http://bit.ly/4xySHI
--
Seems the democrats threw abortion over the side of the boat this weekend to get their bill, HR3962, passed. I would like to observe that the topic of abortion is the only one where the democrats have been on the right side. In just about every other circumstance, they have acted to destroy freedom and rights so that they could implement their entitlement schemes, which do nothing but increase costs and redistribute wealth but are justified by noble goals if you subscribe to the altruist/collectivist ethics.
Abortion, the marriage of convenience, is now being tossed aside. And what rights to democrats claim they are defending? They talk only about some small minority of Americans that do not have access to health care and how they have to do something, because compassion is at the core of American values.
Compassion is not what we founded this country on. It was not what the revolutionary war was fought for. We are not the country where you are your brother's keeper - the country of unchosen obligation. To find that, you can look anywhere. Soviet Russia. Nazi Germany. Red China. Socialized Europe.
On the question of freedom, America has stood alone. That question is simple. Is man free? Does his life belong to him? Or does he exist in bondage to serve the needs and ends of others? Until the 20th century, America alone answered that man is free. America institutionalized rights defended by a limited government. Since then, the answer has been diluted. Well it just got positively muddy this weekend.
Why does the question of freedom matter? Why is it the fundamental question in politics? That is something I'm going to have to save for a later post, which I promise to write.
Monday, November 9, 2009
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Dear Attorney-General-Elect Cuccinelli
Dear Attorney-General-Elect Cuccinelli,
I am writing to congratulate you on your well-deserved victory and to let you know that I look forward to the years to come in your career. Though I do not agree with everything that I saw presented on your issues, that I was particularly glad to see a person running for office who believes that the ideas of the Founding Fathers as captured in the constitution embodies a principle that places bounds on what the government is permitted to do. You understand that individual rights matter to voters and that puts you leaps and bounds ahead of the likes of Bob McDonnell and Bill Bolling.
Where I disagree with you is the idea that an embryo has rights that supersedes the rights of the host of that embryo; that is, the woman. The rights of fully living human beings to do with the cells of their body as they wish are inviolable. And the idea that the state can step in and tell a woman what she may do with her body is in complete opposition to the idea that you have a right to your life. A right to your life means a right to your body and all of the cells in it. Either you believe in individual rights, or you believe the state has a right to tell you what to do with your life and body.
I believe that the Republican party is lost right now and the only way they can provide a clear opposition to altruistic Democratic Socialism is by championing individual rights and laissez-faire capitalism. Republicans are unable to provide clear differentiation from Democrats because they accept the same basic moral premises: that man doesn't exist for his own sake, but rather for the greater good of society or to carry out the will of god or other such nonsense. Republicans can win by being the champions of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, but not so long as you remain in bed with the religious right.
At any rate, you are the candidate that I voted for most enthusiastically, so I hope that this message meets with a like mind.
-Francis Luong
I am writing to congratulate you on your well-deserved victory and to let you know that I look forward to the years to come in your career. Though I do not agree with everything that I saw presented on your issues, that I was particularly glad to see a person running for office who believes that the ideas of the Founding Fathers as captured in the constitution embodies a principle that places bounds on what the government is permitted to do. You understand that individual rights matter to voters and that puts you leaps and bounds ahead of the likes of Bob McDonnell and Bill Bolling.
Where I disagree with you is the idea that an embryo has rights that supersedes the rights of the host of that embryo; that is, the woman. The rights of fully living human beings to do with the cells of their body as they wish are inviolable. And the idea that the state can step in and tell a woman what she may do with her body is in complete opposition to the idea that you have a right to your life. A right to your life means a right to your body and all of the cells in it. Either you believe in individual rights, or you believe the state has a right to tell you what to do with your life and body.
I believe that the Republican party is lost right now and the only way they can provide a clear opposition to altruistic Democratic Socialism is by championing individual rights and laissez-faire capitalism. Republicans are unable to provide clear differentiation from Democrats because they accept the same basic moral premises: that man doesn't exist for his own sake, but rather for the greater good of society or to carry out the will of god or other such nonsense. Republicans can win by being the champions of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, but not so long as you remain in bed with the religious right.
At any rate, you are the candidate that I voted for most enthusiastically, so I hope that this message meets with a like mind.
-Francis Luong
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Letters to My Representatives: No to Public Option
Dear X,
I am writing to let you know that I am strongly opposed to any kind of public option for health care and I urge you to vote against the upcoming legislation. It is government regulation that has gotten us into this mess and only repeal of that regulation toward a free market in medicine will solve it. The government's programs are failing because they are based on an incorrect premise that health care is a right. This is out of line with the reality that medicine is a man-made service and any attempt to guarantee rights to a man-made service will result in monstrous injustice as we see today.
I propose you find a solution for the government phase out the Medicare program in an orderly manner, give tax breaks to individuals and employers alike for health benefits (as opposed to favoring employers as you do today), and rollback regulations on insurance companies which force them to cover anything and everything. This will restore rationality to our health care markets and return us a workable situation where people may purchase the health care that their means and priorities allow for.
Thank you,
Francis Luong
I am writing to let you know that I am strongly opposed to any kind of public option for health care and I urge you to vote against the upcoming legislation. It is government regulation that has gotten us into this mess and only repeal of that regulation toward a free market in medicine will solve it. The government's programs are failing because they are based on an incorrect premise that health care is a right. This is out of line with the reality that medicine is a man-made service and any attempt to guarantee rights to a man-made service will result in monstrous injustice as we see today.
I propose you find a solution for the government phase out the Medicare program in an orderly manner, give tax breaks to individuals and employers alike for health benefits (as opposed to favoring employers as you do today), and rollback regulations on insurance companies which force them to cover anything and everything. This will restore rationality to our health care markets and return us a workable situation where people may purchase the health care that their means and priorities allow for.
Thank you,
Francis Luong
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Response to Article: How Not to Talk About Health Care By Randy Cohen
Original Article:
http://ethicist.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/20/how-not-to-talk-about-health-care/
=======
I came upon this article from an acquaintance who chimed in on an online discussion of an opinion piece regarding on the Public Option for Healthcare. His thoughts were clearly pragmatic (which is not a compliment). "I am not sure how we can have reasoned debate when we can't agree on really basic facts like quality and cost of healthcare here vs elsewhere, incentive structures, etc etc."
I read Cohen's article and I have to say that I was most displeased with what I found. Cohen uses the language of someone trying to create a perception that he is enlightened and above the fray. Public discourse, he says, must be conducted with "intellectual integrity". What is intellectual integrity? He doesn't take time to explicitly define this explicitly but makes a reference to "respect for logic" as being some part of his foggy notion.
I decided to outline the ways in which I consider Cohen's article to be intellectually dishonest. Let's define our terms. What do I consider to be intellectual honesty? Specifically, I consider it to be loyalty to relevant and essential facts in argumentation and there are two factors that are generally manipulated in an intellectually dishonest argument:
- context: whether all of the facts pertaining to the subject are fully represented, or in the case of comparisons, whether two things are similar in all essential aspects. This is crucial because logic divorced from all pertinent facts is meaningless and/or dishonest
- essentiality: whether the evidence presented in the argument essential or non-essential. Honest arguments are made on essential facts and fundamental principles. Anything less is an attempt to hoodwink the reader.
So let's look at Cohen's article.
Mr. Cohen begins by stating that what the government is attempting to do by providing a public option is "[not] unusual in its general approach". And, keeping his context narrow, Cohen proceeds to give examples such as private schools existing in the presence of public schools. This argumentation is meant to dismiss the notion that there is any danger in the government's move into the private sector. Cohen does not discuss the nature of rights, why they are a fundamental requirement of a free society, and whether such a government action undercuts those rights. He sets out only to debunk argumentation against what the government intends to do without any discussion of whether it has any right to do anything of the sort.
Cohen uses absurd examples that make you say: "UMass destroying Harvard? Of Course Not! How Silly!" "New York Public Library put Barnes and Noble out of Business? Ridiculous!" And the while it's hard to disagree with minor points in his article, you may or may not notice that your agreement is part of a well-laid trap. Cohen's logical groupings are rigged so that a person reading his article uncritically and agrees with his strawman examples might also, by packaging, find absurd the idea that there is a negative impact to having a public option. He never states that conclusion explicitly. Well of course not: "health policy is beyond my purview" he says. But economics is, it would seem.
How does Cohen close? He includes a quote by Orwell which, loosely paraphrased, says: all political reasoning is suspect. What does Cohen prescribe in response? Aggressive Skepticism. Which basically means: doubt worship. He suggests that people be vigilant of deception, not that they should rigorously apply reason and learn all of the facts and arguments so that they may be certain that their position is correct. He arms his readers only with skepticism and doubt so that they may dismiss immediately any argument they might disagree with in the realm of political reasoning. This is intellectual bankruptcy.
There is one sentence that I found that I particularly I agreed with. Writes Cohen, "the prevaricator who sincerely believes his lie transforms it, at least to himself and his confreres, from deceit to ideology". I believe this is a psychological confession on the part of the author. The entire article is an example of the methods and logic of the intellectually disingenuous. I get the impression that Cohen doesn't think of himself that way, otherwise he might have guessed that the lens of intellectual integrity would be turned on himself and his own article's argumentation.
http://ethicist.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/20/how-not-to-talk-about-health-care/
=======
I came upon this article from an acquaintance who chimed in on an online discussion of an opinion piece regarding on the Public Option for Healthcare. His thoughts were clearly pragmatic (which is not a compliment). "I am not sure how we can have reasoned debate when we can't agree on really basic facts like quality and cost of healthcare here vs elsewhere, incentive structures, etc etc."
I read Cohen's article and I have to say that I was most displeased with what I found. Cohen uses the language of someone trying to create a perception that he is enlightened and above the fray. Public discourse, he says, must be conducted with "intellectual integrity". What is intellectual integrity? He doesn't take time to explicitly define this explicitly but makes a reference to "respect for logic" as being some part of his foggy notion.
I decided to outline the ways in which I consider Cohen's article to be intellectually dishonest. Let's define our terms. What do I consider to be intellectual honesty? Specifically, I consider it to be loyalty to relevant and essential facts in argumentation and there are two factors that are generally manipulated in an intellectually dishonest argument:
- context: whether all of the facts pertaining to the subject are fully represented, or in the case of comparisons, whether two things are similar in all essential aspects. This is crucial because logic divorced from all pertinent facts is meaningless and/or dishonest
- essentiality: whether the evidence presented in the argument essential or non-essential. Honest arguments are made on essential facts and fundamental principles. Anything less is an attempt to hoodwink the reader.
So let's look at Cohen's article.
Mr. Cohen begins by stating that what the government is attempting to do by providing a public option is "[not] unusual in its general approach". And, keeping his context narrow, Cohen proceeds to give examples such as private schools existing in the presence of public schools. This argumentation is meant to dismiss the notion that there is any danger in the government's move into the private sector. Cohen does not discuss the nature of rights, why they are a fundamental requirement of a free society, and whether such a government action undercuts those rights. He sets out only to debunk argumentation against what the government intends to do without any discussion of whether it has any right to do anything of the sort.
Cohen uses absurd examples that make you say: "UMass destroying Harvard? Of Course Not! How Silly!" "New York Public Library put Barnes and Noble out of Business? Ridiculous!" And the while it's hard to disagree with minor points in his article, you may or may not notice that your agreement is part of a well-laid trap. Cohen's logical groupings are rigged so that a person reading his article uncritically and agrees with his strawman examples might also, by packaging, find absurd the idea that there is a negative impact to having a public option. He never states that conclusion explicitly. Well of course not: "health policy is beyond my purview" he says. But economics is, it would seem.
How does Cohen close? He includes a quote by Orwell which, loosely paraphrased, says: all political reasoning is suspect. What does Cohen prescribe in response? Aggressive Skepticism. Which basically means: doubt worship. He suggests that people be vigilant of deception, not that they should rigorously apply reason and learn all of the facts and arguments so that they may be certain that their position is correct. He arms his readers only with skepticism and doubt so that they may dismiss immediately any argument they might disagree with in the realm of political reasoning. This is intellectual bankruptcy.
There is one sentence that I found that I particularly I agreed with. Writes Cohen, "the prevaricator who sincerely believes his lie transforms it, at least to himself and his confreres, from deceit to ideology". I believe this is a psychological confession on the part of the author. The entire article is an example of the methods and logic of the intellectually disingenuous. I get the impression that Cohen doesn't think of himself that way, otherwise he might have guessed that the lens of intellectual integrity would be turned on himself and his own article's argumentation.
Saturday, July 4, 2009
Celebrate Your Independence By Choosing To Read Atlas Shrugged
For a long time, I like many people around me, believed that America was without a culture. People who had come to America from other lands came with food, language, and practices that seemed a bit archaic and out of place here, except perhaps for the food. My parents, without being able to explain it, seemed to indicate that this cultural identity was worth preserving.
I was born in this country and could not convince myself that Vietnamese cultural identity was worth pursuing. Having been forced by my parents to practice certain traditions that were not fully explained and seemed senseless, I decided at a young age that I would not adopt any cultural artifact without being able to understand and explain it's value. Value to whom? To myself, of course. My mind is the only one I have access to or control of.
In the year 2009, I feel more culturally American than I have ever felt at any other time in my life. Why is that? I read Atlas Shrugged back in 2007 and it sparked a long study of Reason, Egoism, and Capitalism until I could understand and explain the reasons for my philosophical views. I own my identity as a cultural American because I am devoted to the only social concept that made America possible, which incidentally is not democracy, but is Individual Rights.
Thomas Jefferson said it first:
This is where I might start to lose some people. You may be the sort of person that hears the word "Captialism" and instantly thinks of commercialism and that corporations are inherently evil/amoral and you quickly dismiss any criticisms that government is anything but the defender of the people. If so, I would say that you are the sort of person that needs to read it the most. I would ask you to check your idea of what you think Capitalism is at the door before you read this book. What Rand presents will challenge your assumptions.
What is my purpose in writing this post? Partly, it is to celebrate the nation that is my home not just because it is my home but because of the central idea behind it. I am proud of American cultural identity because at its core, it is the country that best embodies the moral right to rational self-interest. It is ideology that makes a culture rich, which is why I think that defining a culture on food and traditional practice is to define a culture on non-essentials. America *is* culturally rich, and every time another country grows economically prosperous by freeing their people to act for their own gain they reaffirm this principle.
I want you to choose to read Atlas Shrugged because I think every American should be able to understand and explain what it is that made America different and great. This is not nationalistic pride we're talking about. This is national self-esteem with the full realization of all of the things that are required to achieve it. We are the first country to be based on a concept of rights enshrined in a document, to be secured by the government as our agent. If you've noticed that recent government actions do not square with that principle, it's because the principle is under attack every day by an inverted morality that tells you that sacrifice is the supreme value and the only good that you do (and thus, the only justification for your existence) is service to others.
Read the book critically - questioning EVERYTHING until it is proven - and you will gain a fully reasoned understanding the nature of self-interest, and of altruism, and what rules of society our freedom depends on and why. Beyond the philosophic and the didactic, you will also gain from reading this book a presentation of heroically self-interested characters in action, Rand's primary purpose in writing her novel. If you find that you agree with Rand's ethics and her politics, then these will become crucial fuel for your spiritual consciousness to keep your inner fire going.
* for "Creator" I substitute "nature"
I was born in this country and could not convince myself that Vietnamese cultural identity was worth pursuing. Having been forced by my parents to practice certain traditions that were not fully explained and seemed senseless, I decided at a young age that I would not adopt any cultural artifact without being able to understand and explain it's value. Value to whom? To myself, of course. My mind is the only one I have access to or control of.
In the year 2009, I feel more culturally American than I have ever felt at any other time in my life. Why is that? I read Atlas Shrugged back in 2007 and it sparked a long study of Reason, Egoism, and Capitalism until I could understand and explain the reasons for my philosophical views. I own my identity as a cultural American because I am devoted to the only social concept that made America possible, which incidentally is not democracy, but is Individual Rights.
Thomas Jefferson said it first:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator* with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.Atlas Shrugged was the book that put words to my American sense of life. Those words constituted a logical proof, which is the only means by which a person can understand and explain why anything is and ought to be. The proof was for American way of life as it started out and how it should have remained: Capitalism, the system of individual rights, is the only system consonant with man's nature as a rational being and the requirement that man act on his own judgment for his own benefit.
This is where I might start to lose some people. You may be the sort of person that hears the word "Captialism" and instantly thinks of commercialism and that corporations are inherently evil/amoral and you quickly dismiss any criticisms that government is anything but the defender of the people. If so, I would say that you are the sort of person that needs to read it the most. I would ask you to check your idea of what you think Capitalism is at the door before you read this book. What Rand presents will challenge your assumptions.
What is my purpose in writing this post? Partly, it is to celebrate the nation that is my home not just because it is my home but because of the central idea behind it. I am proud of American cultural identity because at its core, it is the country that best embodies the moral right to rational self-interest. It is ideology that makes a culture rich, which is why I think that defining a culture on food and traditional practice is to define a culture on non-essentials. America *is* culturally rich, and every time another country grows economically prosperous by freeing their people to act for their own gain they reaffirm this principle.
I want you to choose to read Atlas Shrugged because I think every American should be able to understand and explain what it is that made America different and great. This is not nationalistic pride we're talking about. This is national self-esteem with the full realization of all of the things that are required to achieve it. We are the first country to be based on a concept of rights enshrined in a document, to be secured by the government as our agent. If you've noticed that recent government actions do not square with that principle, it's because the principle is under attack every day by an inverted morality that tells you that sacrifice is the supreme value and the only good that you do (and thus, the only justification for your existence) is service to others.
Read the book critically - questioning EVERYTHING until it is proven - and you will gain a fully reasoned understanding the nature of self-interest, and of altruism, and what rules of society our freedom depends on and why. Beyond the philosophic and the didactic, you will also gain from reading this book a presentation of heroically self-interested characters in action, Rand's primary purpose in writing her novel. If you find that you agree with Rand's ethics and her politics, then these will become crucial fuel for your spiritual consciousness to keep your inner fire going.
* for "Creator" I substitute "nature"
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Good Retort: The United States Of America And Islam Have Nothing Fundamental In Common by Andy Clarkson
I would like to share something I read and find convincing. I have often heard touted, the intellectual achievements due to the spread of Islam and I found Clarkson's post on this topic illuminating. His post is a response to BHO's comments in Cairo.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Credit Card Bill of Rights Violates Right to Contract
Dear Representative X,
I heard that the US Senate passed legislation for a Credit Card Bill of Rights and I urge you to vote against any such legislation in the House.
I heard that the US Senate passed legislation for a Credit Card Bill of Rights and I urge you to vote against any such legislation in the House.
- "Rights are not social privileges but objective facts, identifying the freedoms we need to live our lives--whether a majority in society agree or not"
- Creating Artificial Rights to things products and services that are man-made (such as credit), means simply that you are using the machinery of government to coerce people. "Newfangled rights wipe out real rights"
- A Credit Card Bill of Rights alters the terms of existing contracts without the permission of either party. Contracts should only be alterable based only on the terms written in the contract, which is mutually agreed upon, or terms not written in the contract provided that they are also mutually agreeable. When an issuer changes terms, they *already* offer a grace period that permits you to disagree and pay off your balance. Your legislation is not needed.
- No one is forced to open a Credit Card account. Anyone who does has an obligation to understand what they are signing up for.
- Any issues with these contracts can presently be handled by boycott (not signing up for a credit card) and vocal protest (advocacy and spreading information).
- To force Credit Card providers to offer terms they would not choose to offer themselves is a violation of rights to associate freely.
Saturday, April 11, 2009
An Individualist's Retort -- Mass Movements
I read the following tag line in an article:
First, structure the message of your mass movement so that my individual judgment can fully agree. Yes, this means you will have to limit the scope of the message to something fundamental and succinct. The only way to win over individualists is by advocating the right ideas. It cannot occur by asking us to set aside our values and our principles. This is precisely what we don't like about mass movements.
Also, realize that it's not enough to be against something. You have to be for something. If you know only what it is you are opposed to, you will probably fail to get more than minor agreement from any active mind. Be in favor of something. A solution. An idea. Your truth will get our allegiance.
Here is the truth that will get this individual's allegiance:
Your movement must advocate the defense of Individual Rights based on a morality of self-interest. That these form the basis of our society and the fundamental charge of our government. The movement must advocate that our citizens and government officials recognize these facts, understand how the government is currently violating our rights, and that we must proceed to restructure government so that it will respect these rights.
I understand that the choice is between full unfettered laissez-faire capitalism and any form of statism or dictatorship. Do the conservatives? Do the Republicans? No? Then get out of my face about what I must cast to the side in order to combat a socialist tide. I will not trade the chains of socialist slavery for the straight-jacket of fascist dictatorship or the crucifixes of theocratic despotism. Capitalism, the system of individual rights, is what is required for you to win this individual over.
If you appeal to individualism and advocate anything less than Capitalism you don't understand individualism, or rights as such, and are not fit to represent it with your movement.
"Individualists must overcome their distrust of mass movements and rallies in order to combat the socialist tide."The article is a mess. Too many block quotes, no solid message. Here is my response - open to all people who label themselves conservatives and would seek to form a mass movement that would include individual thinkers:
First, structure the message of your mass movement so that my individual judgment can fully agree. Yes, this means you will have to limit the scope of the message to something fundamental and succinct. The only way to win over individualists is by advocating the right ideas. It cannot occur by asking us to set aside our values and our principles. This is precisely what we don't like about mass movements.
Also, realize that it's not enough to be against something. You have to be for something. If you know only what it is you are opposed to, you will probably fail to get more than minor agreement from any active mind. Be in favor of something. A solution. An idea. Your truth will get our allegiance.
Here is the truth that will get this individual's allegiance:
Your movement must advocate the defense of Individual Rights based on a morality of self-interest. That these form the basis of our society and the fundamental charge of our government. The movement must advocate that our citizens and government officials recognize these facts, understand how the government is currently violating our rights, and that we must proceed to restructure government so that it will respect these rights.
I understand that the choice is between full unfettered laissez-faire capitalism and any form of statism or dictatorship. Do the conservatives? Do the Republicans? No? Then get out of my face about what I must cast to the side in order to combat a socialist tide. I will not trade the chains of socialist slavery for the straight-jacket of fascist dictatorship or the crucifixes of theocratic despotism. Capitalism, the system of individual rights, is what is required for you to win this individual over.
If you appeal to individualism and advocate anything less than Capitalism you don't understand individualism, or rights as such, and are not fit to represent it with your movement.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Response to Article: The End of Philosophy by David Brooks
Original Article: The End of Philosophy by David Brooks
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/07/opinion/07Brooks.html
--
Read this *critically* if you'd like to see human beings compared to robotic bee creatures that are irredeemably emotion-ruled and where the only place we get new overriding moral values is from our friends.
Uh... wait, where did our friends get them from?
Brooks follows a well-worn template:
1 - subvert the role of reason in morality (and, apparently, the subconscious)
2 - declare reason to be useless
3 - substitute for reason -- intuition, altruism, and collectivism
4 - enjoy your new zombie army
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/07/opinion/07Brooks.html
--
Read this *critically* if you'd like to see human beings compared to robotic bee creatures that are irredeemably emotion-ruled and where the only place we get new overriding moral values is from our friends.
Uh... wait, where did our friends get them from?
Brooks follows a well-worn template:
1 - subvert the role of reason in morality (and, apparently, the subconscious)
2 - declare reason to be useless
3 - substitute for reason -- intuition, altruism, and collectivism
4 - enjoy your new zombie army
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Keynes and Altruism
I saw the following query on simplycapitalism.com:
It made me observe the following:
In order to choose A, you need to be able to choose your own good above what you are told is the good of others (and thus yourself) by Keynesian mouthpieces. And, you would have to place your individual judgment above the voices of others.
Choosing B would not only indicate that you do not understand cause and effect in economics (that you cannot borrow your way out of debt). It would also indicate that you are willing to gamble your own individual financial well-being for the supposed collectivist promise that if you don't jump off the ship into shark-infested waters of your own accord, that the entire ship will sink and you will drown anyway. Though it is primarily pragmatist (that is to say, dogmatically unprincipled), the self-sacrificial effect of altruism is fully evident in Keynesian ideology.
Reason and Capitalism are inseparable. Taking some part of it on faith is required for any other politico-economic system you can name.
As an individual, let’s say you have no savings, owe more money on your house than it is worth, and have a 50% chance of losing your job in the next 12 months. Would it make more sense to:
a) cut your spending and save more money
b) take out another loan and spend more money
It made me observe the following:
In order to choose A, you need to be able to choose your own good above what you are told is the good of others (and thus yourself) by Keynesian mouthpieces. And, you would have to place your individual judgment above the voices of others.
Choosing B would not only indicate that you do not understand cause and effect in economics (that you cannot borrow your way out of debt). It would also indicate that you are willing to gamble your own individual financial well-being for the supposed collectivist promise that if you don't jump off the ship into shark-infested waters of your own accord, that the entire ship will sink and you will drown anyway. Though it is primarily pragmatist (that is to say, dogmatically unprincipled), the self-sacrificial effect of altruism is fully evident in Keynesian ideology.
Reason and Capitalism are inseparable. Taking some part of it on faith is required for any other politico-economic system you can name.
Thoughts in response to Brendan's thread
Original Discussion: Sunday Open Thread #47
http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/2009/04/sunday-open-thread-47.shtml#4
--
My thoughts in response:
http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/2009/04/sunday-open-thread-47.shtml#4
--
My thoughts in response:
- In the life of a human being starting from first light, you have rudimentary function of sensation, pain, and pleasure. Doesn't change the fact that your life is in the hands of someone else at this point. The will to live is immaterial at this point. The infant will live or perish based on the caretaker's actions.
- How does emotion develop from this? Psychological response likely precedes the ability to reason as the infant becomes a toddler and beyond. Does this form the basis of a will to live (or not) when enough evaluative concretes are present to indicate that certain courses of action cause pain or pleasure? Does this get connected ultimately with life and death once you realize your mortality?
- After birth, your life is a metaphysical fact. Acceptance that you must act to support your life is necessary for the concepts of Value/Cherish/Love to be applicable. If your life becomes your primary goal and standard, you must figure out how to pursue it effectively. This leads to the development of a code of values.
- A system of values will necessarily have to be ordered. There has to be a clear winner, a supreme value, if you're to avoid sabotaging yourself with contradictory actions.
Saturday, April 4, 2009
Rights to Man-made Things Ultimately Deny Rights to All
Any time the government promises it's citizens the right to something man-made (job, medical care, retirement) the government, in effect, is declaring that some people must be forcibly made to support other people with some portion of their effort. This is the essence of slavery and a fundamental premise of totalitarian dictatorship.
Rights must be based on metaphysical facts. I'll let Rand do the heavy lifting:
Essay: Man's Rights by Ayn Rand
Rights must be based on metaphysical facts. I'll let Rand do the heavy lifting:
Essay: Man's Rights by Ayn Rand
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Why I cancelled my WAMU/NPR membership
I heard a story on Marketplace's Monday March 23 show and it was the last straw. Guest Peter Singer explains to listeners why "It's unethical not to give in recession".
That we have achieved a "level of comfort" is, according to Mr. Singer, the only justification he needs to assert that we have a responsibility to others that we must choose to undertake if we are to be worthy of recognition from his morality. He doesn't stop to consider how we achieved this comfort, what effort was involved, what rights had to be discovered and then protected, what morality gives rise to that conception of rights. (hint: we didn't get here by pursuing self-sacrifice)
I have maintained an NPR membership in support of a few shows that I have continued to enjoy. Wait, Wait. Prarie Home. But it has become much too upsetting to know that I cannot support the good bits without also supporting the likes of Diane Rehm and a the continuing spread of a lot of ideas I disagree with on Marketplace and All Things Considered.
As of today, I have fixed that.
Goodbye WAMU. Goodbye NPR. Goodbye APM. Get your act together and maybe we can be friends someday.
Ryssdal: You actually lay it on, and I don't want to mischaracterize this, but you make a very strong and a very pointed argument that it's unethical, really, not to give if you have the means.I can no longer support and sanction content that is clearly designed to advocate self-sacrifical altruism unquestioned, unchallenged, and exalted. Host, Kai Ryssdal, does not bother to ask Mr. Singer the crucial question: "Why".
SINGER: I think we have to accept that in a world in which there are a billion people living in such extreme poverty, that they may not be able to feed their children, or may not be able to get basic health care for them, or send them to school, and another billion people, that's most of us, who have a level of comfort that really throughout history people have not had before. I think it's unethical for us not to accept some responsibility.
- Why is it unethical "not to give if you have the means"? (are there facts of reality that give rise to this idea)
- What are proper reasons for giving at all? Is it always good to give? (consider: to a crackhead, to drug dealers, to warlords, to common thugs)
- Why is giving worth considering as a vital part of human existence?
- Is working in support of your life and happiness a vital part of human existence?
- If so, how does one reconcile the pursuit of happiness with the needs of others?
- Why is it considered an "entitlement" if you work to earn something and use it to support your life and your goals?
- Why is the suffering of people you have never met your guilt and your responsibility?
- Why must you morally live as a slave -- that is, you work without a moral right to the result of your effort?
That we have achieved a "level of comfort" is, according to Mr. Singer, the only justification he needs to assert that we have a responsibility to others that we must choose to undertake if we are to be worthy of recognition from his morality. He doesn't stop to consider how we achieved this comfort, what effort was involved, what rights had to be discovered and then protected, what morality gives rise to that conception of rights. (hint: we didn't get here by pursuing self-sacrifice)
I have maintained an NPR membership in support of a few shows that I have continued to enjoy. Wait, Wait. Prarie Home. But it has become much too upsetting to know that I cannot support the good bits without also supporting the likes of Diane Rehm and a the continuing spread of a lot of ideas I disagree with on Marketplace and All Things Considered.
As of today, I have fixed that.
Goodbye WAMU. Goodbye NPR. Goodbye APM. Get your act together and maybe we can be friends someday.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Article: Thank God America Isn't Like Europe -- Yet
Source: www.washingtonpost.com"We need to remember why America is exceptional, and why it is so important that America remain exceptional."
An unusually thoughtful opinion piece in the Washington Post. Three thoughts: 1 - Murray is excited about the implications of what we will discover as the development of "hard" sciences lead to a rational basis for the social sciences (so am I). 2 - these will lead us to conclude what Rand has already stated so eloquently on so many occasions. 3 - What Rand has stated clearly, which Murray has all but stated, is that "Capitalism" (the system of individual rights and the only one morally consistent with individualism) *is* the American exceptional characteristic.
For more information on Capitalism, see:
Capitalism.Org's Tour
Audio Lecture: "What is Capitalism" by Ayn Rand (requires Realplayer)
Thursday, March 19, 2009
The Stranger with $25
Suppose for a moment that:
Currency only has value in reference to the goods and services that it can purchase. If you increase the money supply without producing anything, it is the same as having goods and services vanish. In effect, you are either a victim of fraud or theft. The fancy name for this stealth version of theft is "inflation" and it can only be enacted by the government. Quoting Rand:
A good start would be to not permit the government to take from you that which you've earned and need to survive; that is, to petition the government to recognize the rights already enshrined in the constitution. When we permit the government to meddle in economics uncontested for the so-called "common good", it is with our lives and the recognition of our rights that we pay.
(To find out more about the nature of Inflation, have a listen to Rand's lecture on Egalitarianism and Inflation.)
- You live in a town with its own form of currency
- there is a static quantity of dollars in circulation in town - say $50
- a sandwich costs $5
- a man you do not recognize comes into town and purchases half of all of the goods available. he has not added anything to the supply of goods or services, he has only consumed some.
- there is now $75 in circulation but only half as many goods available for purchase
- what do you think happens to the price of a sandwich?
Currency only has value in reference to the goods and services that it can purchase. If you increase the money supply without producing anything, it is the same as having goods and services vanish. In effect, you are either a victim of fraud or theft. The fancy name for this stealth version of theft is "inflation" and it can only be enacted by the government. Quoting Rand:
There is only one institution that can arrogate to itself the power legally to trade by means of rubber checks: the government. And it is the only institution that can mortgage your future without your knowledge or consent: government securities (and paper money) are promissory notes on future tax receipts, i.e., on your future production.Consider this carefully as you judge the actions of the government and determine what you should demand of it: Article: Washington Post: Fed to Pump $1.2 Trillion Into Markets.
A good start would be to not permit the government to take from you that which you've earned and need to survive; that is, to petition the government to recognize the rights already enshrined in the constitution. When we permit the government to meddle in economics uncontested for the so-called "common good", it is with our lives and the recognition of our rights that we pay.
(To find out more about the nature of Inflation, have a listen to Rand's lecture on Egalitarianism and Inflation.)
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Damn Good Interview: ARI's Yaron Brook on "Going Galt"
Video: http://www.pjtv.com/video/PJTV_Daily/Is_Atlas_Shrugging%3F/1530/
Yaron Brook from the Ayn Rand Institute talks Pajames Media about "Going Galt" and a few other things:
Yaron Brook from the Ayn Rand Institute talks Pajames Media about "Going Galt" and a few other things:
- Atlas Shrugged
- Greenspan and the Federal Reserve
- It's not time to go on strike, it's time to FIGHT
- Social Security and Inconsistency in the Advocacy of Freedom
- A Film Version of Atlas Shrugged (still vaporware)
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Initial Thoughts on Going Galt
I've seen a lot of references to Going Galt in the blogrolls lately and I've only done a cursory review of it all but it seems to be a movement consisting of people who don't quite understand what Galt was all about. The focus seems to be primarily on curtailing productive activity in response to the actions of the Obama administration, but there are a couple key bits of contextual backdrop that a person may be ignoring if they're talking about going on strike:
Galt's strike, which the "Go"-ers seem to be inanely focused on, was based on a fundamental thesis of Ayn Rand. That thesis is that evil is metaphysically impotent and can only exist when it is accepted and supported by the efforts of good men. And she defines good men as those who live their lives for their own sake, neither sacrificing themselves to others or others to themselves.
The chief problem that these men have is that in the prevalent morality of society, self-interest is considered inherently evil, and thus men guiltily work for themselves while undermining themselves each step of the way by attempting to live an unpracticeable morality: Altruism. (I'll come back later and insert some concrete examples).
In each instance of a man joining Galt's strike, the event represents an epiphany on the part of that man where he comes to understand the evil that Altruism represents and what his role is in making that evil possible. By going on strike, they withdraw what Rand terms accurately, "the sanction of the victim". That is, they withdraw their willingness to do the work of the mind on which the survival of mankind depends - always, always, always. Their work, in addition to serving their own self-interest, secondarily supports a society and government that does not appreciate them and even punishes them for the good works that they do. To strike is to no longer accept the role of willing martyr.
"Going Galt" should mean so much more than a curtailment of productivity. It begins approaching life with an active mind and never placing anything above fact as integrated by your rational faculty. In analyzing man's nature and the role of his mind in his survival, you come to understand why this mantra is worth knowing and living: "I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." When you have the correct philosophical basis, the rest follows.
I can support the idea of "Going Galt" only if it means to stage a revolution in morality for the recognition of self-interest as necessary and good. That's the only thing that will save this country. It would be a return to the principles on which this country was made. That Rand's ideas are making the media is good publicity. But if the publicity spreads a diluted or subverted version of Rand's ideas then it will only serve to give power and credibility to our enemy. Consistency is key (to hell with Emerson).
In my attempts to "Go Galt", I have chosen the path of intellectual activism. That is, to exercise my right to free speech and to advocate the right kind of ideas. It's still a free country and I maintain that the only alternative to a revolution of force is a revolution in ideas.
- Do you have a wealthy friend that owns a hidden valley where you can hide out while the world burns?
- What purpose you hope to achieve by your productive curtailment other than your own martyrdom?
- Is this action what best serves your own rational self-interest given that we still live in a semi-free society? (We still have freedom of speech, even if we are being deprived of the product of our work)
Galt's strike, which the "Go"-ers seem to be inanely focused on, was based on a fundamental thesis of Ayn Rand. That thesis is that evil is metaphysically impotent and can only exist when it is accepted and supported by the efforts of good men. And she defines good men as those who live their lives for their own sake, neither sacrificing themselves to others or others to themselves.
The chief problem that these men have is that in the prevalent morality of society, self-interest is considered inherently evil, and thus men guiltily work for themselves while undermining themselves each step of the way by attempting to live an unpracticeable morality: Altruism. (I'll come back later and insert some concrete examples).
In each instance of a man joining Galt's strike, the event represents an epiphany on the part of that man where he comes to understand the evil that Altruism represents and what his role is in making that evil possible. By going on strike, they withdraw what Rand terms accurately, "the sanction of the victim". That is, they withdraw their willingness to do the work of the mind on which the survival of mankind depends - always, always, always. Their work, in addition to serving their own self-interest, secondarily supports a society and government that does not appreciate them and even punishes them for the good works that they do. To strike is to no longer accept the role of willing martyr.
"Going Galt" should mean so much more than a curtailment of productivity. It begins approaching life with an active mind and never placing anything above fact as integrated by your rational faculty. In analyzing man's nature and the role of his mind in his survival, you come to understand why this mantra is worth knowing and living: "I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." When you have the correct philosophical basis, the rest follows.
I can support the idea of "Going Galt" only if it means to stage a revolution in morality for the recognition of self-interest as necessary and good. That's the only thing that will save this country. It would be a return to the principles on which this country was made. That Rand's ideas are making the media is good publicity. But if the publicity spreads a diluted or subverted version of Rand's ideas then it will only serve to give power and credibility to our enemy. Consistency is key (to hell with Emerson).
In my attempts to "Go Galt", I have chosen the path of intellectual activism. That is, to exercise my right to free speech and to advocate the right kind of ideas. It's still a free country and I maintain that the only alternative to a revolution of force is a revolution in ideas.
Friday, March 13, 2009
My Subconscious Altruism Yardstick
Suppose you live the whole of your life as follows:
- You're an honest person: you don't cheat, you don't lie
- You went to college to expand your range of knowledge after high school
- You get a job doing honest work after college. You end up leaving the job because there are some things you're asked to do that you consider to be borderline fraud. You continue your search until you find a number of business concerns whose values line up with your own and you have a fulfilling career doing stuff you're passionate about.
- You have a few really good friends and you really understand each other deeply. You're glad they exist and vice versa. They're people you admire. They take care of themselves, and never get themselves into trouble.
- You are happy. Your life is full.
- Though you've helped your friends in minor ways through the years, you didn't go out of your way to help people in need.
- You never donated to charity.
- You never volunteered for Network Engineers without Borders (or Greenpeace).
- There are still starving people in Africa.
- You don't intend to do any of these and you don't feel a bit guilty about it. You are not your brother's keeper.
- Would you call this life a success or a failure?
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Response to Article: Muslim Woman Asked to Leave Line at Bank Over Head Scarf
Response to Article: Muslim Woman Asked to Leave Line at Bank Over Head Scarf
- In principle, the bank, as the owner and operator of a business concern, has the moral right to choose not to serve anyone, at its sole discretion. A proper government should have no say in this matter since no one is initiating force.
- A right to religion is not a right to practice it on the property and at the expense of others.
- If a religion calls for me to be bathed in goat blood and not to wash it off for a year, I do not have the right to force a bank to do business with me while I am in such a disgusting state. I may fully practice my religious beliefs on my own property or on the private property of someone whom permits me.
- Any government intervention a case such as this one would force the business concern to act against its judgment. In this case, the measures are defensibly enacted to reduce fraud, but that is a trivial secondary consideration which is beside the point. The fundamental consideration is the business concern's right to choose whom it will do business with.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Why You'll Lose
When I presented to a co-worker friend the idea that Capitalism could be defended only on the basis of reason, he asked me this question in response: Why can't a person of faith (a christian libertarian/conservative) effectively argue for Capitalism based on the idea that it achieves the greatest common good?
I promised him a written reply because the topic would require a good bit of elaboration. I won't start by presenting a defense of Capitalism since that has already be done very nicely at Capitalism.org. I'll let them speak for me.
There are two areas where a christian libertarian will encounter conflict in advocating for capitalism. One applies to the nature of human cognition, the other applies to how we define what is good or evil (morality).
Human Cognition
If you read through the Capitalism.org tour then you will understand what I mean when I say that individual sovereignty and rights are based on Reason being the only means of cognition and thus the only tool of survival for a human being. A person who accepts religious beliefs on faith has undercut Reason. In effect, the person is declaring that he accepts as valid an idea that he has no evidence to support. By holding Reason as an equal or a lesser to mystic revelation, logic is pushed off the table entirely.
So, on what basis can a mystic defend Capitalism or any idea whatsoever? The idea of trying to persuade someone using logic and fact pre-supposes that logic and fact cannot be superseded by mystic revelation or any other magic bullets. In order to defend any concept, you have to be able to demonstrate its validity by reference to the nature of reality. This means that you're setting aside faith for the duration that you're making any argument - and thus you must base your defense on reason.
In the end, it comes to this: To the extent to which you fail to live according to your chosen convictions (your faith), you lack integrity. On the most fundamental questions of life, you have already declared that no evidence and no logic are necessary. If a person "of faith" is considered to be weak in his faith for demanding evidence, then how is a man who presents an argument to be evaluated?
Morality
In practice, the morals provided by christianity and the morals of secular altruism are one and the same. Your existence is not justifiable except to the extent that you serve others. For the purpose of brevity I will lump these together as "altruism".
Altruism holds that your action is good for the reason that you are not the beneficiary of it. This means that the extent to which you support your own existence or pursue your own happiness, you get no credit from morality, and possibly some demerits. If you live your life for yourself, working hard, and harming no one else in the process, you are not necessarily a good person. If you sacrifice your life to save the lives of 10 strangers, you are a good person. If you become a millionaire by producing and selling high quality computers, you're not necessarily a good person. If you give all of your money to charity, you are. The common differentiating element is: sacrifice.
Living in support of your life depends on acting in accordance with your nature as a human being. You must use your judgment to determine what is required to preserve and further your life. If morality expects that you sacrifice all of the products of your actions to the needs of others, then the purpose of that morality is to lead you to your death. Altruism cannot be defended in reason. There is no reason given for why it is improper and good for a man to act in support of his own life and happiness. There is no reason given why some men must be sacrificed to the need of others. There is no reason given why their need is your guilt.
Given the nature of altruism, how can a person effectively argue that Altruism, the morality of self-sacrifice, and Capitalism, the system of individual rights and sovereignty, are not complete and utter contradictions of one another? Even if your argument was that Capitalism is the system best-suited to achieve that goal, your argument would be weakened by divorcing means from ends.
Capitalism would leave people free to keep their profits for themselves, which altruism would consider greedy and corrupt. It would obligate no one to act toward the greater good of society because it grants society no recognition over an above an individual, thus permitting people to live immorally. The argument that Capitalism is the best system to support to goals of altruist morals is unconvincing because altruism and egoism, the morality from which Capitalism is derived, are opposites.
In Closing
The political system fully consistent with altruism is socialism. Because your opponents political views are more consistent with their views on morality, they will win and you will lose. The only way you can consistently advocate Capitalism is based on reason and man's right to live for his own sake.
I will close with a quote from Rand's, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.
I promised him a written reply because the topic would require a good bit of elaboration. I won't start by presenting a defense of Capitalism since that has already be done very nicely at Capitalism.org. I'll let them speak for me.
There are two areas where a christian libertarian will encounter conflict in advocating for capitalism. One applies to the nature of human cognition, the other applies to how we define what is good or evil (morality).
Human Cognition
If you read through the Capitalism.org tour then you will understand what I mean when I say that individual sovereignty and rights are based on Reason being the only means of cognition and thus the only tool of survival for a human being. A person who accepts religious beliefs on faith has undercut Reason. In effect, the person is declaring that he accepts as valid an idea that he has no evidence to support. By holding Reason as an equal or a lesser to mystic revelation, logic is pushed off the table entirely.
So, on what basis can a mystic defend Capitalism or any idea whatsoever? The idea of trying to persuade someone using logic and fact pre-supposes that logic and fact cannot be superseded by mystic revelation or any other magic bullets. In order to defend any concept, you have to be able to demonstrate its validity by reference to the nature of reality. This means that you're setting aside faith for the duration that you're making any argument - and thus you must base your defense on reason.
In the end, it comes to this: To the extent to which you fail to live according to your chosen convictions (your faith), you lack integrity. On the most fundamental questions of life, you have already declared that no evidence and no logic are necessary. If a person "of faith" is considered to be weak in his faith for demanding evidence, then how is a man who presents an argument to be evaluated?
Morality
In practice, the morals provided by christianity and the morals of secular altruism are one and the same. Your existence is not justifiable except to the extent that you serve others. For the purpose of brevity I will lump these together as "altruism".
Altruism holds that your action is good for the reason that you are not the beneficiary of it. This means that the extent to which you support your own existence or pursue your own happiness, you get no credit from morality, and possibly some demerits. If you live your life for yourself, working hard, and harming no one else in the process, you are not necessarily a good person. If you sacrifice your life to save the lives of 10 strangers, you are a good person. If you become a millionaire by producing and selling high quality computers, you're not necessarily a good person. If you give all of your money to charity, you are. The common differentiating element is: sacrifice.
Living in support of your life depends on acting in accordance with your nature as a human being. You must use your judgment to determine what is required to preserve and further your life. If morality expects that you sacrifice all of the products of your actions to the needs of others, then the purpose of that morality is to lead you to your death. Altruism cannot be defended in reason. There is no reason given for why it is improper and good for a man to act in support of his own life and happiness. There is no reason given why some men must be sacrificed to the need of others. There is no reason given why their need is your guilt.
Given the nature of altruism, how can a person effectively argue that Altruism, the morality of self-sacrifice, and Capitalism, the system of individual rights and sovereignty, are not complete and utter contradictions of one another? Even if your argument was that Capitalism is the system best-suited to achieve that goal, your argument would be weakened by divorcing means from ends.
Capitalism would leave people free to keep their profits for themselves, which altruism would consider greedy and corrupt. It would obligate no one to act toward the greater good of society because it grants society no recognition over an above an individual, thus permitting people to live immorally. The argument that Capitalism is the best system to support to goals of altruist morals is unconvincing because altruism and egoism, the morality from which Capitalism is derived, are opposites.
In Closing
The political system fully consistent with altruism is socialism. Because your opponents political views are more consistent with their views on morality, they will win and you will lose. The only way you can consistently advocate Capitalism is based on reason and man's right to live for his own sake.
I will close with a quote from Rand's, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.
Consider a few rules about the working of principles in practice and about the relationship of principles to goals . . . .
1. In any conflict between two men (or two groups) who hold the same basic principles, it is the more consistent one who wins.
2. In any collaboration between two men (or two groups) who hold different basic principles, it is the more evil or irrational one who wins.
3. When opposite basic principles are clearly and openly defined, it works to the advantage of the rational side; when they are not clearly defined, but are hidden or evaded, it works to the advantage of the irrational side.
--Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal “The Anatomy of Compromise,” Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 145.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
