I should make it a point to mention to anyone who reads this that I have permanently given up television. It has been a few weeks now and I wasn't sure how long I'd hold up, but let me tell you--I'm done with TV. In my philosophical thinking, I consider myself an idealist with individualist leanings, as you can probably tell--but do not think that I do not think practically. TV was costing me about forty bucks a month, and seeing how I am a poor individualist with a penchant for fine wine and cigarettes--amongst other things, I decided that the most logical action I should take would be to abandon the pleasures of my forty-dollar-a-month television. After all, the only TV station I watched was CSPAN, and one can watch it for free on the internet. Ocasionally I would watch Comedy Central or Cartoon Network, but there are far more interesting and entertaining things to watch on YouTube.
I wonder sometimes if I am alone in my abandonment of television. I find myself out of the loop in school. I've never watched the OC or whatever the new 20-something hit is, but at least I was in the loop on the commercials. The other day in my British literature class, my instructor, whom I highly respect, mentioned something about the previews for a new movie about Queen Elizabeth and I hadn't heard a word about it. Are there others like me who haven't heard of this movie? Everyone in class seemed to know about it. It bothered me for some reason. It seems the only useful purpose I could find in television was it's role it played in informing me of new motion pictures. I hate TV but love movies--weird, I know. There was a time when I was like most of America--intellectually drained by that sucking sound one can almost hear coming from the rectangular idol found in most living rooms across this great nation. I heard Norman Mailer give a speech in which he stated that he believes the reason for the high rate of ADD in the youth, and the overall apathy and ignorance prevalent in America, is due to commercials. Think about it--when you watch whatever it is you watch, you get about ten minutes of dialogue and narrative, and then you are interrupted by something totally irrelevant for five minutes. Your mind gets accustomed to this intake of information in fifteen minute intervals. He said when he was growing up, and even not too long ago, it was not unheard for someone to read two hundred pages of a book in a single sitting. There was no interruption in that intake of information. However, when parent's tell their children to do their homework today, the child may work for ten or fifteen minutes until he or she gets bored and then the parent has to yell at them for five minutes until they go back to the homework. At the time when I heard him say this, I thought it to be somewhat inconsequential, but later on I noticed that the only programs I watched on television were PBS and CSPAN, and what do you know--neither have commercial breaks.
The other reason for giving up on television is the fact that most news programs are designed to be watched by people with a sixth grade education. "Big words" are frowned upon. And besides that, what would be presented in the opinion section of a newspaper is presented to us as the news--objective facts have been sacrificed to the gods of...never mind--the word 'sacrifice' infers that the thing being sacrificed is worth something to the person doing the sacrificing. Bill O'Reilly, who is almost as repulsive to us Irish as Oliver Cromwell, is on primetime--enough said. Loony old Bill's books--and I use that term lightly only in the fact that they are bound pieces of paper-- have about as much thought and intelligence put into them as a Bugs Bunny cartoon. The only problem is that I was raised on Bugs Bunny and I hate to see the nation of fascists who are being raised on Bill O'Reilly. But loony old Bill doesn't write books for people to read. He knows as well as I do that people don't read his books, they just buy them to place them on the shelf next to the picture of his buddy dub-ya. The people who actually read his books (and I'm sure I can name all of them--dub-ya if he could read, that sick-fuck Bill Kristol, the Rockefeller clan, Paul Wolfowitz, Zalmay Khalilzad, Gary Bauer, the rapist of liberty Dick Cheney, and the two Eliot's--Cohen and Abrams) are the most disgusting and repulsive members of the human race to have ever existed. It defies me to think that the beauty of childbirth and womanhood could have created these sick individuals. I used to work at a fried chicken drive-in and they remind me of the vat that we used to dump the grease in. They are literally the scum of the earth.
Wasn't I talking about television, nevermind.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Mercenaries
What is the world coming to? A few weeks ago the we all found out about the incident involving some Iraqis killed by Blackwater contractors, and then came to find out that things like this have been taking place since the beginning of the war. Today, the AP reported that the Afghans are shutting down some security contractors there. And even the UN is stepping in and investigating concerns over contractor killings in Iraq.
There are serious moral ramifications when a country uses mercenaries to fight its war. Sure, we have troops on the ground, but it seems to me that what we are seeing is contractors being employed to do the dirty work.
Americans watch bombing campaigns on the television--bombing campaigns with names like Shock and Awe--and experience just that--Shock and Awe. Americans watching television have no idea in the world what it is like to be a first-hand whiteness to those bombing campaigns. We have never had bombs dropped on us here. We watch those scenes like they are clips from an action movie, but we never think about the janitor working the graveyard shift at Saddam's party headquarters. So we rationalize it and say to ourselves that its better to drop bombs than to send our boys to the field. And our rationality serve the monsters that create war well because they know that in order to achieve their goals, the civilian population of those places must become scared shitless. Now, several year later with troops on the ground, the population isn't as scared as the warmongers would like, but Americans would be outraged if their troops were caught indiscriminately killing civilians. The warmongers learned their lesson after My Lai. But to get around this unfortunate technicality, they hire mercenaries to do the indiscriminate killing today.
All war requires civilian mass murder, and whichever side can stomach it usually wins. The goal of the war-planners today is to keep the mass-murder off the front pages--to keep their civilian population inundated with football games and glorified karaoke singers--anything but the war. They cut taxes and tell Americans to go shopping. When we ask about the war they say, "Don't worry, let the experts handle it." After all, you do like driving your SUV don't you?
They hire mercenaries to do the indiscriminate killing. How convenient. Their twisted view of the free market involves privatizing all branches of the government that actually have a purpose, and creating bureaucracy where none is needed. The constitution explicitly states that it is the responsibility of the government to raise an army. They wish to privatize the army, and when this private, corporate army commits war crimes, they laugh when we explain it away as the evils of the free market. What the hell is that?
There are serious moral ramifications when a country uses mercenaries to fight its war. Sure, we have troops on the ground, but it seems to me that what we are seeing is contractors being employed to do the dirty work.
Americans watch bombing campaigns on the television--bombing campaigns with names like Shock and Awe--and experience just that--Shock and Awe. Americans watching television have no idea in the world what it is like to be a first-hand whiteness to those bombing campaigns. We have never had bombs dropped on us here. We watch those scenes like they are clips from an action movie, but we never think about the janitor working the graveyard shift at Saddam's party headquarters. So we rationalize it and say to ourselves that its better to drop bombs than to send our boys to the field. And our rationality serve the monsters that create war well because they know that in order to achieve their goals, the civilian population of those places must become scared shitless. Now, several year later with troops on the ground, the population isn't as scared as the warmongers would like, but Americans would be outraged if their troops were caught indiscriminately killing civilians. The warmongers learned their lesson after My Lai. But to get around this unfortunate technicality, they hire mercenaries to do the indiscriminate killing today.
All war requires civilian mass murder, and whichever side can stomach it usually wins. The goal of the war-planners today is to keep the mass-murder off the front pages--to keep their civilian population inundated with football games and glorified karaoke singers--anything but the war. They cut taxes and tell Americans to go shopping. When we ask about the war they say, "Don't worry, let the experts handle it." After all, you do like driving your SUV don't you?
They hire mercenaries to do the indiscriminate killing. How convenient. Their twisted view of the free market involves privatizing all branches of the government that actually have a purpose, and creating bureaucracy where none is needed. The constitution explicitly states that it is the responsibility of the government to raise an army. They wish to privatize the army, and when this private, corporate army commits war crimes, they laugh when we explain it away as the evils of the free market. What the hell is that?
Friday, October 5, 2007
Free Sppech Zones
This is something I never really paid any attention to until today when I saw an interesting piece on a libertarian video blog about the free speech zones being erected around places where people are protesting. Basically, if you wish to protest anything about the current administration or even congress, you will be corralled into a cage often times far away from and out of sight of the people or proceedings being protested. This is a disgusting breech of the first amendment. The reason the first amendment was added to the Constitution was to make sure the government would not be deaf to the voice of the people. It is one of those sacred rights that has allowed us to live free of tyranny for so long. In times of increased threat of tyranny in our own nation we are in high need of the freedom of speech and the freedom to assemble. These rights have no power when they have been locked away in a concrete barrier far from view, as was the case at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. We must not be afraid of speech. Outlawed speech is what created our nation. Our founders knew that when the government becomes tyrannical, the people must have the tools to fight that tyranny. The freedom of speech and peaceful assembly are first, and the right to bear arms is second. When the power of words fail to defeat tyranny, the power of the sword is all that is left, and they have nearly taken that away from us. It seems this form of censorship has only increased under the current administration. We must not allow our rights to be trampled under the charging pachyderm of tyranny.
Monday, August 27, 2007
A Sad Day
On this day some years ago, a great man boarded a helicopter and took off in the night, but his soul never again touched the land. Peace and much love...
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Collectivism
The slavery of the masses. Slavery unto slavery. The goal of all forms of government that oppose complete and unrestricted individual Freedom and liberty is to collectivize the masses. They claim that only in the masses can you find virtue. They claim the individual is evil and any joy the individual has comes from the exploitation of others. They assume the individual is inherently evil; he must be ordered to do good, else he revert to his evil and selfish ways.
I say selfishness is something learned. It is not innate, it is learned by witnessing slavery. In a society where a man is allowed to reach his goals by the exploitation of others, why should he use his own means? If one is to use the talents of another individual to accomplish his goals, it must be by mutual consent. However, in our country, we still have the Selective Service. The government is able to call upon the masses for forced labor and sacrifice. We have Eminent Domain. The government is allowed to confiscate property without consent. We have the Income Tax. Again, the government demands our wages whether or not we get or want compensation. The people see this and say, "Why can't I do that?" Thus came the robber barons of the late 19th century and the multi-national corporations of today.
They are not some product of some form of brute capitalism, but they are collectivists themselves. They wish to collectivize the masses for the profit of the Corporate State. They fight against individual liberty because it empowers the individual to leave his job and go somewhere else where he will be justly compensated for his labor. If the working conditions are bad they will go elsewhere. It is the worker's right to organize into a union to demand better wages and working conditions. However, we have seen in the past where the government has stepped in on the side of the corporate powers to break up pickets and force unions back to work with their demands unmet. The Railway Labor Act has been used as recently as 2002 to slow down the strike by the International Longshore and Warehouse Union.
On the other hand, the government also has no right to force individuals to collectivize themselves. The Taft-Hartley Act effectively shut down union-only workplaces, but still allowed the so-called 'union shop' workplaces. That is, the employees are not required to be a member of the union prior to employment, but they still must join the union or pay the equivalent of the dues in a fee. The individual must have the right to not be represented, as well as the right to organize. I believe it is not in the government's best interest to forces an individual to collectivize. The socialist goal is to create one big union. In the Soviet Union and in China, unions were not allowed because the State is supposed to be the union working on behalf of all the workers. How convenient. Surely the workplace conditions in a factory are different than in an office building, surely the wages a farmer makes are different than the compensation of a communist party official. However, this is of no concern to the socialist agenda. All people are equal.
It is true all people are created equal, and are equal under the law, but it is ridiculous to say all people are should be treated equally in compensation. This is what effectively happens in any sort of collectivized society. Power over the individual is the aim in all such societies. Brotherhood and equality are always the lofty ideals claimed to be the central focus of these movements, but control and power are always at the root.
There is nothing wrong with people organizing into groups in order to better their conditions. Unions, religious organizations, conservation and environmental groups, et. al. all serve a purpose and the people should be free to organize. However, this is not the government's domain. In the eyes of the government, all people should be treated equally. Whenever any group is granted a special status, the only outcome is that people will be treated differently. We are a nation of individuals, with our own special talents and our own shortcomings.
I am afraid that today we see more and more collectivization and we must fight this. The only outcome is the slavery of all. People must be allowed to trade and associate freely as individuals, unrestricted by the government. Affirmative action and equal housing regulation only serve to undermine the Free Market and in the end perpetuate the idea that some people are unable to advance themselves on their own. This is an evil idea. It assumes that some groups of people are less capable than others. But this is not an issue of economics or politics or even law. This is a fundamental philosophical issue. The question is are people good, or are they inherently evil?
Like I stated previously, the collectivists assume that the individual is incapable of treating his fellow man decently. They want the government to force the individual into the submission of the masses. They deny the individual and speak of some collective entity. With that in mind, they have no problem with violating the individual's rights if it is for the good of the collective. If one speaks out against the collective he is crushed. The individual eventually becomes a slave to the collective. A slave to slavery. He doesn't even have the dignity of a master.
In our own dark history, there was a time when we enslaved our fellow man. It was the most evil form of slavery also; the only condition on whether one was a slave or not was the color of his skin. The only prerequisite was his lot in life. But the collectivists have gotten smarter over the years. They wish to convince you of your inherent wickedness, and they say the only salvation is to enslave yourself to society. They wish to make us into a country, a world, of altruists. They wish to deny you your own conscience, your own thoughts, your individual virtue. The master forces the slave to work. The master forces the slave to accept Jesus. The master forces the slave to say, "Yessa massa." However, deep down inside, the master can never force the slave how to think. The master can never convince the slave of his wickedness and the master's virtue. The slave knows well his own virtue. The collective can never have virtue, and where there is no virtue, there is wickedness.
I say selfishness is something learned. It is not innate, it is learned by witnessing slavery. In a society where a man is allowed to reach his goals by the exploitation of others, why should he use his own means? If one is to use the talents of another individual to accomplish his goals, it must be by mutual consent. However, in our country, we still have the Selective Service. The government is able to call upon the masses for forced labor and sacrifice. We have Eminent Domain. The government is allowed to confiscate property without consent. We have the Income Tax. Again, the government demands our wages whether or not we get or want compensation. The people see this and say, "Why can't I do that?" Thus came the robber barons of the late 19th century and the multi-national corporations of today.
They are not some product of some form of brute capitalism, but they are collectivists themselves. They wish to collectivize the masses for the profit of the Corporate State. They fight against individual liberty because it empowers the individual to leave his job and go somewhere else where he will be justly compensated for his labor. If the working conditions are bad they will go elsewhere. It is the worker's right to organize into a union to demand better wages and working conditions. However, we have seen in the past where the government has stepped in on the side of the corporate powers to break up pickets and force unions back to work with their demands unmet. The Railway Labor Act has been used as recently as 2002 to slow down the strike by the International Longshore and Warehouse Union.
On the other hand, the government also has no right to force individuals to collectivize themselves. The Taft-Hartley Act effectively shut down union-only workplaces, but still allowed the so-called 'union shop' workplaces. That is, the employees are not required to be a member of the union prior to employment, but they still must join the union or pay the equivalent of the dues in a fee. The individual must have the right to not be represented, as well as the right to organize. I believe it is not in the government's best interest to forces an individual to collectivize. The socialist goal is to create one big union. In the Soviet Union and in China, unions were not allowed because the State is supposed to be the union working on behalf of all the workers. How convenient. Surely the workplace conditions in a factory are different than in an office building, surely the wages a farmer makes are different than the compensation of a communist party official. However, this is of no concern to the socialist agenda. All people are equal.
It is true all people are created equal, and are equal under the law, but it is ridiculous to say all people are should be treated equally in compensation. This is what effectively happens in any sort of collectivized society. Power over the individual is the aim in all such societies. Brotherhood and equality are always the lofty ideals claimed to be the central focus of these movements, but control and power are always at the root.
There is nothing wrong with people organizing into groups in order to better their conditions. Unions, religious organizations, conservation and environmental groups, et. al. all serve a purpose and the people should be free to organize. However, this is not the government's domain. In the eyes of the government, all people should be treated equally. Whenever any group is granted a special status, the only outcome is that people will be treated differently. We are a nation of individuals, with our own special talents and our own shortcomings.
I am afraid that today we see more and more collectivization and we must fight this. The only outcome is the slavery of all. People must be allowed to trade and associate freely as individuals, unrestricted by the government. Affirmative action and equal housing regulation only serve to undermine the Free Market and in the end perpetuate the idea that some people are unable to advance themselves on their own. This is an evil idea. It assumes that some groups of people are less capable than others. But this is not an issue of economics or politics or even law. This is a fundamental philosophical issue. The question is are people good, or are they inherently evil?
Like I stated previously, the collectivists assume that the individual is incapable of treating his fellow man decently. They want the government to force the individual into the submission of the masses. They deny the individual and speak of some collective entity. With that in mind, they have no problem with violating the individual's rights if it is for the good of the collective. If one speaks out against the collective he is crushed. The individual eventually becomes a slave to the collective. A slave to slavery. He doesn't even have the dignity of a master.
In our own dark history, there was a time when we enslaved our fellow man. It was the most evil form of slavery also; the only condition on whether one was a slave or not was the color of his skin. The only prerequisite was his lot in life. But the collectivists have gotten smarter over the years. They wish to convince you of your inherent wickedness, and they say the only salvation is to enslave yourself to society. They wish to make us into a country, a world, of altruists. They wish to deny you your own conscience, your own thoughts, your individual virtue. The master forces the slave to work. The master forces the slave to accept Jesus. The master forces the slave to say, "Yessa massa." However, deep down inside, the master can never force the slave how to think. The master can never convince the slave of his wickedness and the master's virtue. The slave knows well his own virtue. The collective can never have virtue, and where there is no virtue, there is wickedness.
Sunday, August 19, 2007
Freedom
It seems to be a common denominator in this correspondence. Freedom is Free! Freedom is a wonderful thing. There are, however, different kinds of freedom. I believe that things like the freedom of thought, political freedom, and religious freedom are inalienable and obtained simply by the existence of the individual, a birthright if you will. But there are other freedoms, like freedom from want and freedom from fear. Notice the 'from'. Those are things that one isn't born with, but are goals that perhaps can never be fully realized. The role of society is to protect the first, and to encourage the latter.
Our Constitution does not grant us rights, but acknowledges that they exist. This is fundamental to our philosophy. The Founders thought this to be fundamental, but just in case there was misunderstanding, they wrote it into the Bill of Rights. The most dangerous threat to our way of life is the voices that wish to make the people believe that somehow the government is the sole distributor of rights. They wish to make the people believe that merely because we are Americans, we have the privilege of speech or the privilege of free association. These are not privileges, of course, they are inalienable rights. Since they are inalienable, no one can take them away either. The government's prime purpose is to protect these rights, and to punish those who interfere with the rights of others. But in the end, no person's rights can be taken away. I believe it is futile to encourage Freedom in society but at the same time enforce slavery in the prisons. Fyodor Dostoevsky said, "The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons." I say the degree if Freedom in a society can be judged(and judged best) by entering its prisons. The more free a society is, the less prisoners it keeps. Just look at the correlation between the amount of legislation and prison population over time. I also believe the more a society respects private property, the more the individual respects others property. It would be wrong for an individual to steal money from another person, property only the owner has sole claim to. Most people accept that as a moral truth, however our own government imposes an income tax on all its citizens. What claim does the government have on anyone's private property? Any claim the government makes on private property must be viewed as an act of oppression, reducing the individual to the status of a slave. Yet we put common thieves in prison every day when the greatest thief of all is our own IRS. You see, you cannot have it both ways. The government must not be treated different than any individual.
Freedom exists innately. Another one of the greatest threats to Liberty and Freedom is collectivism. Collectivism assumes that the masses are superior to individual. It assumes that the welfare of the masses are more important to the welfare of the individual and that the individual must make sacrifices for the masses. It honors the altruist. Freedom can never be protected in a collective because the collective requires the unquestioned sacrifice by the individual. I suggest the greatest collective institution in our government is the Federal Income Tax. The Income Tax requires the monetary sacrifice by the individual for the collective good. It suggests that the freedom from want and fear can be concretely realized. The government wants you to think that one day, if you keep paying your taxes, we'll be living in paradise. What an outrageous claim! We can never be free from want and fear, but we can and should always try. It is, however, the individual who can best get closer to that goal. In socialism, the collective decides what 'want' and 'fear' is. But of course the wants and fears of individuals differs immensely.
The Founders knew all of this. They understood these ideas before the words socialism or corporatism existed. The British Crown oppressed the American Colonies by laying taxes without the representation of the people. They oppressed religious opinions by sending religious dissenters to the Colonies. They enforced their laws by military occupation. Out of this tyranny came our very special system of government. An experiment doomed from the start by the critics, however, more than two centuries later the experiment continues. But Freedom is the fundamental ingredient in this experiment. Like I have said earlier, Freedom comes with no obligation or requirement, it is the most innate of all things. Freedom is FREE!
Our Constitution does not grant us rights, but acknowledges that they exist. This is fundamental to our philosophy. The Founders thought this to be fundamental, but just in case there was misunderstanding, they wrote it into the Bill of Rights. The most dangerous threat to our way of life is the voices that wish to make the people believe that somehow the government is the sole distributor of rights. They wish to make the people believe that merely because we are Americans, we have the privilege of speech or the privilege of free association. These are not privileges, of course, they are inalienable rights. Since they are inalienable, no one can take them away either. The government's prime purpose is to protect these rights, and to punish those who interfere with the rights of others. But in the end, no person's rights can be taken away. I believe it is futile to encourage Freedom in society but at the same time enforce slavery in the prisons. Fyodor Dostoevsky said, "The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons." I say the degree if Freedom in a society can be judged(and judged best) by entering its prisons. The more free a society is, the less prisoners it keeps. Just look at the correlation between the amount of legislation and prison population over time. I also believe the more a society respects private property, the more the individual respects others property. It would be wrong for an individual to steal money from another person, property only the owner has sole claim to. Most people accept that as a moral truth, however our own government imposes an income tax on all its citizens. What claim does the government have on anyone's private property? Any claim the government makes on private property must be viewed as an act of oppression, reducing the individual to the status of a slave. Yet we put common thieves in prison every day when the greatest thief of all is our own IRS. You see, you cannot have it both ways. The government must not be treated different than any individual.
Freedom exists innately. Another one of the greatest threats to Liberty and Freedom is collectivism. Collectivism assumes that the masses are superior to individual. It assumes that the welfare of the masses are more important to the welfare of the individual and that the individual must make sacrifices for the masses. It honors the altruist. Freedom can never be protected in a collective because the collective requires the unquestioned sacrifice by the individual. I suggest the greatest collective institution in our government is the Federal Income Tax. The Income Tax requires the monetary sacrifice by the individual for the collective good. It suggests that the freedom from want and fear can be concretely realized. The government wants you to think that one day, if you keep paying your taxes, we'll be living in paradise. What an outrageous claim! We can never be free from want and fear, but we can and should always try. It is, however, the individual who can best get closer to that goal. In socialism, the collective decides what 'want' and 'fear' is. But of course the wants and fears of individuals differs immensely.
The Founders knew all of this. They understood these ideas before the words socialism or corporatism existed. The British Crown oppressed the American Colonies by laying taxes without the representation of the people. They oppressed religious opinions by sending religious dissenters to the Colonies. They enforced their laws by military occupation. Out of this tyranny came our very special system of government. An experiment doomed from the start by the critics, however, more than two centuries later the experiment continues. But Freedom is the fundamental ingredient in this experiment. Like I have said earlier, Freedom comes with no obligation or requirement, it is the most innate of all things. Freedom is FREE!
Torture
WHY are people trying to rationalize using torture? There is no reason for the government or any individual to ever use torture, EVER! The argument often heard is, "Well, if there were a nuclear missile heading here and you had someone who knew how to stop it and the only possible way to prevent this from happening was to torture that individual, how could you not?" Well my opinion, and the opinion expressed in our law in The Constitution, is that no matter what torture is inexcusable, irrational, and wrong. My opinion is that torture is immoral. Your morality may differ than mine, but let us look at history to shed some light on an interesting situation.
In the Vietnam conflict, American bombers flew almost countless sorties over Hanoi. These missions unavoidably killed thousands of North Vietnamese civilians. Of course, the population of Hanoi was outraged by the bombings, and whenever a US pilot was shot down and captured the North Vietnamese would invariably torture these Air Force and Navy Pilots in the name of obtaining information to stop the attacks. Practically no one in the West condoned the North Vietnamese, not because they opposed Communism, but because they understood the dangerous philosophical web you entangle yourself in when you condone using torture. Looking back now, most Americans are sickened by what the North Vietnamese did to their captives. I know it's easy to say, "But we are the Good Guys, Communism was wrong, and terrorism is wrong!" We became the Good Guys by simply following our Constitution.
After World War 2 the rest of the world looked at us and saw in us the ideals we sacredly uphold as being the spearhead of Freedom and peace. As that spear slashes through the centuries, we follow that glorious path, narrow as it is, between tyranny and despotism. Now is not the time to sacrifice our Ideals for security; a security sold to us by shady used car salesmen.
There are two ends, Freedom and slavery. They are not a means, they are the ends, and the only ends. I take that as a truth, and I consider it to be the Prime Truth in my
philosophical outlook. That being said, I conclude that torture cannot be a means t0 freedom. Torture is slavery and we condemn ourselves to that end by using it.
In the Vietnam conflict, American bombers flew almost countless sorties over Hanoi. These missions unavoidably killed thousands of North Vietnamese civilians. Of course, the population of Hanoi was outraged by the bombings, and whenever a US pilot was shot down and captured the North Vietnamese would invariably torture these Air Force and Navy Pilots in the name of obtaining information to stop the attacks. Practically no one in the West condoned the North Vietnamese, not because they opposed Communism, but because they understood the dangerous philosophical web you entangle yourself in when you condone using torture. Looking back now, most Americans are sickened by what the North Vietnamese did to their captives. I know it's easy to say, "But we are the Good Guys, Communism was wrong, and terrorism is wrong!" We became the Good Guys by simply following our Constitution.
After World War 2 the rest of the world looked at us and saw in us the ideals we sacredly uphold as being the spearhead of Freedom and peace. As that spear slashes through the centuries, we follow that glorious path, narrow as it is, between tyranny and despotism. Now is not the time to sacrifice our Ideals for security; a security sold to us by shady used car salesmen.
There are two ends, Freedom and slavery. They are not a means, they are the ends, and the only ends. I take that as a truth, and I consider it to be the Prime Truth in my
philosophical outlook. That being said, I conclude that torture cannot be a means t0 freedom. Torture is slavery and we condemn ourselves to that end by using it.
Friday, August 17, 2007
Dear Mr. Bush
You said, and I quote, "Saddam Hussein is a homicidal dictator addicted to weapons of mass destruction." What about yourself? Now we know there was no weapons of mass destruction, Hussein is gone, and your puppet government has been installed. You got what you wanted. Why are we still there? Why is there over 3000 young Americans dead now? You say if we leave, the terrorists will attack us here. Would it be not cheaper and easier to simply withdraw and secure our borders so the terrorists can't come here? You say if we don't fight them there we will have to fight them here. Explain your morality. If you don't explain it to us here and now you will have to explain it to your Maker. Do you not believe in the ideals expressed in our own Declaration of Independence? It says all men are created equal. Not just Americans, but all men. It also says, "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government..." You have the blood of not only thousands of Americans, but perhaps a million or more Iraqis on your hands. May God have mercy on your soul.
Monday, August 13, 2007
Life
The individual is beholden only to himself and his own freedom. In no way is he obligated to sacrifice life, limb, or property for any cause other than his own, by his own free will. Free people know very well when their freedom is in danger and they will defend it if necessary. This has happened many times in our past. In The Second World War, the rich and famous from Wall Street to Hollywood and everywhere in between enlisted in the Armed Services en masse. They know very well that their freedom was at stake. On the other hand, in The Vietnam War, the military had to rely on the draft to supply the manpower for a war that many Americans thought was not vital for the preservation of their freedom. Conscription is an insidious evil. It implies that the individual is beholden to the government, and even worse, owned by the government.
The government should exist only for the protection of individual liberty and freedom. The individual is sovereign. All people, whether they are free or not, possess the freedom of mind. That is, they possess the freedom to think whatever it is they wish. That freedom is naturally endowed upon all men. With that in mind, how can it be said that man is not granted all other freedom? Freedom is natural and freedom is free! It requires no obligation, however, it does requires responsibility.
Individual responsibility is the cornerstone of freedom. The individual has no right to interfere with anyone else's liberty and freedom. The sole purpose of the government is to enforce this natural law. It does not take an Environmental Protection Agency to protect our air and water. It takes a responsible individual. The responsible individual does not dump his garbage on his neighbor's front yard, and if he does, it is the government's responsibility to punish him for that crime. Bureaucracy is a proactive approach to enforcing law. A proactive policy implies that left to their own will, the people will break the law. It implies that the government must monitor the people to protect them from themselves. Well, pardon my humble opinion, but I cannot accept that.
It is bureaucracy itself that makes people irresponsible. Without social welfare programs, people have an incentive to work. If a person is a plumber and there are no jobs for plumbers where he is, perhaps he starts his own plumbing company. Or perhaps he moves to somewhere where there is a need for plumbers, or maybe he learns a new trade. But regardless, without a social welfare program, he does not just sit idle. If all else fails what does he do? In a free society he turns to his community for help, not to the federal government. People are way better judges of who needs help than the federal government. That man better be in pretty bad shape before he goes to his church or friends and family for help. Individuals value life way more than the government. The government may give the man a handout, but his community will not only get him on his feet, but they will give him a job, teach him a trade, and all the while improving their community.
Respect for life is key to this. Respect for the individual and individual responsibility are foundation of a free society. Socialism failed because it does not respect the individual. Fascism failed because it does not respect the individual. Both of those systems deny the ancient and natural assumption that man can take care of himself.
The government should exist only for the protection of individual liberty and freedom. The individual is sovereign. All people, whether they are free or not, possess the freedom of mind. That is, they possess the freedom to think whatever it is they wish. That freedom is naturally endowed upon all men. With that in mind, how can it be said that man is not granted all other freedom? Freedom is natural and freedom is free! It requires no obligation, however, it does requires responsibility.
Individual responsibility is the cornerstone of freedom. The individual has no right to interfere with anyone else's liberty and freedom. The sole purpose of the government is to enforce this natural law. It does not take an Environmental Protection Agency to protect our air and water. It takes a responsible individual. The responsible individual does not dump his garbage on his neighbor's front yard, and if he does, it is the government's responsibility to punish him for that crime. Bureaucracy is a proactive approach to enforcing law. A proactive policy implies that left to their own will, the people will break the law. It implies that the government must monitor the people to protect them from themselves. Well, pardon my humble opinion, but I cannot accept that.
It is bureaucracy itself that makes people irresponsible. Without social welfare programs, people have an incentive to work. If a person is a plumber and there are no jobs for plumbers where he is, perhaps he starts his own plumbing company. Or perhaps he moves to somewhere where there is a need for plumbers, or maybe he learns a new trade. But regardless, without a social welfare program, he does not just sit idle. If all else fails what does he do? In a free society he turns to his community for help, not to the federal government. People are way better judges of who needs help than the federal government. That man better be in pretty bad shape before he goes to his church or friends and family for help. Individuals value life way more than the government. The government may give the man a handout, but his community will not only get him on his feet, but they will give him a job, teach him a trade, and all the while improving their community.
Respect for life is key to this. Respect for the individual and individual responsibility are foundation of a free society. Socialism failed because it does not respect the individual. Fascism failed because it does not respect the individual. Both of those systems deny the ancient and natural assumption that man can take care of himself.
Sunday, August 12, 2007
The Beginning Of The End...Or The Beginning?
There are two options, unalike and distinct in every manner. either we perish or survive. On one hand, we become serfs beholden to the evil masters of some strange conglomeration of the corporate state and the socialist union, or we reclaim our naturally endowed freedom.
A Great Man once pondered what on this earth can man claim as his own. Most people believe that a Creator gave all of the earth to all of humanity. So what can the individual claim ownership in? The only reasonable answer to this question is that the individual owns his own life. To deny this is to deny all that is good. To deny this single point acknowledges that someone else owns you. By allowing anyone to take any part of your life without compensation, no matter how small an item they take, infers to them that they have some ownership in you.
There is no "partial freedom." Either you are fully free, or you are in servitude to someone else. There is no reason in giving up privacy. There is no reason in relinquishing labor or property by force or without compensation. There is no reason in sacrificing life for anything but one's own convictions. There is no reason in denying freedom.
It is time to act. I write this correspondence now because the time has come. Soon, I fear, these things will not be allowed.
A Great Man once pondered what on this earth can man claim as his own. Most people believe that a Creator gave all of the earth to all of humanity. So what can the individual claim ownership in? The only reasonable answer to this question is that the individual owns his own life. To deny this is to deny all that is good. To deny this single point acknowledges that someone else owns you. By allowing anyone to take any part of your life without compensation, no matter how small an item they take, infers to them that they have some ownership in you.
There is no "partial freedom." Either you are fully free, or you are in servitude to someone else. There is no reason in giving up privacy. There is no reason in relinquishing labor or property by force or without compensation. There is no reason in sacrificing life for anything but one's own convictions. There is no reason in denying freedom.
It is time to act. I write this correspondence now because the time has come. Soon, I fear, these things will not be allowed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)