hard to imagine in our tolerant, Western world, isn’t it? Not hard to imagine in the intolerant Islamic world, though.
Need more. Here is a quote from the Koran (2:194): “So if anyone transgresses against you, you should pay back in equal coins.” Not exactly like turn the other cheek or pray for those who abuse or persecute you, eh? Of course, there are few really true Christians. How can a true Christian believe in revenge or going to war and killing the enemy? That is totally un-Christ-like. And no, we can’t be perfect, like Christ. But we are supposed to try and behave like Christ would want us to, aren’t we? Take that thought to its logical conclusion.
And don’t bring up the Old Testament and an eye for an eye. That is the Hebrew holy book. Christians, to be called Christians, have to accept and embrace the New Testament, about the teachings of Jesus Christ. And Christ did not say an eye for an eye. He preached tolerance and forgiveness and praying for those that were your enemy. That’s 180 degrees different than the Hebrew’s Old Testament God.
Well, Islam is Islam. Those people have, in my opinion (which has been shaped by Western philosophy, the Declaration of Independence, and the U.S. Constitution) the right to believe whatever they want. To act upon what they believe in our country is quite another thing. There is no right to murder other people over words, even words that discredit or belittle your religion.
However, for Pastor Jones and the radical Islamic jihadists, here is something else to consider: God, the Almighty Creator God, doesn’t need your help to protect Him or His Word. He can do it Himself. And, no, He doesn’t need you to work as His tool. If He wanted to, if He thought it was necessary, He could kill anyone, at any time, anywhere in the world. Therefore, He could have killed Salman Rushtie, the twelve Danish cartoonists, Theo van Gogh, or Dan Brown for that matter. But He didn’t. Perhaps He will take the matter up with them later, after they die. It is not up to you to kill them in the name of what you belief to be your God’s will. When you, as a mere human, act in an intolerant way, you are merely projecting your human emotions into the situation that you find to be offensive. Emotions are, by definitions, irrational.
Finally, for those of you who didn’t know: Jews, Christians, and Muslims are people of the book. What does that mean? That means that the first five books of the Christian Bible are held in common with the Jews and Muslims. That means that the Jews, Christians, and Muslims all believe in the same Almighty Creator God.
How, then, can we be so separated in our other beliefs? And which religion does God think is the one true religion? I don’t know. He hasn’t spoken on that Himself, only the religious leaders of those three faiths have. And, of course, those lay people who have been indoctrinated from birth by one of those various religions know, with absolute certainty, that they are the true believers.
Me? I’m in favor of tolerance. Pastor Jones. You can’t burn the Koran and call yourself tolerant or a Christian.
_______________________
* I use the spelling, Koran, instead of the more politically correct version, Qur’an, because English doesn’t have the guttural sound that I think people are trying to get by using the Q instead of the K. In English, the closest we can get to it is the K sound and I write and speak in English.
Monday, August 09, 2010
California's Proposition 19
Proposition 19 is yet another attempt to legalize marijuana in the state of California. My question, one that I have asked for decades now is this: By what legitimate constitutional power can the government forbid its adult citizens from full and complete use of the property of their bodies and their minds when such use does not physically harm other people or their property and when such use does not immediately and directly threaten to harm other people or their property?
It is provable fact that marijuana, along with all the other illegal drugs, cause far less harm than alcohol or tobacco do separately. Yet, both of those drugs are legal to adults.
If the basis of the present drugs prohibition is to protect individuals from their own bad choices and to protect society, in general, from the negative consequences of some people’s drug use, then wouldn’t it be logical for the government to go after the most harmful drugs first?
Tobacco use is by far the most harmful drug, or rather, substance, that is legally available to adults. It’s use causes in the neighborhood of 435,000 premature deaths per year. That number doesn’t take into account the disease and incapacitation prior to death by tobacco use, or by those who don’t die directly from tobacco use but are still in poor health because of its use, or the amount of taxpayer money that is consumed to pay for the medical bills of smokers.
Alcohol, by definition, is a narcotic drug. A narcotic drug is one that benumbs you, makes you go to sleep. Drink enough alcohol in too short a period of time and you will go to sleep, permanently. The use of this drug is also responsible for at least 85,000 deaths per year. Also, alcohol is the drug that is most likely to cause violent behavior. The Bureau of Justice Statistics, for 1996, stated that 3 million violent crimes involving alcohol occur each year; that two-thirds of the victims know their assailant; that more than 17 thousand traffic fatalities are alcohol-related (which does not touch on the fact that many, many thousands more people are injured, some seriously, but not killed by alcohol-impaired drivers); and that about 36% of all convicted offenders had been drinking at the time of their offense.
And don’t forget the lost productivity caused by the use of tobacco and alcohol. And I’m not just talking about missing work, or not being able to work efficiently because of a hangover. The long term effects of heavy drinking is disease, destruction of health, and death.
Now, up against that, there is this great wall of opposition against making—rather, re-legalizing—marijuana in the State of California. (It was legal until the 1930’s with no criminal justice problems related to its use . . . until, for political reasons, powerful people wanted to make it illegal.) There has been no known death from the use of marijuana: none, zero, zip, nada. Can you get diseases from smoking pot. Yes, chronic smokers will have more problems than occasional or non-smokers. But, most pot smokers are not the all-day-long, chronic smokers that tobacco users are. Ergo, fewer health problems from the smoking issue.
It is also well-known that almost all the violence related to the presently illegal drug trade, including marijuana, is directly related to the illegality of that trade. When the presently illegal drugs were legal—in 1900, for instance—there was no criminal justice problem associated with their use.
Who opposes the legalization of marijuana? Some, but not all, police officers. (Check out L.E.A.P.—Law Enforcement Against Prohibition.) I rather imagine that prohibitionists—or, as I like to call them: anti-rightists—see their narcotics squad budgets being cut and loss of revenue from property confiscation. Prison guards are naturally opposed to any legalization of any drug. With drug offenders they get maximum length sentences of non-violent prisoners. That’s job security and job safety. Violent street gangs definitely don’t want any drug legalized. Illegal drugs makes lots of money for them. Legalized marijuana would cut into their profits. Ditto for violent drug cartels in Mexico supplying much of the marijuana used in America. Then there are the Humboldt County growers. They don’t tend to be violent, per se, but legalized marijuana would pretty much put them out of business.
What we have in the present drug war, especially with marijuana, is a disconnection between logic and emotion. The so-called war on drugs is fueled by emotion: The use of these substances are immoral, therefore they should be illegal. But the immorality issue is really a religious issue and not suitable for a secular government to interfere with. It is not appropriate for such a government to pass laws regarding morality issues that do not violate the rights of others. A secular government is supposed to protect your rights and to go after those who violate them. You, sitting in your house drinking a beer or smoking a joint do not violate the rights of others, nor are you an immediate and direct threat to the rights of others. A police officer who arrests you for your non-violent use of pot is violating your rights. That makes the police officer the real criminal, as well as the politicians who pass such rights-violating laws, and the judges who sentence people to fines and prison for their non-rights-violating behavior.
Are there drug addicts? Yes. Are there tobacco addicts? Yes. Are there alcoholics (just another word for a drug addict)? Yes. Do all these people have personal problems that need to be addressed in a logical way? Yes. But why do we not arrest an alcoholic unless he harms someone or someone’s property, or is a direct and immediate threat to same? Why is there not equal justice for the use of all drugs?
If marijuana is immoral and, therefore, should be illegal, then how much more immoral is the use of tobacco and alcohol because of the immense amount of harm the use of those two substances cause? How much more illegal—in terms of punishment—should they be? But it all comes back to who really owns the property of your body and your mind: You or the government? If your behavior does not violate the rights of others—the vast majority of marijuana users—then, if you do actually own yourself completely, the government has no legitimate power to stop you from smoking marijuana. It does have—or uses—an illegitimate power, but then all rights-violating, tyrannical governments work that way.
For a greater dissertation on the tyranny of legislating morality, go to Myth of Inalienable Rights.
It is provable fact that marijuana, along with all the other illegal drugs, cause far less harm than alcohol or tobacco do separately. Yet, both of those drugs are legal to adults.
If the basis of the present drugs prohibition is to protect individuals from their own bad choices and to protect society, in general, from the negative consequences of some people’s drug use, then wouldn’t it be logical for the government to go after the most harmful drugs first?
Tobacco use is by far the most harmful drug, or rather, substance, that is legally available to adults. It’s use causes in the neighborhood of 435,000 premature deaths per year. That number doesn’t take into account the disease and incapacitation prior to death by tobacco use, or by those who don’t die directly from tobacco use but are still in poor health because of its use, or the amount of taxpayer money that is consumed to pay for the medical bills of smokers.
Alcohol, by definition, is a narcotic drug. A narcotic drug is one that benumbs you, makes you go to sleep. Drink enough alcohol in too short a period of time and you will go to sleep, permanently. The use of this drug is also responsible for at least 85,000 deaths per year. Also, alcohol is the drug that is most likely to cause violent behavior. The Bureau of Justice Statistics, for 1996, stated that 3 million violent crimes involving alcohol occur each year; that two-thirds of the victims know their assailant; that more than 17 thousand traffic fatalities are alcohol-related (which does not touch on the fact that many, many thousands more people are injured, some seriously, but not killed by alcohol-impaired drivers); and that about 36% of all convicted offenders had been drinking at the time of their offense.
And don’t forget the lost productivity caused by the use of tobacco and alcohol. And I’m not just talking about missing work, or not being able to work efficiently because of a hangover. The long term effects of heavy drinking is disease, destruction of health, and death.
Now, up against that, there is this great wall of opposition against making—rather, re-legalizing—marijuana in the State of California. (It was legal until the 1930’s with no criminal justice problems related to its use . . . until, for political reasons, powerful people wanted to make it illegal.) There has been no known death from the use of marijuana: none, zero, zip, nada. Can you get diseases from smoking pot. Yes, chronic smokers will have more problems than occasional or non-smokers. But, most pot smokers are not the all-day-long, chronic smokers that tobacco users are. Ergo, fewer health problems from the smoking issue.
It is also well-known that almost all the violence related to the presently illegal drug trade, including marijuana, is directly related to the illegality of that trade. When the presently illegal drugs were legal—in 1900, for instance—there was no criminal justice problem associated with their use.
Who opposes the legalization of marijuana? Some, but not all, police officers. (Check out L.E.A.P.—Law Enforcement Against Prohibition.) I rather imagine that prohibitionists—or, as I like to call them: anti-rightists—see their narcotics squad budgets being cut and loss of revenue from property confiscation. Prison guards are naturally opposed to any legalization of any drug. With drug offenders they get maximum length sentences of non-violent prisoners. That’s job security and job safety. Violent street gangs definitely don’t want any drug legalized. Illegal drugs makes lots of money for them. Legalized marijuana would cut into their profits. Ditto for violent drug cartels in Mexico supplying much of the marijuana used in America. Then there are the Humboldt County growers. They don’t tend to be violent, per se, but legalized marijuana would pretty much put them out of business.
What we have in the present drug war, especially with marijuana, is a disconnection between logic and emotion. The so-called war on drugs is fueled by emotion: The use of these substances are immoral, therefore they should be illegal. But the immorality issue is really a religious issue and not suitable for a secular government to interfere with. It is not appropriate for such a government to pass laws regarding morality issues that do not violate the rights of others. A secular government is supposed to protect your rights and to go after those who violate them. You, sitting in your house drinking a beer or smoking a joint do not violate the rights of others, nor are you an immediate and direct threat to the rights of others. A police officer who arrests you for your non-violent use of pot is violating your rights. That makes the police officer the real criminal, as well as the politicians who pass such rights-violating laws, and the judges who sentence people to fines and prison for their non-rights-violating behavior.
Are there drug addicts? Yes. Are there tobacco addicts? Yes. Are there alcoholics (just another word for a drug addict)? Yes. Do all these people have personal problems that need to be addressed in a logical way? Yes. But why do we not arrest an alcoholic unless he harms someone or someone’s property, or is a direct and immediate threat to same? Why is there not equal justice for the use of all drugs?
If marijuana is immoral and, therefore, should be illegal, then how much more immoral is the use of tobacco and alcohol because of the immense amount of harm the use of those two substances cause? How much more illegal—in terms of punishment—should they be? But it all comes back to who really owns the property of your body and your mind: You or the government? If your behavior does not violate the rights of others—the vast majority of marijuana users—then, if you do actually own yourself completely, the government has no legitimate power to stop you from smoking marijuana. It does have—or uses—an illegitimate power, but then all rights-violating, tyrannical governments work that way.
For a greater dissertation on the tyranny of legislating morality, go to Myth of Inalienable Rights.
Friday, August 06, 2010
Compassionate Release of the Lockerbie Bomber
I think we all remember the Lockerbie, Scotland incident where, on Wednesday, December 21, 1988, Pan Am Flight 103, bound from London to New York was blown from the skies over Lockerbie by a bomb that had been smuggled on board. Two hundred seventy people were killed. Two hundred fifty-nine on the airplane and eleven on the ground.
The only person convicted of that crime was Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi [al-Megrahi]. (I am sure he did not work alone. And, it was suspected that the government of Libya might have had a hand in that tragic incident.) Then last year, he was given a compassionate release and send back to Libya because, supposedly, he was dying from prostate cancer and only had two or three months to live. He's still alive today. Go figure?
Today, Friday, August 6, 2010, I heard a brief news report on TV (since I switch channels between commercials, I can't remember which network did the reporting) that there were three doctors who had examined al-Megrahi, but only one of them said that he only had two to three months to live.
Of course, now there are rumors flying about that British Petroleum was involved in getting al-Megrahi's release, so they could get oil leases off the coast of Libya. There are even rumors that the Obama administration might have had a hand in the terrorist's release. Again, just rumors, and probably not to be considered seriously.
But here is what is to be considered seriously. Al-Megrahi, with pre-meditation, and in cold blood, planned and executed the murder of 259 people, causing the additional murders of 11 more people on the ground. Where was his compassion? He had none, of course. I'm sure he thought he was doing the work of Allah. I don't know if Allah talked directly to al-Megrahi and said, "Hey al, I just don't have the time to kill these people, so I need you to do it for me, okay?" But I don't think so.
Someone doing the work of Allah, or God, to murder innocent men, women, and children, really aren't doing God's work. They are doing the work that their hatred and intolerance has convinced them to do. They are doing it for the only reason anything gets done, no matter what the rationale: The desire to do it and the ability to do it.
I do not subscribe to any organized religion. The concept of an Almighty Creator God, as imbedded in the religious beliefs of the Jews, Christians, and Muslims, or any other relgion for that matter, is irrational on many levels. The least of which is that such a being would need humans to go around, with hatred in their hearts, killing those who do not believe as they do.
That monster, that evil, cold-blooded murderer, al Megrahi, should have been summarily executed upon conviction, either by hanging or beheading--and publicly. Unfortunately, Scotland does not have the death penalty. Therefore, he should have died in prison, prostate cancer or not.
And, to those murderer-hugging, anti-death penalty types out there who think that my belief makes me just like al-Megrahi, I say this: His execution would have been brought about because of his actions, actions that he was not forced to take. His execution would not be, as some would like to believe, a deterrent. It would serve merely to rid society of one more bit of human excrement that has no respect for the rights and lives of others.
And, if BP executives, or any politicians, had any part in getting al-Megrahi his compassionate release for economic gain, I hope that it is discovered, verified, and reported. I hope that the outrage would be so great by the public that such people would be punished severely; for such people are nothing more than greedy, unprincipled human vermin.
The only person convicted of that crime was Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi [al-Megrahi]. (I am sure he did not work alone. And, it was suspected that the government of Libya might have had a hand in that tragic incident.) Then last year, he was given a compassionate release and send back to Libya because, supposedly, he was dying from prostate cancer and only had two or three months to live. He's still alive today. Go figure?
Today, Friday, August 6, 2010, I heard a brief news report on TV (since I switch channels between commercials, I can't remember which network did the reporting) that there were three doctors who had examined al-Megrahi, but only one of them said that he only had two to three months to live.
Of course, now there are rumors flying about that British Petroleum was involved in getting al-Megrahi's release, so they could get oil leases off the coast of Libya. There are even rumors that the Obama administration might have had a hand in the terrorist's release. Again, just rumors, and probably not to be considered seriously.
But here is what is to be considered seriously. Al-Megrahi, with pre-meditation, and in cold blood, planned and executed the murder of 259 people, causing the additional murders of 11 more people on the ground. Where was his compassion? He had none, of course. I'm sure he thought he was doing the work of Allah. I don't know if Allah talked directly to al-Megrahi and said, "Hey al, I just don't have the time to kill these people, so I need you to do it for me, okay?" But I don't think so.
Someone doing the work of Allah, or God, to murder innocent men, women, and children, really aren't doing God's work. They are doing the work that their hatred and intolerance has convinced them to do. They are doing it for the only reason anything gets done, no matter what the rationale: The desire to do it and the ability to do it.
I do not subscribe to any organized religion. The concept of an Almighty Creator God, as imbedded in the religious beliefs of the Jews, Christians, and Muslims, or any other relgion for that matter, is irrational on many levels. The least of which is that such a being would need humans to go around, with hatred in their hearts, killing those who do not believe as they do.
That monster, that evil, cold-blooded murderer, al Megrahi, should have been summarily executed upon conviction, either by hanging or beheading--and publicly. Unfortunately, Scotland does not have the death penalty. Therefore, he should have died in prison, prostate cancer or not.
And, to those murderer-hugging, anti-death penalty types out there who think that my belief makes me just like al-Megrahi, I say this: His execution would have been brought about because of his actions, actions that he was not forced to take. His execution would not be, as some would like to believe, a deterrent. It would serve merely to rid society of one more bit of human excrement that has no respect for the rights and lives of others.
And, if BP executives, or any politicians, had any part in getting al-Megrahi his compassionate release for economic gain, I hope that it is discovered, verified, and reported. I hope that the outrage would be so great by the public that such people would be punished severely; for such people are nothing more than greedy, unprincipled human vermin.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Friday, November 20, 2009
Murdering Muslim Terrorist
In some of the first reports on what happened at Fort Hood, Texas, identifying Major N. M. Hasan as the shooter, it was mentioned that he didn't want to be send to Iraq or Afghanistan because he didn't want to take part in killing his Muslim brothers.
First of all, as a psychiatrist, he wouldn't be killing his Muslim brothers. Secondly, where has he been? Muslims kill Muslims all the time. Who is behind the car bombings in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iraq, Buddhists? Sunnis kill Shias, Shias kill Sunnis. Muslims killing Muslims have been going on for centuries.
Most, if not all, of the people killed in the massive car bombings in the markets and other public gathering places are innocent people, and many of them are women and children, Muslims all, as are the car bombers who kill them. What didn't Major Hasan understand about that?
I don't want to be sent to kill other Muslims . . . oh please! Major Hasan's logic was not logic at all. It was pure emotionalism, but then he was religious, a fundamental Muslim, and all religions are based on emotion, not on logic.
So why didn't Major Hasan resign his commission? If his religious faith (a belief in that which cannot be seen, tested, nor proven) was such that he couldn't participate in a war on global murdering Muslim terrorists, why was he in the Army in the first place?
Okay, maybe he became more devout as his career developed. Still, when he realized that his oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution was in conflict with his religious beliefs, then the logical thing to have done at that time would have been to resign his commission.
Then he could have immigrated to some Muslim country like Saudi Arabia, or even Afghanistan and lived a devout Muslim life. He could have found a devout Muslim sla..., er, wife. He could have even joined in with the Taliban or Al Qaeda and gone to war against the evil invading Christian soldiers from American. Then, if he had been killed, he would have been assured a place in Heaven with his 72 virgins* (which, by the way is not in the Koran).
But he didn't resign. He decided to kill other American soldiers. He became an enemy combatant for Allah. He became a murdering Muslim terrorist.
_____________________
* By the way, why virgins? I have had exactly two virgins in my life . . . it got better. Of course, since in the fundamentalist Muslim way of thinking--that is, medieval--a woman is the property of a man (don't laugh Christians, you believed that way until the 20th Century . . . some still do). The purpose of owning a woman is for production of sons. The purpose of starting with a virgin is to ensure that no other man has had her before you and that any children she produces for you are, in fact, your "flesh and blood," which, by the way, you own like slaves, too. (The boys get to own themselves when they become men . . . not the girls, though.) My point here, is that in Muslim heaven there would be no need of virgins. No, in fact, what one should logically want is an experienced and artful lover, one who knows what to do and can do it with enthusiasm; in other words a high-priced whore. Oh well, so much for logic.
First of all, as a psychiatrist, he wouldn't be killing his Muslim brothers. Secondly, where has he been? Muslims kill Muslims all the time. Who is behind the car bombings in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iraq, Buddhists? Sunnis kill Shias, Shias kill Sunnis. Muslims killing Muslims have been going on for centuries.
Most, if not all, of the people killed in the massive car bombings in the markets and other public gathering places are innocent people, and many of them are women and children, Muslims all, as are the car bombers who kill them. What didn't Major Hasan understand about that?
I don't want to be sent to kill other Muslims . . . oh please! Major Hasan's logic was not logic at all. It was pure emotionalism, but then he was religious, a fundamental Muslim, and all religions are based on emotion, not on logic.
So why didn't Major Hasan resign his commission? If his religious faith (a belief in that which cannot be seen, tested, nor proven) was such that he couldn't participate in a war on global murdering Muslim terrorists, why was he in the Army in the first place?
Okay, maybe he became more devout as his career developed. Still, when he realized that his oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution was in conflict with his religious beliefs, then the logical thing to have done at that time would have been to resign his commission.
Then he could have immigrated to some Muslim country like Saudi Arabia, or even Afghanistan and lived a devout Muslim life. He could have found a devout Muslim sla..., er, wife. He could have even joined in with the Taliban or Al Qaeda and gone to war against the evil invading Christian soldiers from American. Then, if he had been killed, he would have been assured a place in Heaven with his 72 virgins* (which, by the way is not in the Koran).
But he didn't resign. He decided to kill other American soldiers. He became an enemy combatant for Allah. He became a murdering Muslim terrorist.
_____________________
* By the way, why virgins? I have had exactly two virgins in my life . . . it got better. Of course, since in the fundamentalist Muslim way of thinking--that is, medieval--a woman is the property of a man (don't laugh Christians, you believed that way until the 20th Century . . . some still do). The purpose of owning a woman is for production of sons. The purpose of starting with a virgin is to ensure that no other man has had her before you and that any children she produces for you are, in fact, your "flesh and blood," which, by the way, you own like slaves, too. (The boys get to own themselves when they become men . . . not the girls, though.) My point here, is that in Muslim heaven there would be no need of virgins. No, in fact, what one should logically want is an experienced and artful lover, one who knows what to do and can do it with enthusiasm; in other words a high-priced whore. Oh well, so much for logic.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Women Are From Venus, Men . . . are different
Venus, or Aphrodite (a more ancient word for the same conceptual goddess) is the essence of womanhood: soft, rounded, sensual, not whiskery, not callused and hard, like men.
So there I was, watching an episode of "Bones" (do an internet search for it if you don't know the series) and one of the regulars, an attractive female, kissed another woman. Well, the other woman kissed the regular and she kissed the other woman back. And it wasn't just a quick shot, then fade to black. They each kissed each other sensually two or three times.
I am a male and I am turned on by women. I am also an old fart, 62 years old, but the scene was HOT! I guess it was a way for the liberals among us to let us know that women loving women actually exist, and that they are not bad people, or shady characters.
Okay, I know that. I am very accepting of other people's sexual orientation and life styles, as long as it involves consenting, non-coerced adults. And logically, two women kissing, or loving each other in a romantic way, or having sex together does not violate the rights of others. It's a personal moral thing and I believe that personal moral beliefs that do not violate the rights of others is not a matter for the law.
But then the thought occurred to me that, while the TV networks, or cable TV executives might be willing to show a bit of female on female titillation, would they ever show, on a popular TV series, a man kissing another man . . . in a sensual, sexual way?
Ewwww! Ugh!
I don't want to see that! Do you? Does anyone, except for gay men?
Do I have a point? I don't know. Maybe my point is this: Our society, after being inundated with female sexuality on TV and billboards, in magazine advertisements, in the movies for so many year, can accept two women kissing, but they are not ready for the sight of two men doing the same thing. Or maybe, just maybe, women are, by nature, more sensual and sexual than men. Maybe even "straight" women can accept the sight of two women kissing easier than the sight of two men kissing.
Anecdotally, from my experience with women, and I have had a fair amount of experience with them, the impression I got was that those women would much rather see women kissing and making love than seeing men do the same thing.
I wholeheartedly agree with them. But then, I am a man who loves women for being women, for their very difference from men, and for allowing me, when that has happened, to kiss them and to make love with them.
So there I was, watching an episode of "Bones" (do an internet search for it if you don't know the series) and one of the regulars, an attractive female, kissed another woman. Well, the other woman kissed the regular and she kissed the other woman back. And it wasn't just a quick shot, then fade to black. They each kissed each other sensually two or three times.
I am a male and I am turned on by women. I am also an old fart, 62 years old, but the scene was HOT! I guess it was a way for the liberals among us to let us know that women loving women actually exist, and that they are not bad people, or shady characters.
Okay, I know that. I am very accepting of other people's sexual orientation and life styles, as long as it involves consenting, non-coerced adults. And logically, two women kissing, or loving each other in a romantic way, or having sex together does not violate the rights of others. It's a personal moral thing and I believe that personal moral beliefs that do not violate the rights of others is not a matter for the law.
But then the thought occurred to me that, while the TV networks, or cable TV executives might be willing to show a bit of female on female titillation, would they ever show, on a popular TV series, a man kissing another man . . . in a sensual, sexual way?
Ewwww! Ugh!
I don't want to see that! Do you? Does anyone, except for gay men?
Do I have a point? I don't know. Maybe my point is this: Our society, after being inundated with female sexuality on TV and billboards, in magazine advertisements, in the movies for so many year, can accept two women kissing, but they are not ready for the sight of two men doing the same thing. Or maybe, just maybe, women are, by nature, more sensual and sexual than men. Maybe even "straight" women can accept the sight of two women kissing easier than the sight of two men kissing.
Anecdotally, from my experience with women, and I have had a fair amount of experience with them, the impression I got was that those women would much rather see women kissing and making love than seeing men do the same thing.
I wholeheartedly agree with them. But then, I am a man who loves women for being women, for their very difference from men, and for allowing me, when that has happened, to kiss them and to make love with them.
Friday, October 09, 2009
The Nobel Peace Prize
It was announced today that President Obama has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. For what? Potential?
This reminds me of what has happened with sporting events for small children, where everyone gets a trophy merely for participating. You don't have to accomplish anything. You just have to show up.
Well, President Obama showed up by being elected President of the United States. Why doesn't the Nobel Committee just go ahead and give a Peace Prize trophy to all the other nominees? Some of them just may have actually done something to try and further peace in the world.
I'm not saying that President Obama won't try, or that he won't accomplish something. All I'm saying is that it cheapens the whole purpose of the Nobel prizes to be giving them out just for showing up.
This reminds me of what has happened with sporting events for small children, where everyone gets a trophy merely for participating. You don't have to accomplish anything. You just have to show up.
Well, President Obama showed up by being elected President of the United States. Why doesn't the Nobel Committee just go ahead and give a Peace Prize trophy to all the other nominees? Some of them just may have actually done something to try and further peace in the world.
I'm not saying that President Obama won't try, or that he won't accomplish something. All I'm saying is that it cheapens the whole purpose of the Nobel prizes to be giving them out just for showing up.
Thursday, October 08, 2009
Bombing the Moon
So, I was watching the news (Fox News Channel, I'm sure) and they showed a few videos of people protesting, more or less, what NASA is going to do soon...bombing the moon.
I don't know what the problem is with these uneducated nimcompoops. NASA isn't sending any expolsives, especially not a nuclear bomb, to the moon. What they are sending could be called (and, I'm sure has been, because I read about it in a novel) a kinetic energy weapon, much like a meteor striking the surface of the Moon. (That's about as natural as you can get.)
The idea of kinetic energy weapons (as applied to Earth) go back at least as far as the 1950s and Jerry Pournelle: Project Thor. They have also been given the name of "Rods from God."
Think of a telephone pole sized rod of tungsten, or some other equally heavy material, plummeting through Earth's atmosphere at 36,000 miles per hour. When it struck the Earth it would create an atomic bomb sized explosion, but without the nuclear fallout and radiation.
Of course, Robert Heilein wrote about this when, in one of his novels, he had the moon colony people, who wanted their independence from Earth, threatening to use computer aided catapults to throw large boulders at specific target on the surface of the Earth.
There was anothe novel I read some years ago (science fiction, of course) about an alien race attacking Earth and doing the very same thing from orbit around the Earth. They had just gathered up some appropriate sized rocks from the asteroid belt.
The moon will be okay all you silly protesters out there. The purpose of the experiment is to see if spectrographic images of the impact and resultant explosion shows that there is any water below the Moon's surface...at least sufficient water for a Moon based colony.
As for Earth-targeted kinetic energy weapons, well, I would like them a whole lot more than nuclear bombs and all the radiation and fallout problems associate with them. But then, I don't like war or warfare because it tends to be harmful to children and other living things. Of course, one should have the right to defend one's self, shouldn't one? Better KEWs than nuclear weapons.
I don't know what the problem is with these uneducated nimcompoops. NASA isn't sending any expolsives, especially not a nuclear bomb, to the moon. What they are sending could be called (and, I'm sure has been, because I read about it in a novel) a kinetic energy weapon, much like a meteor striking the surface of the Moon. (That's about as natural as you can get.)
The idea of kinetic energy weapons (as applied to Earth) go back at least as far as the 1950s and Jerry Pournelle: Project Thor. They have also been given the name of "Rods from God."
Think of a telephone pole sized rod of tungsten, or some other equally heavy material, plummeting through Earth's atmosphere at 36,000 miles per hour. When it struck the Earth it would create an atomic bomb sized explosion, but without the nuclear fallout and radiation.
Of course, Robert Heilein wrote about this when, in one of his novels, he had the moon colony people, who wanted their independence from Earth, threatening to use computer aided catapults to throw large boulders at specific target on the surface of the Earth.
There was anothe novel I read some years ago (science fiction, of course) about an alien race attacking Earth and doing the very same thing from orbit around the Earth. They had just gathered up some appropriate sized rocks from the asteroid belt.
The moon will be okay all you silly protesters out there. The purpose of the experiment is to see if spectrographic images of the impact and resultant explosion shows that there is any water below the Moon's surface...at least sufficient water for a Moon based colony.
As for Earth-targeted kinetic energy weapons, well, I would like them a whole lot more than nuclear bombs and all the radiation and fallout problems associate with them. But then, I don't like war or warfare because it tends to be harmful to children and other living things. Of course, one should have the right to defend one's self, shouldn't one? Better KEWs than nuclear weapons.
Tuesday, October 06, 2009
Acorn Woodpeckers
Last Saturday, I was reading out on the back porch, a large expanse of cement with a roof over it. It was a cool day, one of the first of the year, and an even cooler breeze. But, I was comfortable, fully dressed, and wearing a medium weight jacket and knit cap.
I live in the hill country about 30 miles north of Fresno, California, about half-way to the beautiful Yosemite Valley. This is oak and digger pine country and we have a plethora of acorn woodpeckers.
Acorn woodpeckers are black with white around their eyes, as well as wing patches and bellies and a red patch on the top of the head, among other markings. Some people have remarked that they have clown-like faces.
As I was reading, I was also listening to the sounds of several of those birds. It was a beautiful, partly cloudy, blued-skyed, clear-aired, and deliciously cool day. Many of the woodpeckers were sounding off at the same time in what I now call the "chattering cadence of laughing woodpeckers."
This is not important when it comes to health care reform, unemployment, financial crisis, war in Afganistan, and whatever else our instant, up-to-date news media inundates us with daily, which can only cause us stress. But that time was important for my soul. (Although I am not religious, I do believe that people are healthier if they are listening to, paying attention to, and, at least to some extent, in tune with nature).
Last Saturday was a beautiful interlude of sun, blue sky, white cumulus clouds, and a cool breeze rattling the oak leaves and whooshing thought the digger pine needles. And it was made even more beautiful by the chattering cadence of laughing, red, white, and black, clown-faced acorn woodpeckers.
I live in the hill country about 30 miles north of Fresno, California, about half-way to the beautiful Yosemite Valley. This is oak and digger pine country and we have a plethora of acorn woodpeckers.
Acorn woodpeckers are black with white around their eyes, as well as wing patches and bellies and a red patch on the top of the head, among other markings. Some people have remarked that they have clown-like faces.
As I was reading, I was also listening to the sounds of several of those birds. It was a beautiful, partly cloudy, blued-skyed, clear-aired, and deliciously cool day. Many of the woodpeckers were sounding off at the same time in what I now call the "chattering cadence of laughing woodpeckers."
This is not important when it comes to health care reform, unemployment, financial crisis, war in Afganistan, and whatever else our instant, up-to-date news media inundates us with daily, which can only cause us stress. But that time was important for my soul. (Although I am not religious, I do believe that people are healthier if they are listening to, paying attention to, and, at least to some extent, in tune with nature).
Last Saturday was a beautiful interlude of sun, blue sky, white cumulus clouds, and a cool breeze rattling the oak leaves and whooshing thought the digger pine needles. And it was made even more beautiful by the chattering cadence of laughing, red, white, and black, clown-faced acorn woodpeckers.
Saturday, October 03, 2009
On Doing the Right Thing
In 1935, Albert Jay Nock, wrote a short essay entitled "On Doing the Right Thing." Mr. Nock was what today we would call a libertarian. I don't think that word had been coined then, in 1935, because he speaks of anarchists, as in those who wanted the government to be as small and non-interfering as possible; as in those who believed that the average person would be a moral, self-supporting, non-rights-violating person if left to himself . . . and to his family and community. The family and community connection is important, because humans do not live as hermits. They are social animals. If they do not fit into their society, they will be cast out, whether by law or by their neighbors and associates shunning them.
I am going quote from Mr. Nock's essay, "On Doing the Right Thing," and I will insert the word "libertarian" for his use of "anarchist." He was not speaking of the wild-eyed, bomb-thowing type of person that we think of when we use the word anarchist today. What Mr. Nock had to say was important then, in 1935. It is even more important today . . . for those of us who know that the "State" is only getting bigger and, as it gets bigger, our personal liberty gets smaller. And, just as important, we also know that morality cannot be legislated and the attempts to do so by the Liberals and Progressives has only cause more problems in our society.
In the essay from which I will quote, Mr. Nock was talking about three regions of behavior in all of the actions of mankind. The first region is that which is controlled by law or some outside force beyond the individual, the second region is of "indifferent choice," that is, what type of car, or shirt, or toothpaste to buy. The third region is the one that we, as individuals, through our culture and society learn and have a choice of obeying or not. For instance, "women and children first," used to be common language and accepted as the right thing to do in case of an emergency. I'm not so sure that that is true today. This is the freedom of moral choice region.
The third region is a region that can build character and make good and morally strong citizens. It is about choices and mistakes and learning from those mistakes to become better, stronger people, and it has to be done by the individual, through experience. It cannot be forced upon people. They must understand and accept it. As the old saying goes: "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still." Legislating morality is a form of tyranny and it never works.
Mr. Nock said that, in 1935, Americans had very little of that type of personal moral freedom, their lives being controlled more by morality laws, rather than laws meant to protect rights and punish rights-violators. In Latin there are two legal terms. The first is malum in se, which means that an act is, in and of itself, wrong: murder, rape, assault, robbery, child molesting, etc. The other term is malum prohibitum. That means that the act, in and of itself, is not wrong, in the sense that it does not violate the rights of others, but that some people find it to be morally wrong and those people have enough influence to get the government to make a law against such behavior. Therefore, we, as individuals, don't have the legal right to behave in certain ways because of the moral beliefs and influence of some people; we don't have the freedom necessary to a truly free and liberty-loving society. And, that is the type of freedom that Mr. Nock is referring to when he wrote what I have quoted below.
I am going quote from Mr. Nock's essay, "On Doing the Right Thing," and I will insert the word "libertarian" for his use of "anarchist." He was not speaking of the wild-eyed, bomb-thowing type of person that we think of when we use the word anarchist today. What Mr. Nock had to say was important then, in 1935. It is even more important today . . . for those of us who know that the "State" is only getting bigger and, as it gets bigger, our personal liberty gets smaller. And, just as important, we also know that morality cannot be legislated and the attempts to do so by the Liberals and Progressives has only cause more problems in our society.
In the essay from which I will quote, Mr. Nock was talking about three regions of behavior in all of the actions of mankind. The first region is that which is controlled by law or some outside force beyond the individual, the second region is of "indifferent choice," that is, what type of car, or shirt, or toothpaste to buy. The third region is the one that we, as individuals, through our culture and society learn and have a choice of obeying or not. For instance, "women and children first," used to be common language and accepted as the right thing to do in case of an emergency. I'm not so sure that that is true today. This is the freedom of moral choice region.
The third region is a region that can build character and make good and morally strong citizens. It is about choices and mistakes and learning from those mistakes to become better, stronger people, and it has to be done by the individual, through experience. It cannot be forced upon people. They must understand and accept it. As the old saying goes: "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still." Legislating morality is a form of tyranny and it never works.
Mr. Nock said that, in 1935, Americans had very little of that type of personal moral freedom, their lives being controlled more by morality laws, rather than laws meant to protect rights and punish rights-violators. In Latin there are two legal terms. The first is malum in se, which means that an act is, in and of itself, wrong: murder, rape, assault, robbery, child molesting, etc. The other term is malum prohibitum. That means that the act, in and of itself, is not wrong, in the sense that it does not violate the rights of others, but that some people find it to be morally wrong and those people have enough influence to get the government to make a law against such behavior. Therefore, we, as individuals, don't have the legal right to behave in certain ways because of the moral beliefs and influence of some people; we don't have the freedom necessary to a truly free and liberty-loving society. And, that is the type of freedom that Mr. Nock is referring to when he wrote what I have quoted below.
"The practical reason for freedom, then, is that freedom seems to be the only condition under which any kind of substantial moral fibre can be developed. Everything else has been tried, world without end. Going dead against reason and experience, we have tried law, compulsion and authorititarianism of various kinds, and the result is nothing to be proud of. Americans have many virtues of their own, which I would be the last to belittle or disparage, but the power of quick and independent moral judgment is not one of them.
. . . .
"Freedom, for example, as they keep insisting, undoubtedly means freedom to drink oneself to death. The [libertarian] grants this at once; but at the same time he points out that it also means freedom to say with the gravedigger in "Les Miserables," "I have studied, I have graduated; I never drink." It unquestionably means freedom to go on without any code of morals at all; but it also means freedom to rationalise, construct and adhere to a code of one's own.
. . . .
"The [libertarian] is not interested in any narrower or more personal view of human conduct. Believing, for example, that man should be wholly free to be sober or to be a sot, his eye is not caught and exclusively engaged by the spectacle of sots, but instead he points to those who are responsibly sober, sober by a self-imposed standard of conduct, and asserts his conviction that the future belongs to them rather than to the sots.
. . . .
"The [libertarian], moreover, does not believe that any considerable proportion of human beings will promptly turn into rouges and adventuresses, sots and strumpets, as soon as they find themselves free to do so; but quite the contrary. It seems to be a fond notion with the legalists and authoritarians that the vast majority of mankind would at once begin to thieve, murder and generally misconduct itself if the restraints of law and authority were removed."
I wholeheartedly agree with Mr. Nock. The government, that is, the "State," cannot force morality upon us. And, by having so many laws that govern our personal moral lives, it takes away the ability of many people, especially the young, to fully come to grips with true morality. After several decades of the Progressive and Liberal social engineering of our society, are we more or less polite than we were 100 years ago? Are we more or less violent than we were 100 years ago?
Friday, September 25, 2009
Corruption
Why do policemen become policemen? Why do politicians become politicians? Some of them, I am sure, do it for good, community, helping "the people" purposes. The others? They do it for the power.
If a policeman or politician is in office for 2 years or more, they know that the system is corrupt. If they want to get anything done, they must work with the corrupt ones. That makes them corrupt also.
The two-fold purpose of the police force is to follow up on crimes, after they have been committed, and to harass otherwise honest citizens. No policeman will magically appear between you and the bad guy as he is about to stab, beat, shoot, or rape you. "To serve and protect" is a nice slogan, but it does not match reality.
Am I against all policemen? No, if they honestly and diligently go after the people who violate the rights of others, especially those who violently violate the rights of other. Everything else is harassment of otherwise honest citizens.
Am I against all politicians? That one is a bit harder. Most politicians, as my brother adamantly states, are whores. There are few who are actually working for their constituency and not themselves. It's the power thing. Very addictive. Our politicians today are the new aristocracy.
Do not trust your public servants. Most of them want to be, and to some extent are, your public masters.
As Friedrich Nietzsche said, "Mistrust those in whom the urge to punish is strong." The United States is, per capita, and in actual numbers, the largest jailer in the world. The government loves to punish. Can we truly trust the police, the prosecutors, the politicians, and the judges who work for the government? Because, if you know nothing else about politics and the law, know this, the law doesn't not equal justice. Want proof? The United States Supreme Court upheld slavery and the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. The Supreme Court of the United States! Was it justice? No! But, it was the law. Think about it.
If your behavior is non-violent, non-coercive, non-larcenous, and done alone or among consenting adults, then it is you inalienable right to so behave. If you do not harm other people or their property, if you do not immediately and directly endanger other people and their property, it is you inalienable right to so behave if you wish to do so.
Go to http://dowehaverights.blogspot.com/, "The Myth of Inalienable Rights", to read what I am really talking about.
If a policeman or politician is in office for 2 years or more, they know that the system is corrupt. If they want to get anything done, they must work with the corrupt ones. That makes them corrupt also.
The two-fold purpose of the police force is to follow up on crimes, after they have been committed, and to harass otherwise honest citizens. No policeman will magically appear between you and the bad guy as he is about to stab, beat, shoot, or rape you. "To serve and protect" is a nice slogan, but it does not match reality.
Am I against all policemen? No, if they honestly and diligently go after the people who violate the rights of others, especially those who violently violate the rights of other. Everything else is harassment of otherwise honest citizens.
Am I against all politicians? That one is a bit harder. Most politicians, as my brother adamantly states, are whores. There are few who are actually working for their constituency and not themselves. It's the power thing. Very addictive. Our politicians today are the new aristocracy.
Do not trust your public servants. Most of them want to be, and to some extent are, your public masters.
As Friedrich Nietzsche said, "Mistrust those in whom the urge to punish is strong." The United States is, per capita, and in actual numbers, the largest jailer in the world. The government loves to punish. Can we truly trust the police, the prosecutors, the politicians, and the judges who work for the government? Because, if you know nothing else about politics and the law, know this, the law doesn't not equal justice. Want proof? The United States Supreme Court upheld slavery and the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. The Supreme Court of the United States! Was it justice? No! But, it was the law. Think about it.
If your behavior is non-violent, non-coercive, non-larcenous, and done alone or among consenting adults, then it is you inalienable right to so behave. If you do not harm other people or their property, if you do not immediately and directly endanger other people and their property, it is you inalienable right to so behave if you wish to do so.
Go to http://dowehaverights.blogspot.com/, "The Myth of Inalienable Rights", to read what I am really talking about.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
What is Justice?
Do you know what justice is? According to my trusty dictionary, justice is "the maintenance or administration of what is just according to law." I believe that most people, when they think of justice, think of that definition.
Unfortunately, the law, quite often, is not just. Let me say that another way: Legality does not equal justice.
Once upon a time, in this nation, it was legal to own slaves. The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 allowed slaves owners or their agents to enter free states to capture runaway slaves and take them back to slavery. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld that law. It was legal, but it was not just.
Women were not allowed to vote until the passage of the 19th Amendment in 1920. (There were some exceptions in a few Western states, Wyoming being principle among them.) Before 1920 women had no direct representation in Congress. If they worked and were taxed, then they were being taxed without representation, among other issues. That, too, was not just, but it was legal.
According to Lysander Spooner, a 19th Century writer-philosopher, in his essay "Vices are not Crimes," it was legal in Massachusetts for a 10-year-old girl to consent to have sex. At the same time it was illegal for any person to buy and drink distilled spirits. All legal, of course, passed by the Massachusetts legislature.
In early England, and in the American colonies at first, a person could be punished for not going to church. It was required by law to attend church on Sundays.
Also in England in those days, a women who was pregnant or had a child but had never been married, that is, had no legally recognized husband, was considered to be a abomination to society and an affront to God. Those women could be thrown in jail, along with their bastard child. All legal, but was it justice?
These are but a few examples of how the law does not equal justice. But I have a different definition of justice, one that is based on logic--not on the emotional basis of religion or personal moral beliefs.
My definition of justice is as follows: Justice is when you get what you deserve, nothing more, nothing less. Right is when justice is done; wrong is when it is not. (From my political pamphlet "The Myth of Inalienable Rights.")
In the matter of slavery: If we believe in the concept of inalienable rights--that is, that each person owns, and owns completely, the property of himself or herself--then to enslave a person is not just. It is the gross violation of his or her right to freedom and personal liberty. Besides which, slave owners are slave owners only because of the use of force--legally or illegally--over the slaves. And no slave owner wishes to be a slave.
In the matter of womens' suffrage: One of the calls to revolution for this nation was the slogan "No taxation without representation." By not allowing women to vote, but by still making them subject to the law, their rights were violated and they did not have what they deserved--a right to help determine what laws would be passed that affected them to a lesser or greater extent daily.
In the matter of being able to knowingly and willingly consent to sex at age 10: Does a 10-year-old child deserve to have sexual relationships? Would such a girl have the social skill, the knowledge, experience, or ability to decide whether or not to have sex? From everything that I understand about human mental development, I think not! A 10-year-old girl, or boy, would be extremely unlikely to voluntarily initiated sex, especially with an adult.
In fact, many who are 18 years old aren't fully equipped for that decision either. However, we have to have an age limit for when a person is fully responsible for his or her actions when it comes to things sexual, so the age of 18 is acceptable. After all, the average teenager has been driving for a couple of years by that time, and that is a much more dangerous proposition.
As to whether any adult is mentally competent to decide to buy and drink alcoholic beverages brings me to the biggest injustice of our times: The so-called war on drugs.
The notion that drinking alcoholic beverages or using any other recreational drug is immoral (and therefore should be illegal) is a religious concept and has no place in a modern secular society based on logic and inalienable rights.
If adults (and I am only talking about adults here) actually do own the property of their minds and bodies, and if those adults do not violate the rights of others in the use of that property, and if said use includes using one or more of the presently illegal drugs, then the use of drugs is what that person deserves because that is what he or she wants. They also deserve any consequences, positive or negative, incurred by their drug use behavior.
It is not a matter of whether you, or anyone else, thinks that drug use is dangerous and harmful to the people using those drugs. That is their inalienable right. Drinking alcohol, smoking tobacco, downhill skiing, race car driving, sky-diving, scuba-diving, and mountain-climbing are all arguably dangerous and possibly harmful to those who enjoy those behaviors.
It would be an injustice to arrest, convict, incarcerate, and forfeit a person's property for their drug use. The mere use of a drug does not cause a person to commit crimes. That is, the mere use of a drug does not cause the user to violate the rights of others . . .except, of course, for the drug alcohol.
According to U.S. Department of Justice statistics, approximately one-half of all violent crimes are committed by people who have been drinking alcohol. The vast majority of all crimes associated with the presently illegal drugs are caused, not by their mere use, but by the laws making them illegal.
Also, the U.S. has 5% of the world's population, but it has 25% of the world's imprisoned population. Is that because we have a better justice system than any other nation in the world, or is it because we have a bigger injustice system?
There was a time in this country when the presently illegal drugs were legally available and there was no criminal justice problem associated with their use. The religious people got Congress to pass laws making those drugs illegal because those religious people believed that their use was immoral. That is using the government to enforce specific religious ideas. That's not only unconstitutional, it's a great injustice.
You and I deserve the benefits of our actions, of what we can do and of what we can get by the use of our bodies and minds, just so long as we do so without violating the rights of others. And, if our actions harm us, then we deserve that too. That is justice. When the law does not protect our rights, as is the case in the so-called war on drugs, and, if it punishes honest, non-violent drug users, then that is injustice.
Remember, law does not always equal justice. And, if we do not fight for our rights and true justice, then the government will slowly but surely become a granter of privileges and not a protector of rights. That is, our civil servants will become our civil masters.
For a full discussion on this issue go to "The Myth of Inalienable Rights."
Unfortunately, the law, quite often, is not just. Let me say that another way: Legality does not equal justice.
Once upon a time, in this nation, it was legal to own slaves. The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 allowed slaves owners or their agents to enter free states to capture runaway slaves and take them back to slavery. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld that law. It was legal, but it was not just.
Women were not allowed to vote until the passage of the 19th Amendment in 1920. (There were some exceptions in a few Western states, Wyoming being principle among them.) Before 1920 women had no direct representation in Congress. If they worked and were taxed, then they were being taxed without representation, among other issues. That, too, was not just, but it was legal.
According to Lysander Spooner, a 19th Century writer-philosopher, in his essay "Vices are not Crimes," it was legal in Massachusetts for a 10-year-old girl to consent to have sex. At the same time it was illegal for any person to buy and drink distilled spirits. All legal, of course, passed by the Massachusetts legislature.
In early England, and in the American colonies at first, a person could be punished for not going to church. It was required by law to attend church on Sundays.
Also in England in those days, a women who was pregnant or had a child but had never been married, that is, had no legally recognized husband, was considered to be a abomination to society and an affront to God. Those women could be thrown in jail, along with their bastard child. All legal, but was it justice?
These are but a few examples of how the law does not equal justice. But I have a different definition of justice, one that is based on logic--not on the emotional basis of religion or personal moral beliefs.
My definition of justice is as follows: Justice is when you get what you deserve, nothing more, nothing less. Right is when justice is done; wrong is when it is not. (From my political pamphlet "The Myth of Inalienable Rights.")
In the matter of slavery: If we believe in the concept of inalienable rights--that is, that each person owns, and owns completely, the property of himself or herself--then to enslave a person is not just. It is the gross violation of his or her right to freedom and personal liberty. Besides which, slave owners are slave owners only because of the use of force--legally or illegally--over the slaves. And no slave owner wishes to be a slave.
In the matter of womens' suffrage: One of the calls to revolution for this nation was the slogan "No taxation without representation." By not allowing women to vote, but by still making them subject to the law, their rights were violated and they did not have what they deserved--a right to help determine what laws would be passed that affected them to a lesser or greater extent daily.
In the matter of being able to knowingly and willingly consent to sex at age 10: Does a 10-year-old child deserve to have sexual relationships? Would such a girl have the social skill, the knowledge, experience, or ability to decide whether or not to have sex? From everything that I understand about human mental development, I think not! A 10-year-old girl, or boy, would be extremely unlikely to voluntarily initiated sex, especially with an adult.
In fact, many who are 18 years old aren't fully equipped for that decision either. However, we have to have an age limit for when a person is fully responsible for his or her actions when it comes to things sexual, so the age of 18 is acceptable. After all, the average teenager has been driving for a couple of years by that time, and that is a much more dangerous proposition.
As to whether any adult is mentally competent to decide to buy and drink alcoholic beverages brings me to the biggest injustice of our times: The so-called war on drugs.
The notion that drinking alcoholic beverages or using any other recreational drug is immoral (and therefore should be illegal) is a religious concept and has no place in a modern secular society based on logic and inalienable rights.
If adults (and I am only talking about adults here) actually do own the property of their minds and bodies, and if those adults do not violate the rights of others in the use of that property, and if said use includes using one or more of the presently illegal drugs, then the use of drugs is what that person deserves because that is what he or she wants. They also deserve any consequences, positive or negative, incurred by their drug use behavior.
It is not a matter of whether you, or anyone else, thinks that drug use is dangerous and harmful to the people using those drugs. That is their inalienable right. Drinking alcohol, smoking tobacco, downhill skiing, race car driving, sky-diving, scuba-diving, and mountain-climbing are all arguably dangerous and possibly harmful to those who enjoy those behaviors.
It would be an injustice to arrest, convict, incarcerate, and forfeit a person's property for their drug use. The mere use of a drug does not cause a person to commit crimes. That is, the mere use of a drug does not cause the user to violate the rights of others . . .except, of course, for the drug alcohol.
According to U.S. Department of Justice statistics, approximately one-half of all violent crimes are committed by people who have been drinking alcohol. The vast majority of all crimes associated with the presently illegal drugs are caused, not by their mere use, but by the laws making them illegal.
Also, the U.S. has 5% of the world's population, but it has 25% of the world's imprisoned population. Is that because we have a better justice system than any other nation in the world, or is it because we have a bigger injustice system?
There was a time in this country when the presently illegal drugs were legally available and there was no criminal justice problem associated with their use. The religious people got Congress to pass laws making those drugs illegal because those religious people believed that their use was immoral. That is using the government to enforce specific religious ideas. That's not only unconstitutional, it's a great injustice.
You and I deserve the benefits of our actions, of what we can do and of what we can get by the use of our bodies and minds, just so long as we do so without violating the rights of others. And, if our actions harm us, then we deserve that too. That is justice. When the law does not protect our rights, as is the case in the so-called war on drugs, and, if it punishes honest, non-violent drug users, then that is injustice.
Remember, law does not always equal justice. And, if we do not fight for our rights and true justice, then the government will slowly but surely become a granter of privileges and not a protector of rights. That is, our civil servants will become our civil masters.
For a full discussion on this issue go to "The Myth of Inalienable Rights."
Sunday, August 23, 2009
The Biggest Rights Violation
Back in September of 1996 the U.S. Congress passed a bill making it illegal for anyone convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor to own a firearm. Congress also made that law retroactive. That is, if you had pleaded guilty to a minor domestic violence misdemeanor, say a shouting and shoving match between you and your wife or girl friend, in which the neighbors called the police, and this had happened in 1976, then the 1996 law made you a felon if you possessed any firearm.
At the time there was a lot of raving and ranting in the news about that unconstitutional law (there is no legitimate constitutional authority for the federal government to ban gun ownership) being the biggest rights violating law in U.S. history.
Those ranter and ravers were wrong.
The biggest rights violation laws are the laws prohibiting adults from the manufacture, sales, and use of certain mind-altering, sometimes addictive, sometimes dangerous drugs used by private individuals for recreational purposes or, in some cases, for self-medication.
The domestic violence conviction gun prohibition only violated the rights of somewhat over one million people. The so-called war on drugs (WOD) violates the rights of tens of millions of adults.
If we, U.S. citizens, have inalienable rights as the Declaration of Independence states, then we have the right to the use of our bodies and minds as we so wish, just so long as the use does not violate the rights of others.
The drug use that is the greatest cause of the violation of the rights of others--merely from its use--is the true narcotic drug alcohol. According to Department of Justice statistics approximately one half of all violent crimes--murders, rapes, robberies, assaults--are caused by people who have been drinking alcohol.
Almost all of the violence caused by the presently illegal drugs is caused by the laws making them illegal, not merely from the use of them.
Marijuana is the number one illegal drug use in America. Not only are there no recorded deaths from using that substance, there are few if any recorded murders or other violent crime associated with the use of it.
If Americans have a right to use the potential dangerous and violence-causing narcotic drug alcohol, why don't they have an equal right to the use of the less harmful and non-violence causing drugs that are presently illegal? Further, by what legitimate constitutional authority did Congress outlaw the presently illegal drugs? And, by what legitimate constitutional authority did the Supreme Court (a branch of the federal government) uphold those laws?
If one researches the history of drug use in America in the early part of the 20th Century, he or she will find out that the use of the presently illegal drugs was not associated with real criminal behavior--that is, the violation of the rights of others. Only alcohol was, as it is, still, today. The ban on certain drug use is specifically a religious or personal moral matter and there is no constitutional authority for Congress to pass laws to regulate your personal moral decisions that do not violate the rights of others.
The WOD is the biggest violation of the rights of otherwise honest adult citizens and it set a precedence for the federal government to continue to skirt the legitimate authority of the U.S. Constitution to pass other rights violating laws. The domestic violence conviction gun ban being but one of them.
Our government long ago passed from being a rights protecting institution, as the Founding Fathers of this nation wanted it to be, and became a granter of privileges to "the people." In other words, it long ago became a paternal dictator, which is just another word for tyranny.
In America we are free . . . free to do whatever the government allows us to do.
At the time there was a lot of raving and ranting in the news about that unconstitutional law (there is no legitimate constitutional authority for the federal government to ban gun ownership) being the biggest rights violating law in U.S. history.
Those ranter and ravers were wrong.
The biggest rights violation laws are the laws prohibiting adults from the manufacture, sales, and use of certain mind-altering, sometimes addictive, sometimes dangerous drugs used by private individuals for recreational purposes or, in some cases, for self-medication.
The domestic violence conviction gun prohibition only violated the rights of somewhat over one million people. The so-called war on drugs (WOD) violates the rights of tens of millions of adults.
If we, U.S. citizens, have inalienable rights as the Declaration of Independence states, then we have the right to the use of our bodies and minds as we so wish, just so long as the use does not violate the rights of others.
The drug use that is the greatest cause of the violation of the rights of others--merely from its use--is the true narcotic drug alcohol. According to Department of Justice statistics approximately one half of all violent crimes--murders, rapes, robberies, assaults--are caused by people who have been drinking alcohol.
Almost all of the violence caused by the presently illegal drugs is caused by the laws making them illegal, not merely from the use of them.
Marijuana is the number one illegal drug use in America. Not only are there no recorded deaths from using that substance, there are few if any recorded murders or other violent crime associated with the use of it.
If Americans have a right to use the potential dangerous and violence-causing narcotic drug alcohol, why don't they have an equal right to the use of the less harmful and non-violence causing drugs that are presently illegal? Further, by what legitimate constitutional authority did Congress outlaw the presently illegal drugs? And, by what legitimate constitutional authority did the Supreme Court (a branch of the federal government) uphold those laws?
If one researches the history of drug use in America in the early part of the 20th Century, he or she will find out that the use of the presently illegal drugs was not associated with real criminal behavior--that is, the violation of the rights of others. Only alcohol was, as it is, still, today. The ban on certain drug use is specifically a religious or personal moral matter and there is no constitutional authority for Congress to pass laws to regulate your personal moral decisions that do not violate the rights of others.
The WOD is the biggest violation of the rights of otherwise honest adult citizens and it set a precedence for the federal government to continue to skirt the legitimate authority of the U.S. Constitution to pass other rights violating laws. The domestic violence conviction gun ban being but one of them.
Our government long ago passed from being a rights protecting institution, as the Founding Fathers of this nation wanted it to be, and became a granter of privileges to "the people." In other words, it long ago became a paternal dictator, which is just another word for tyranny.
In America we are free . . . free to do whatever the government allows us to do.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Climate Facts
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." John Adams, 2ndPresident of the United States.
What follows are facts about global-warming/climate change from scientists, or otherwise educated people, who have studied the issue. Climate change or global warming is not the working of one simple gas produced by the modern, industrialized world. The complexities of what effects our climate are myriad.
__________
"Of the 186 billion tons of CO2 that enter earth's atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth's oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants.
"At 368 parts per million CO2 is a minor constituent of earth's atmosphere-- less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases present. Compared to former geologic times, earth's current atmosphere is CO2- impoverished." Monte Hieb (Different article than above.)
__________
"In what could be the simplest explanation for one component of global warming, a new study shows the Sun's radiation has increased by .05 percent per decade since the late 1970s. . . . 'This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change.' . . . . 'Solar activity has apparently been going upward for a century or more.'" Robert Roy Britt, Science.com.
What follows are facts about global-warming/climate change from scientists, or otherwise educated people, who have studied the issue. Climate change or global warming is not the working of one simple gas produced by the modern, industrialized world. The complexities of what effects our climate are myriad.
__________
Greenland has been cooling since 1940. "The Greenland ice sheet and coastal regions are not following the current global warming trends." P. Chylek, et al. 2004, "Global Warming and the Greenland Ice Sheet", Climate Change 63, 201-21. (A factual footnote from Michael Crichton's novel, State of Fear, Harper Collins, 2004.)
__________
"There are a number of causes of climatic change, and until all causes other than carbon dioxide increase are ruled out, we cannot attribute the change to carbon dioxide alone." Reid A. Bryson Ph.D., D.Sc., D.Engr. (Emeritus Professor of Meteorology, of Geography and of EnvironmentalStudies. Senior Scientist, Center for Climatic Research, The Gaylord Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies [Founding Director], the University of Wisconsin, Madison.) http://www.sitewave.net/news/s49p1837.htm
"Water vapor is at least 100 times as effective as carbon dioxide, so small variations in water vapor are more important than large changes in carbon dioxide." (ibid.) (Few, if any computer models of climate change factor in water vapor!)
__________
"The oceans, by virtue of their enormous density and heat storage capacity, are the dominant influence on our climate. It is the heat budget and energy flows into and out of the ocean which largely determines what the global mean temperature of the surface atmosphere will settle to. These flows, especially evaporation, are quite capable of cancelling the slight effect of CO2. This is clearly evident in the tropics where there has been no temperature increase at all in spite of a 50% increase in CO2-equivalent greenhouse gases." John L. Daly, http://www.john-daly.com/deepsea.htm
__________
"Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2)."
"Richard Lindzen[] . . . is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans."
"As Lindzen said many years ago: 'the consensus was reached before the research had even begun.' Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists." Timothy Ball, Ph.D in Climatology, University of London, England, former professor of climatology at the University of Winnipeg, Canada.
__________
"Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect.
"Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic).
"Human activites contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate." Monte Hieb
____________
"Of the 186 billion tons of CO2 that enter earth's atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth's oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants.
"At 368 parts per million CO2 is a minor constituent of earth's atmosphere-- less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases present. Compared to former geologic times, earth's current atmosphere is CO2- impoverished." Monte Hieb (Different article than above.)
__________
"In what could be the simplest explanation for one component of global warming, a new study shows the Sun's radiation has increased by .05 percent per decade since the late 1970s. . . . 'This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change.' . . . . 'Solar activity has apparently been going upward for a century or more.'" Robert Roy Britt, Science.com.
Wednesday, July 08, 2009
Free People or Slaves?
The true nature of liberty entails the inalienable right to make, sell, buy, own, and use property in a way that does not harm or endanger other people or their property without good cause. Good cause would be the defense of self, loved ones, innocent others, or property.
The most basic property is one's own body and mind, to which no one else, including the government, has a claim except by one's knowing and willing word or contract with another party for the use of one's body or mind. This assumes, of course, consenting adults only.
Further, inalienable rights, by their very nature, cannot be voted out of existence, otherwise they are not inalienable. No majority decision of the citizenry and especially no majority vote of any legislative body has the legitimate power to nullify, that is, violate a person's inalienable rights.
To put it another way, if an adult's behavior is done alone or with other, consenting, adults; if said behavior is non-violent, non-coercive, and non-larcenous; if said behavior does not disturb the peace or create a public nuisance, then that behavior is the inalienable right of that person. This is even more true is said behavior is done privately, so as not to be viewed by the public, and done on private property. The essence of an inalienable right is behavior that does not violate the rights of others.
It matters not if others believe that the behavior is immoral or harmful to the person who is doing it. Immorality is a religious concept and we do not have a religious government. And, in the United States, we are supposed to have both religious freedom and freedom from religion. Harm is subjective. There are many behaviors that can cause harm, even death, to the participants such as suba-diving, mountain climbing, smoking tobacco, and drinking alcoholic beverages, among others. Society accepts the fact that adults who participate in those types of behavior can and may be harmed or even die from their actions. We do not allow the government to arrest, and punish those people behaving in those ways, unless their actions harm or directly threaten to harm others or the property of others.
The alternative to the above is that we do not have the right to own property or, at the very least, we do not fully own ourselves; that we merely get privileges granted to us. That would make us slaves. If we don't have inalienable rights--the right to participate in any behavior whether potentially harmful, or whether others find it to be immoral--then who is the privilege master, the slavemaster, the one authority that will dictate what we, as adults, can and cannot do even if our actions do not violate the rights of others?
In a society that values individual liberty and styles itself as the land of the free, the government can have no more power than an individual has. The government gets its legitimate power from the people. (See the Declaration of Independence and the 10th Amendment to the U.S. constitution.)
If a citizen cannot legitimately force his or her personal moral or religious beliefs upon any other person, then the government also lacks the legitimate power to do so, even if all the legislators vote for it. If it is wrong for an individual citizen to resort to force in an attempt to make another person moral, where the person being so force has not violated the rights of others, then it is wrong for the government to do so, whether by itself or in the name of a majority of the citizens. Actually, it is more than wrong. It is criminal, in that it would be violating the rights of the person being forced to adhere to other people's personal or religious moral code.
The government of the United States (all three branches) in the attempt to impose a specific moral code upon all adult citizens regarding behavior considered by many to be immoral and wrong, but which, in and of itself, does not violate the rights of others, may and, quite often, does resort to the use of force to impress its will upon the people. I am specificially talking about consensual adult drug behavior, although other types of consensual adult behavior also apply.
All tyrannies have behaved in this manner. And a democratic government that violates the inalienable rights of some citizens by a majority vote is no less a tyranny. This nation was not set up as a pure democracy. (For example, think of two wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for dinner.) The Founding Fathers believe strongly in the principle of inalienable rights. They also knew that some people would destroy themselves if left to their own devices. Sad, certainly. Tragic, maybe. But as long as those people did not violate the rights of others, then they had an inalienable right to do what they wanted with themselves.
So, who will put a stop to the present tyranny in the United States? Who will punish the government for overreaching its legitimate constitutional powers? There are literally millions of honest, peaceful adult citizens who do not believe in nor adhere to the specific moral code that the government is trying to force upon them when it comes to what we, as adults, can do with our most personal property, our bodies and our minds.
How has it come about that once strong and independant United States citizens now depend upon the government to tell them what to do and to allow their civil servants to become their civil masters? If a person's behavior does not violate the rights of others, or if that behavior is not a direct and immediate threat to the rights of others, then that person's fellow citizens have no legitimate power or right to interfere with that person's life. More importantly, neither does the government. We must re-establish this principle of inalienable rights if we, as a nation, truly want personal liberty and a strong, free society.
The most basic property is one's own body and mind, to which no one else, including the government, has a claim except by one's knowing and willing word or contract with another party for the use of one's body or mind. This assumes, of course, consenting adults only.
Further, inalienable rights, by their very nature, cannot be voted out of existence, otherwise they are not inalienable. No majority decision of the citizenry and especially no majority vote of any legislative body has the legitimate power to nullify, that is, violate a person's inalienable rights.
To put it another way, if an adult's behavior is done alone or with other, consenting, adults; if said behavior is non-violent, non-coercive, and non-larcenous; if said behavior does not disturb the peace or create a public nuisance, then that behavior is the inalienable right of that person. This is even more true is said behavior is done privately, so as not to be viewed by the public, and done on private property. The essence of an inalienable right is behavior that does not violate the rights of others.
It matters not if others believe that the behavior is immoral or harmful to the person who is doing it. Immorality is a religious concept and we do not have a religious government. And, in the United States, we are supposed to have both religious freedom and freedom from religion. Harm is subjective. There are many behaviors that can cause harm, even death, to the participants such as suba-diving, mountain climbing, smoking tobacco, and drinking alcoholic beverages, among others. Society accepts the fact that adults who participate in those types of behavior can and may be harmed or even die from their actions. We do not allow the government to arrest, and punish those people behaving in those ways, unless their actions harm or directly threaten to harm others or the property of others.
The alternative to the above is that we do not have the right to own property or, at the very least, we do not fully own ourselves; that we merely get privileges granted to us. That would make us slaves. If we don't have inalienable rights--the right to participate in any behavior whether potentially harmful, or whether others find it to be immoral--then who is the privilege master, the slavemaster, the one authority that will dictate what we, as adults, can and cannot do even if our actions do not violate the rights of others?
In a society that values individual liberty and styles itself as the land of the free, the government can have no more power than an individual has. The government gets its legitimate power from the people. (See the Declaration of Independence and the 10th Amendment to the U.S. constitution.)
If a citizen cannot legitimately force his or her personal moral or religious beliefs upon any other person, then the government also lacks the legitimate power to do so, even if all the legislators vote for it. If it is wrong for an individual citizen to resort to force in an attempt to make another person moral, where the person being so force has not violated the rights of others, then it is wrong for the government to do so, whether by itself or in the name of a majority of the citizens. Actually, it is more than wrong. It is criminal, in that it would be violating the rights of the person being forced to adhere to other people's personal or religious moral code.
The government of the United States (all three branches) in the attempt to impose a specific moral code upon all adult citizens regarding behavior considered by many to be immoral and wrong, but which, in and of itself, does not violate the rights of others, may and, quite often, does resort to the use of force to impress its will upon the people. I am specificially talking about consensual adult drug behavior, although other types of consensual adult behavior also apply.
All tyrannies have behaved in this manner. And a democratic government that violates the inalienable rights of some citizens by a majority vote is no less a tyranny. This nation was not set up as a pure democracy. (For example, think of two wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for dinner.) The Founding Fathers believe strongly in the principle of inalienable rights. They also knew that some people would destroy themselves if left to their own devices. Sad, certainly. Tragic, maybe. But as long as those people did not violate the rights of others, then they had an inalienable right to do what they wanted with themselves.
So, who will put a stop to the present tyranny in the United States? Who will punish the government for overreaching its legitimate constitutional powers? There are literally millions of honest, peaceful adult citizens who do not believe in nor adhere to the specific moral code that the government is trying to force upon them when it comes to what we, as adults, can do with our most personal property, our bodies and our minds.
How has it come about that once strong and independant United States citizens now depend upon the government to tell them what to do and to allow their civil servants to become their civil masters? If a person's behavior does not violate the rights of others, or if that behavior is not a direct and immediate threat to the rights of others, then that person's fellow citizens have no legitimate power or right to interfere with that person's life. More importantly, neither does the government. We must re-establish this principle of inalienable rights if we, as a nation, truly want personal liberty and a strong, free society.
Monday, June 22, 2009
Producing Workers and the Tax Pool
In my political pamphlet, "The Myth of Inalienable Rights" (http://dowehaverights.blogspot.com/) I coined a term for those people who support themselves, as well as everyone else. I call them "producing workers."
A producing worker is someone who is integral in the production of tangible goods, which is what true wealth is. You can't eat money and you can't build a house out of money nor can you wear it as clothing. Money is merely a way of keeping track of your wealth. Even if you are not fabulously wealthy, you still have wealth if you have possessions.
So who is a producing worker? A producing worker is a person with the idea for making something that other people want to possess. Or it is a person with the capital to get that idea made into a tangible object. Or it is a person who provides the labor to make the object. Or one person could fill all three positions. One person could have an idea, have the capital to buy the necessary materials, and provide the labor to make it.
The taxes that the producing workers pay support everyone else, with one minor exception. Service providing businesses such as restaurants, hotels, and airlines get paid directly by producing workers, or indirectly by people who have shared in the taxes that the producing workers have paid. Then, the service providers pay taxes on the money that came directly or indirectly from the producing workers.
Let me try and create a mental image. Imagine a large pool of water with the water representing the collected taxes from all taxable income. There is a very large inlet pipe which is coming from the producing workers. Off to one side of the large inlet pipe and before the tax pool outfall is a smaller pipe leading to the service workers and then from them an even smaller inlet pipe pouring into the tax pool.
On the other end of the pool are three siphons: federal, state, and local governments. Any money that is disbursed by these governments, whether for paying wages to government workers, farm subsidies, corporate subsidies, personal subsidies (welfare), social security, medicare, the military, road construction--anything paid for from and by these governments--comes from the taxes paid by the producing workers.
Of course, anyone getting an income from the government has to pay taxes, so there is another inlet pipe collecting that "tax water" and putting it back into the tax pool from the government side of the tax pool. However, that does not raise the level of the tax pool. It is only a small percentage of the water that was taken out previously by the governments. (And, one wonders, why government workers don't have a tax adjusted income so they don't have to pay taxes, thereby reducing the cost incurred by them filing their taxes and having their tax claims processed by more government workers.)
Also, when anyone receiving an income from the government eats in a restaurant, stays in a hotel, flies on an airplane, they are paying the service workers with the money paid in taxes by the producing workers.
When a producing worker buys anything, whether it is an automobile or a pencil, he or she is paying for it with the wealth--translated into dollars--that he or she has made by producing things that people want. When anyone receiving an income from the government buys anything, they are paying for it from the wealth created by the producing worker.
If producing workers are taxed too much it destroys incentive and, perhaps, makes some of them want to try and get in on the "free" government money. Heavy taxes also makes many of the financiers of production look for cheap labor overseas.
And, as to government largess (with other people's money), the more people receiving government money, for whatever reason, the fewer producing workers there will be to keep the tax pool at a sustainable level. If the tax pool level gets too low, the national economy will fail.
We should never forget that the whole of our economy is supported completely by the producing worker. Also, there is no such thing as a free lunch (TINSTAAFL to those who understand), regardless of what the progressives and socialists would have you believe. Fewer people on the government payroll or dole would mean more money in the pockets of those who actually support us all. That would mean more spending by those people, which would create more demand for goods, which would create more jobs and more producing workers . . . and a healthier economy.
A producing worker is someone who is integral in the production of tangible goods, which is what true wealth is. You can't eat money and you can't build a house out of money nor can you wear it as clothing. Money is merely a way of keeping track of your wealth. Even if you are not fabulously wealthy, you still have wealth if you have possessions.
So who is a producing worker? A producing worker is a person with the idea for making something that other people want to possess. Or it is a person with the capital to get that idea made into a tangible object. Or it is a person who provides the labor to make the object. Or one person could fill all three positions. One person could have an idea, have the capital to buy the necessary materials, and provide the labor to make it.
The taxes that the producing workers pay support everyone else, with one minor exception. Service providing businesses such as restaurants, hotels, and airlines get paid directly by producing workers, or indirectly by people who have shared in the taxes that the producing workers have paid. Then, the service providers pay taxes on the money that came directly or indirectly from the producing workers.
Let me try and create a mental image. Imagine a large pool of water with the water representing the collected taxes from all taxable income. There is a very large inlet pipe which is coming from the producing workers. Off to one side of the large inlet pipe and before the tax pool outfall is a smaller pipe leading to the service workers and then from them an even smaller inlet pipe pouring into the tax pool.
On the other end of the pool are three siphons: federal, state, and local governments. Any money that is disbursed by these governments, whether for paying wages to government workers, farm subsidies, corporate subsidies, personal subsidies (welfare), social security, medicare, the military, road construction--anything paid for from and by these governments--comes from the taxes paid by the producing workers.
Of course, anyone getting an income from the government has to pay taxes, so there is another inlet pipe collecting that "tax water" and putting it back into the tax pool from the government side of the tax pool. However, that does not raise the level of the tax pool. It is only a small percentage of the water that was taken out previously by the governments. (And, one wonders, why government workers don't have a tax adjusted income so they don't have to pay taxes, thereby reducing the cost incurred by them filing their taxes and having their tax claims processed by more government workers.)
Also, when anyone receiving an income from the government eats in a restaurant, stays in a hotel, flies on an airplane, they are paying the service workers with the money paid in taxes by the producing workers.
When a producing worker buys anything, whether it is an automobile or a pencil, he or she is paying for it with the wealth--translated into dollars--that he or she has made by producing things that people want. When anyone receiving an income from the government buys anything, they are paying for it from the wealth created by the producing worker.
If producing workers are taxed too much it destroys incentive and, perhaps, makes some of them want to try and get in on the "free" government money. Heavy taxes also makes many of the financiers of production look for cheap labor overseas.
And, as to government largess (with other people's money), the more people receiving government money, for whatever reason, the fewer producing workers there will be to keep the tax pool at a sustainable level. If the tax pool level gets too low, the national economy will fail.
We should never forget that the whole of our economy is supported completely by the producing worker. Also, there is no such thing as a free lunch (TINSTAAFL to those who understand), regardless of what the progressives and socialists would have you believe. Fewer people on the government payroll or dole would mean more money in the pockets of those who actually support us all. That would mean more spending by those people, which would create more demand for goods, which would create more jobs and more producing workers . . . and a healthier economy.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
