Any society that favors force and might over discourse and education is ultimately doomed to failure:
From within
Sunday, March 9, 2008
What is "Addiction?"
If something keeps a person from giving up, should it still be labeled an 'addiction?'
An accusatory 'addiction' charge is, really, an unfair argument in the first place. It's similar to an accusation of denial: Any answer seems to allow for the accuser to appear more logical.
If you give a person the right education and understanding, there could be no better person to identify a serious personal problem. Friends, despite even the best intentions, are for comfort, aid, and companionship; not for making derogatory and distorted accusations.
An accusatory 'addiction' charge is, really, an unfair argument in the first place. It's similar to an accusation of denial: Any answer seems to allow for the accuser to appear more logical.
If you give a person the right education and understanding, there could be no better person to identify a serious personal problem. Friends, despite even the best intentions, are for comfort, aid, and companionship; not for making derogatory and distorted accusations.
Friday, February 29, 2008
Civilians and Criminals
All criminals are civilians, but all civilians are not criminals.
Any forceful government action to monitor civilians for the sake of catching 'criminal activity' should be rendered moot immediately by will of the people and replaced with a less 'agenda-minded' successor or implementation.
Any forceful government action to monitor civilians for the sake of catching 'criminal activity' should be rendered moot immediately by will of the people and replaced with a less 'agenda-minded' successor or implementation.
Positions of Power
Positions of power allow for easy acceptance of an oppressive agenda while making it harder for the general populace to fight back, due to the individual 'lack' of an equally powerful standing.
On "Domestic Security"
Certain aspects of government approach should be blatantly spelled out. For instance, it's never ok to deny the rights of the people simply because of an argument based on fear.
It would be appropriate to apply this concept to initial interpretation, to avoid confusion later on the society's existence, when it would be much easier to 're-interpret' the 'intentions' of the 'authors' to favor oppressive regimes rather than popular opinion and social liberty.
When would it be acceptable for the government to illegally and/or legally violate the individual right to privacy? Never.
It would be appropriate to apply this concept to initial interpretation, to avoid confusion later on the society's existence, when it would be much easier to 're-interpret' the 'intentions' of the 'authors' to favor oppressive regimes rather than popular opinion and social liberty.
When would it be acceptable for the government to illegally and/or legally violate the individual right to privacy? Never.
Checks and Balances
3 equal branches, each representing a vastly different power structure.
535 congressman = 9 justices = 1 man.
How can the power of 535 representatives of the people be equally balanced in an adjacent position of authority with 1 person?
We need no president. This position places too much central power on one individual. Allow the speaker of the house for minor executive leading, and take most cues from the will of the people.
Increase the size of the Supreme Court. The future of our country should not reside with 9 dictators with lifetime appointments to positions. Increase the number, perhaps 39, and a much greater diversity of legal understanding can better implement the will of the people.
The idea of a replacement judge isn't nearly as scary, as it reduces partisanship due to relative weight of 1/9 being greater than 1/39.
535 congressman = 9 justices = 1 man.
How can the power of 535 representatives of the people be equally balanced in an adjacent position of authority with 1 person?
We need no president. This position places too much central power on one individual. Allow the speaker of the house for minor executive leading, and take most cues from the will of the people.
Increase the size of the Supreme Court. The future of our country should not reside with 9 dictators with lifetime appointments to positions. Increase the number, perhaps 39, and a much greater diversity of legal understanding can better implement the will of the people.
The idea of a replacement judge isn't nearly as scary, as it reduces partisanship due to relative weight of 1/9 being greater than 1/39.
Principles of Reason in Law
Are individuals fundamentally good or bad?
If 'good,' then the general populace is deemed fit to make its own decisions and rules, and more government control would only be met with resistance and problems.
If 'bad,' then laws must be in place to prevent fundamentally devious behavior that couldn't be stopped by will alone.
Neither can be proven, and it really doesn't matter who believes what, as there's an obvious justification for a person to feel the way they do.
What should be held to a higher standard is the ability for the general populace to believe and engage in debate with the freedom to think and speak; the ensured freedom of multiple views is more important in governance than promoting ideology.
It would only seem absurd to pretend to understand a society that you've never been to, been apart of, or are unable to comprehend.
If 'good,' then the general populace is deemed fit to make its own decisions and rules, and more government control would only be met with resistance and problems.
If 'bad,' then laws must be in place to prevent fundamentally devious behavior that couldn't be stopped by will alone.
Neither can be proven, and it really doesn't matter who believes what, as there's an obvious justification for a person to feel the way they do.
What should be held to a higher standard is the ability for the general populace to believe and engage in debate with the freedom to think and speak; the ensured freedom of multiple views is more important in governance than promoting ideology.
It would only seem absurd to pretend to understand a society that you've never been to, been apart of, or are unable to comprehend.
Responsibility Isn't Authority
It seems likely that responsibility weighs heavily on our conscious, and some could even consider it a necessary part of existence.
But responsibility is a personal conviction, not an authorization for action. Personal responsibility is personal guidance and opinion.
Feeling responsible doesn't make a person right.
But responsibility is a personal conviction, not an authorization for action. Personal responsibility is personal guidance and opinion.
Feeling responsible doesn't make a person right.
Friday, February 15, 2008
Power is Lying
Absolute power should only ever rest with an educated populace. Positions of individual or small-group power are never natural, only 'packaged and sold.'
The establishment will only exist so long as they can convince the populace otherwise.
The establishment will only exist so long as they can convince the populace otherwise.
The Harm Principle and a Grey Area
When discussing law and the harm principle, a society based on such founding can, over time, easily be "re-interpreted" to further an oppressive cause or agenda.
An example would be the idea of disease and, perhaps, intent. Can the transference of something, uh, 'physically un-physical' be in violation of the Harm Principle? If not, should the idea of intent be a principle of examining cause and effect?
An example would be the idea of disease and, perhaps, intent. Can the transference of something, uh, 'physically un-physical' be in violation of the Harm Principle? If not, should the idea of intent be a principle of examining cause and effect?
Why Patriotism is a Joke
It could be said that patriotism affects politics the same way religion affects spirituality. Neither patriotism nor religion are physical entities, and are easily manipulated and interpreted to "prove" virtually anything.
Loyalty can never be demanded, it must be earned. This is a naturally occurring process. Any attempts to force or influence any types of loyalty should be rejected.
Loyalty is a close cousin to insecurity.
Loyalty can never be demanded, it must be earned. This is a naturally occurring process. Any attempts to force or influence any types of loyalty should be rejected.
Loyalty is a close cousin to insecurity.
Term Limits
While democracy should be highly valued and appreciated, there are some safeguards which should be in place to avoid any manipulation by a small group or party to circumvent or heavily influence the will of the people.
Blanket, small term limits are important to help prevent any group from easily becoming too powerful.
This would of course be heavily chided by any establishment, and could also slow down some potential aspects of government, but government shouldn't be too powerful or involved in controlling the populace either; and term limits allow for fresh, new, and potentially uncorrupted influence.
Blanket, small term limits are important to help prevent any group from easily becoming too powerful.
This would of course be heavily chided by any establishment, and could also slow down some potential aspects of government, but government shouldn't be too powerful or involved in controlling the populace either; and term limits allow for fresh, new, and potentially uncorrupted influence.
Correlation of Labor and Wages
Many companies typically hire people, train them on their tasks, and then expect them to perform. However, as the business model evolves, new tasks are usually delegated to the employees without any direct change in wages or benefits.
Fast forward to later time, the employees are now expected to complete more tasks than they were hired to perform, without any regard for appropriate wage modification.
Any addition of labor to worker should directly correlate with an equal addition of wages or benefits.
Fast forward to later time, the employees are now expected to complete more tasks than they were hired to perform, without any regard for appropriate wage modification.
Any addition of labor to worker should directly correlate with an equal addition of wages or benefits.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
The Secret to Maturity
Look for patterns in life, the evaluate and decide accordingly.
Growing isn't necessarily maturing
Growing isn't necessarily maturing
Racism vs. Prejudice Part 2
Discussing racism vs. prejudice is important because it's common to associate them as similar. While true, this doesn't highlight the fundamental difference. Physical and mental are not the same thing.
Arresting someone for, say, assault and battery seems justifiable, because this violates the harm principle. But arresting someone for thinking about it denies an individual the basic right of free thought, an idea many totalitarian governments are founded on.
I loathe racism with a passion, but it seems that problems like this only fester when physical coercion comes into play.
Why? They simply want attention.
Bigots like Jerry Falwell and David Duke are going to spew hate whether it's legal or not. But when attempts are made to control thinking, it only rouses those types of people to unite and this easily leads to demonstration. Lynching is rightly illegal, because it infringes on someone elses rights, but trying to deny someone to think can only eventually lead to physical consequences.
Rather, use education and experience to fix these problems. It's the only effective way.
Racism = Preference
Prejudice = Abomination
Arresting someone for, say, assault and battery seems justifiable, because this violates the harm principle. But arresting someone for thinking about it denies an individual the basic right of free thought, an idea many totalitarian governments are founded on.
I loathe racism with a passion, but it seems that problems like this only fester when physical coercion comes into play.
Why? They simply want attention.
Bigots like Jerry Falwell and David Duke are going to spew hate whether it's legal or not. But when attempts are made to control thinking, it only rouses those types of people to unite and this easily leads to demonstration. Lynching is rightly illegal, because it infringes on someone elses rights, but trying to deny someone to think can only eventually lead to physical consequences.
Rather, use education and experience to fix these problems. It's the only effective way.
Racism = Preference
Prejudice = Abomination
Saturday, February 9, 2008
Racism vs. Prejudice
A society that denies individuals freedom of thought is fundamentally flawed. Thought can only be influenced, not changed. Regarding racism and prejudices, both have a fundamental difference: one is a thought, the other is an action.
Rights extend far beyond the views of the majority. The Bill of Rights wasn't written to protect the status quo, rather the freaks and weirdos.
Racism, while repulsive, must still be 'tolerated' in society. This doesn't mean it can't be reformed. Education and tolerance breed far greater ability for harmony than strict laws and regulations. An individual must always be allowed freedom of thought, whatever that thought is. Thinking isn't doing.
It's one thing to hate your neighbor for being black. It's quite another to assault him. Or deny him a job, etc. Prejudices can and should be eliminated in as best to the community's ability.
Laws and policies hurt the individual, but tolerance and acceptance hurt the mentality.
Rights extend far beyond the views of the majority. The Bill of Rights wasn't written to protect the status quo, rather the freaks and weirdos.
Racism, while repulsive, must still be 'tolerated' in society. This doesn't mean it can't be reformed. Education and tolerance breed far greater ability for harmony than strict laws and regulations. An individual must always be allowed freedom of thought, whatever that thought is. Thinking isn't doing.
It's one thing to hate your neighbor for being black. It's quite another to assault him. Or deny him a job, etc. Prejudices can and should be eliminated in as best to the community's ability.
Laws and policies hurt the individual, but tolerance and acceptance hurt the mentality.
Sunday, February 3, 2008
On the 2nd Amendment
Any idea or movement that looks to reduce liberty in favor of 'security' or 'safety' is generally absurd on all points. Security is no substitute for freedom.
As such, I find it odd that the issue of gun rights seems to get overlooked in this respect. Any principle argument made about, say, drugs could also be made about guns. I concede guns, as potentially lethal, deserve slightly more scrutiny, but not much.
Education makes all the difference in the world. Perhaps schools should teach a type of 'firearm education' class, where gun and gun safety can be taught, understood, and discussed.
Liberty for society shouldn't just be limited to 'speech.' An individual has a right to both liberty and life.
And, obviously, some protection for those rights.
As such, I find it odd that the issue of gun rights seems to get overlooked in this respect. Any principle argument made about, say, drugs could also be made about guns. I concede guns, as potentially lethal, deserve slightly more scrutiny, but not much.
Education makes all the difference in the world. Perhaps schools should teach a type of 'firearm education' class, where gun and gun safety can be taught, understood, and discussed.
Liberty for society shouldn't just be limited to 'speech.' An individual has a right to both liberty and life.
And, obviously, some protection for those rights.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
The Harm Principle and Law
With regards to law-making by governments over people;
Any law in violation of the Harm Principle should be removed. Otherwise, the interests of the people will be lost.
Any law in violation of the Harm Principle should be removed. Otherwise, the interests of the people will be lost.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Monday, January 28, 2008
Holiday's 'Party'
It's important to strive for an open mind, and it seems without a constant searching for new ideas it becomes almost natural to delve into a false sense of certainty and absolutism. It's a limitless frontier of perception and interpretation. Try this example:
One night you arrive at a dinner party, invitation only and formal attire required. When you arrive, the host takes your coat, and leads you over to the hors d'oeuvre table to offer you some refreshments.
"On the end, there's the desserts and finger foods," he says. "And on this table we have, for you to try, many different dishes including chicken, beef, pork, veal, fish, and human."
You look around and, without recognizing anyone, identify many different people at the party with some type of human-meat-based dish on their plate. But no one is phased. It's normal.
Do you try it?
One night you arrive at a dinner party, invitation only and formal attire required. When you arrive, the host takes your coat, and leads you over to the hors d'oeuvre table to offer you some refreshments.
"On the end, there's the desserts and finger foods," he says. "And on this table we have, for you to try, many different dishes including chicken, beef, pork, veal, fish, and human."
You look around and, without recognizing anyone, identify many different people at the party with some type of human-meat-based dish on their plate. But no one is phased. It's normal.
Do you try it?
Sunday, January 27, 2008
On 'Holiday' Interpretation
I personally feel it's an injustice for any credit (on thoughts, ideas, work, etc) to be given to one person. Certainly these same feelings have been felt by at least a few other people, with the only exception being an un-equivocal status of fame and recognition.
Probably, it's because of many previous events that led to my current observations and/or feelings.
It could be genetics, influences, predisposition, etc.
But I digress,
No quote is ever quite as original as the first time it's heard.
Probably, it's because of many previous events that led to my current observations and/or feelings.
It could be genetics, influences, predisposition, etc.
But I digress,
No quote is ever quite as original as the first time it's heard.
Thoughts on Behavior
It appears that every behavior or action can be traced back to some previous cause, in some way or another. Whether it's genetic or controlled, it still must relate to an action before it that creates the preference or belief.
Bruno is a bully because he thinks it will make the girls like him. Bubba hates black people because they 'act differently than him.' Jenna talks all the time to avoid coping because she believes that problem-recognition is problem-causing.
Specific action wagers specific assumption.
Bruno is a bully because he thinks it will make the girls like him. Bubba hates black people because they 'act differently than him.' Jenna talks all the time to avoid coping because she believes that problem-recognition is problem-causing.
Specific action wagers specific assumption.
Will to Live? Ha!
What would the justification of a "will to live" be without a polar opposite? (Hint: nada)
The same understanding for explaining a 'will to live' could also be said in favor of a 'fear of death' (or simply unknown). They're the same thing in two opposing interpretations.
Do you get out of bed every morning simply to express your explicit will to live, or are you merely afraid of the alternative?
The same understanding for explaining a 'will to live' could also be said in favor of a 'fear of death' (or simply unknown). They're the same thing in two opposing interpretations.
Do you get out of bed every morning simply to express your explicit will to live, or are you merely afraid of the alternative?
A Taboo is Worth a 1,000 Words
A taboo is an unnatural restriction on acknowledging a natural but, perhaps, un-cultural type of behavior or action.
If anything, taboo discussion should be encouraged to begin reversing years and years of psychological and mental damage caused by repression of feelings, desires, and shameless curiosity.
It's merely an attempt to control and/or eliminate a particular and often normal behavior in the name of morality.
If anything, taboo discussion should be encouraged to begin reversing years and years of psychological and mental damage caused by repression of feelings, desires, and shameless curiosity.
It's merely an attempt to control and/or eliminate a particular and often normal behavior in the name of morality.
A Look @ Drinking & Driving
Drunk driving happens all the time. It seems neither safe to decriminalize it, nor effective to simply criminalize it. The current solution has been to monitor traffic for signs of bad driving and act accordingly. It's lack of effectiveness at eliminating the problem is made obvious by it's lack of deterrent capability. It's silly to imagine a day where every intoxicated person stops believing that they're 'fine' or 'not too drunk to handle it' and starts heading home.
Also, many people do it. Studies show that the likelihood of an intoxicated person getting caught is very slim.
Local governments should establish organizations set up to allow for a free ride home from the bar, and available 24 hours a day. Criminalizing the behavior straight out would now seem an effective compromise to the potential danger of DUI. As long as their was an easy, free alternative to getting home, there's no reason to drink and drive.
To criminalize a behavior after the fact, while ignoring solutions to prevent it, is law best suited in oppressive societies where enforcement is favored over efficiency.
Also, many people do it. Studies show that the likelihood of an intoxicated person getting caught is very slim.
Local governments should establish organizations set up to allow for a free ride home from the bar, and available 24 hours a day. Criminalizing the behavior straight out would now seem an effective compromise to the potential danger of DUI. As long as their was an easy, free alternative to getting home, there's no reason to drink and drive.
To criminalize a behavior after the fact, while ignoring solutions to prevent it, is law best suited in oppressive societies where enforcement is favored over efficiency.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
The GA Lottery
GA funds the HOPE scholarship through revenue from the GA lottery.
The idea of basing the funding through the lottery, though, got me thinking: Who buys lottery tickets? Most financially-minded people understand the economics of the lottery. The odds are just too great. Which is why you find the lottery appealing to, mostly, poorer and less educated individuals who truly believe that they're going to win. That's why they're repeat players.
Nothing against the lottery, but it seems a bit odd that the system derives funding for HOPE from the poorer and lower middle class. That's 'fair?'
I could be way off, but it seems a bit unlikely that Steve Jobs heads to his local 7-11 every morning before work for his coffee and scratch off tickets.
The idea of basing the funding through the lottery, though, got me thinking: Who buys lottery tickets? Most financially-minded people understand the economics of the lottery. The odds are just too great. Which is why you find the lottery appealing to, mostly, poorer and less educated individuals who truly believe that they're going to win. That's why they're repeat players.
Nothing against the lottery, but it seems a bit odd that the system derives funding for HOPE from the poorer and lower middle class. That's 'fair?'
I could be way off, but it seems a bit unlikely that Steve Jobs heads to his local 7-11 every morning before work for his coffee and scratch off tickets.
Monday, January 7, 2008
Speech I wish I'd Spoke
"Religion can never reform mankind because religion is slavery."
- Robert Ingersoll
- Robert Ingersoll
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
The Police States of America
How is America free?
Freedom isn't the ability to choose which church you have to go to, it's the ability to sleep in every Sunday morning because you want to.
i.e. We pay taxes to fund the construction of roads. The government then sets out rules, and charges and/or imprisons us for breaking them. This is "freedom."
Our country was founded on rights, not order. All laws should be representative of the harm principle, and nothing more.
Eliminate speed limits (put in speed advisories, no accident no problem)
Noise violations (go talk with your neighbor, move, or deal with it. Isn't government's job.)
Age restrictions for purchasing 'adult' items/beverages (that's called parenting)
Morality laws (2girls1cup is illegal. sick? absolutely. But illegal...?!?!?)
Blue laws (1st amendment pwn)
religious laws (1st amendment pwn)
drug laws (more 1st amendment pwnage)
curfews (more parenting. worry about your own kids)
government spying (see revolution)
speech restrictions (see revolt)
etc.
Police and those in power are easily corruptible, and many efforts to hinder an officer's ability to unfairly wield that power should be promoted and encouraged. More laws only mean more criminals. Freedom is lost in the name of 'protection' and 'security.'
A strong majority of our country favors a near immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Bush neither cares nor acknowledges this. By the people, for the people?
No police state calls itself as such. Our system is in no way representative of anything remotely democratic or republican. Stalin killed millions of his own people in a brutal totalitarian dictatorship. He called it communism.
I'm only asking you to read between the lines. If you live in a state of repression labeled freedom long enough, you forget to realize what freedom really could be.
Freedom isn't the ability to choose which church you have to go to, it's the ability to sleep in every Sunday morning because you want to.
i.e. We pay taxes to fund the construction of roads. The government then sets out rules, and charges and/or imprisons us for breaking them. This is "freedom."
Our country was founded on rights, not order. All laws should be representative of the harm principle, and nothing more.
Eliminate speed limits (put in speed advisories, no accident no problem)
Noise violations (go talk with your neighbor, move, or deal with it. Isn't government's job.)
Age restrictions for purchasing 'adult' items/beverages (that's called parenting)
Morality laws (2girls1cup is illegal. sick? absolutely. But illegal...?!?!?)
Blue laws (1st amendment pwn)
religious laws (1st amendment pwn)
drug laws (more 1st amendment pwnage)
curfews (more parenting. worry about your own kids)
government spying (see revolution)
speech restrictions (see revolt)
etc.
Police and those in power are easily corruptible, and many efforts to hinder an officer's ability to unfairly wield that power should be promoted and encouraged. More laws only mean more criminals. Freedom is lost in the name of 'protection' and 'security.'
A strong majority of our country favors a near immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Bush neither cares nor acknowledges this. By the people, for the people?
No police state calls itself as such. Our system is in no way representative of anything remotely democratic or republican. Stalin killed millions of his own people in a brutal totalitarian dictatorship. He called it communism.
I'm only asking you to read between the lines. If you live in a state of repression labeled freedom long enough, you forget to realize what freedom really could be.
Cash: The New Barter
You lose it, you're fucked. It can help spread diseases, contain body fluids, is a terrible waste of resources to produce, has a pretty limited lifespan, and requires finances to both create and destroy.
Seriously. It's 2008. A man to the moon, worldwide flying, connect to an endless amount of information worldwide via the internet, Wikipedia,...
And yet we're still relying on a physical & technically worthless paper currency.
A long time ago, people used to trade other physical entities for goods. i.e. "I'll give you 3 pigs and a horse for your daughter and an acre of land."
Solution: Get a debit card.
You lose it? they send a replacement. Liable? Not a chance. It's accepted virtually everywhere. Digital Age? Digital currency. A progressive government agenda on this idea could also address/eliminate unfair bank practices/fees, cut down on federal spending, progress society, and, hopefully, elevate a server's position to that of at least minimum wage (and stop them from paying taxes on tips, but that's another story... :)
Because cash is SO 1999...
Seriously. It's 2008. A man to the moon, worldwide flying, connect to an endless amount of information worldwide via the internet, Wikipedia,...
And yet we're still relying on a physical & technically worthless paper currency.
A long time ago, people used to trade other physical entities for goods. i.e. "I'll give you 3 pigs and a horse for your daughter and an acre of land."
Solution: Get a debit card.
You lose it? they send a replacement. Liable? Not a chance. It's accepted virtually everywhere. Digital Age? Digital currency. A progressive government agenda on this idea could also address/eliminate unfair bank practices/fees, cut down on federal spending, progress society, and, hopefully, elevate a server's position to that of at least minimum wage (and stop them from paying taxes on tips, but that's another story... :)
Because cash is SO 1999...
Sunday, December 30, 2007
Thinking and the Box
Thinking 'outside the box' is dependent on a person's ability to see the box.
If an individual can't see the limitations placed on them, it seems mildly absurd to imagine an ability to see beyond those same limitations.
If an individual can't see the limitations placed on them, it seems mildly absurd to imagine an ability to see beyond those same limitations.
Sunday, December 16, 2007
Legal Problems Needing Interpretation
1) Legal + Legal = Illegal?
Let's say someone takes a trip to Amsterdam. Once arriving, the individual visits a coffee shop, and proceeds to get blazed out of their mind. Nothing illegal has taken place.
However, there's still traces of cannabis in the person's system, obviously, and upon arrival back in the US, would then be in consumptional possession of a class 1 narcotic. The person could then apply for a job, or show up for a court ordered drug test (from a previous drug possession charge/whatever) and, despite having done nothing illegal or wrong, still be found guilty.
Do two 'rights' make a 'wrong?'
2) Clinton/Clinton '08?
Let's assume that Obama doesn't squash Hillary Clinton and she becomes the Dem nominee for prez. What happens if she picks Bill as her running mate, who's had 2 full terms as prez and constitutionally barred from running again?
Article II of the Constitution: "Requirements: Natural born citizen, 35+ years old, US resident 14 years. "
12 Amendment: "Anyone constitutionally ineligible to the office of the president shall be eligible to that of the vice-president."
22 Amendment: "No person shall be elected to the office of President more than twice, and if they've served more than 2 years, can only be elected to 1 more term."
It seems to suggest that Bill would only be prohibited from being elected president a 3rd time, not from serving. However, it could also be seen that electing a vice president also means contingently electing him as president.
Let's say someone takes a trip to Amsterdam. Once arriving, the individual visits a coffee shop, and proceeds to get blazed out of their mind. Nothing illegal has taken place.
However, there's still traces of cannabis in the person's system, obviously, and upon arrival back in the US, would then be in consumptional possession of a class 1 narcotic. The person could then apply for a job, or show up for a court ordered drug test (from a previous drug possession charge/whatever) and, despite having done nothing illegal or wrong, still be found guilty.
Do two 'rights' make a 'wrong?'
2) Clinton/Clinton '08?
Let's assume that Obama doesn't squash Hillary Clinton and she becomes the Dem nominee for prez. What happens if she picks Bill as her running mate, who's had 2 full terms as prez and constitutionally barred from running again?
Article II of the Constitution: "Requirements: Natural born citizen, 35+ years old, US resident 14 years. "
12 Amendment: "Anyone constitutionally ineligible to the office of the president shall be eligible to that of the vice-president."
22 Amendment: "No person shall be elected to the office of President more than twice, and if they've served more than 2 years, can only be elected to 1 more term."
It seems to suggest that Bill would only be prohibited from being elected president a 3rd time, not from serving. However, it could also be seen that electing a vice president also means contingently electing him as president.
Sunday, December 9, 2007
Thoughts on Morality
What makes a 'bad' movie a personal opinion and a 'bad' behavior a moral absolute?
Both are physical entities, yet some people see a label for one as opinion and, for the other, fact. Good, bad, right, wrong, etc. are merely subjective opinions on any particular thought, whether it's movies, morality, food, thought, etc. To feel that some things are merely 'opinions' while other, similar items are 'fact' is simplistic and silly.
If a person's ever changed their mind on anything, it only furthers the notion that perception is inherently fact-less.
Even if some magical 'moral absolutes' existed, we probably wouldn't be able to understand them anyway.
Both are physical entities, yet some people see a label for one as opinion and, for the other, fact. Good, bad, right, wrong, etc. are merely subjective opinions on any particular thought, whether it's movies, morality, food, thought, etc. To feel that some things are merely 'opinions' while other, similar items are 'fact' is simplistic and silly.
If a person's ever changed their mind on anything, it only furthers the notion that perception is inherently fact-less.
Even if some magical 'moral absolutes' existed, we probably wouldn't be able to understand them anyway.
Why 'God' Works [sort of]
'God' is a coping/defense mechanism for people to feel like they're never alone in the world. To, essentially, never fully grow up. 'God' can be molded to anyone's personal beliefs, wishes, and desires. This can be done freely and without logical justification.
This premise is incredible. Coping with personal fears and securities, whether it's from 'dealing' with it or believing in a higher being that will do it for you, has phenomenally great potential. However, there's a distinct difference in believing in a god to become spiritually healthier and believing just to justify certain despicable types of behavior.
This premise is incredible. Coping with personal fears and securities, whether it's from 'dealing' with it or believing in a higher being that will do it for you, has phenomenally great potential. However, there's a distinct difference in believing in a god to become spiritually healthier and believing just to justify certain despicable types of behavior.
Saturday, December 8, 2007
The 'Magic' Factor
This is the personal justification for things which people accept to be true but can't personally explain how, or why.
I know that my microwave works, somehow, but I don't know exactly how. It works on an understood "Magic Factor" until I decide that I'm going to research and find out how.
Then it becomes knowledge.
I know that my microwave works, somehow, but I don't know exactly how. It works on an understood "Magic Factor" until I decide that I'm going to research and find out how.
Then it becomes knowledge.
Thursday, December 6, 2007
Freewill or Fate?
What if change is prevented by ignorance?
Not from lack of problem-recognition, but from lack of knowledge on a better alternative.
The will is there, but there's no known or understood better way of doing things.
Not from lack of problem-recognition, but from lack of knowledge on a better alternative.
The will is there, but there's no known or understood better way of doing things.
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
'Think' Private Healthcare
An organization 'provides' a 'required service' that, if not taken, promises harm and suffering. The organization charges whatever it wants and makes all the money it wants, without actually benefiting anyone proactively. It causes great, and sometimes lethal, harm to individuals, the economy, and society, at the expense of its own gain. It funds and controls many actions of the government, therefore rendering its actions virtually legal on all counts.
Sound like the mafia? Think again.
Sound like the mafia? Think again.
Playing the "Race Card"
Modern-day racism is hard to prove. Gone are the days of white hoods and robes, public lynchings, the word 'negro,' etc. Those days are all-but-gone.
I'm going to wager that almost all direct forms of racism (anonymous instances aside) are witnessed by whites. This is the back room story telling, poker-night 'nigger' joking, etc. This type of behavior is becoming less and less common in public.
Discrimination now seems to take the form of job denying, routine-traffic-stop(ing), 'i'ma-screw-this-guy-watch-this' kind of behavior. The list is endless for impossibly hard to prove, yet just as harmful, racial discrimination. Look at who's still in power, calling the shots, got the CEO positions, making the 'legal' money, passing the laws, running the courts...
Watch what happens when someone accuses someone of racial discrimination. The media lights up with stories of "playing the race card," giving it a negative connotation from the start. Providing it makes it to the courts, it's almost impossible to legally prove, equatable with mental and psychological abuse in terms of difficulty maintaining a case.
The 'old days' of hoods and robes have been retired to a much more subtle, almost nostalgic, place that is now referred to as "heritage" and "history" not to be meddled with, changed, or forgotten.
I'm going to wager that almost all direct forms of racism (anonymous instances aside) are witnessed by whites. This is the back room story telling, poker-night 'nigger' joking, etc. This type of behavior is becoming less and less common in public.
Discrimination now seems to take the form of job denying, routine-traffic-stop(ing), 'i'ma-screw-this-guy-watch-this' kind of behavior. The list is endless for impossibly hard to prove, yet just as harmful, racial discrimination. Look at who's still in power, calling the shots, got the CEO positions, making the 'legal' money, passing the laws, running the courts...
Watch what happens when someone accuses someone of racial discrimination. The media lights up with stories of "playing the race card," giving it a negative connotation from the start. Providing it makes it to the courts, it's almost impossible to legally prove, equatable with mental and psychological abuse in terms of difficulty maintaining a case.
The 'old days' of hoods and robes have been retired to a much more subtle, almost nostalgic, place that is now referred to as "heritage" and "history" not to be meddled with, changed, or forgotten.
Monday, December 3, 2007
Which is Cheaper?
A) For the federal government to est. a system for a small number of needy families, providing a minimal allowance to help with the purchasing of basic needs (food, shelter, etc.) for themselves and their children;
or
B) For the federal government to fund a system set up to recruit individuals, train them, house them, feed them, transport them, pay them, send them overseas, provide them weapons and armor, fund and transport fortified tanks and vehicles which also require constant funding to operate, have them demolish whole cities and neighborhoods; Then allow for a company to bid any amount they wish to go back in and rebuild everything.
Fiscal year 2007 (Federal)
Military budget: $699 Billion.
Welfare and unemployment: $367 billion
If we continue destroying things faster than we help them back up, somebody's going to be left at the top without anyone to contest it.
or
B) For the federal government to fund a system set up to recruit individuals, train them, house them, feed them, transport them, pay them, send them overseas, provide them weapons and armor, fund and transport fortified tanks and vehicles which also require constant funding to operate, have them demolish whole cities and neighborhoods; Then allow for a company to bid any amount they wish to go back in and rebuild everything.
Fiscal year 2007 (Federal)
Military budget: $699 Billion.
Welfare and unemployment: $367 billion
If we continue destroying things faster than we help them back up, somebody's going to be left at the top without anyone to contest it.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Why The War on Drugs?
If the government wants to gain more power and authority, all it has to do is make the public believe that more power is needed and justified. Thus, it 'creates' a 'problem', and tells the people all about it.
People start believing this, and the fake problem becomes 'real.' After the govt. establishes the 'problem,' it promotes itself as being the 'solution.' People buy it, and the govt continues promoting the 'real' 'problem' as getting 'worse.' Repeat cycle.
Conservatives see it as a moral issue, and liberals see it as unconstitutional. While technically true, the constitution is paper, and can't raise taxes and campaign to promote it's importance. (Smacks of anything but fair-representation of the people, doesn't it?)
But the government sees it as none of these issues. Rather, it's a way to maintain dominance. The War on Drugs ('The War on _____' for that matter) is better commercial marketing than anything else. But there's a catch:
Unless, private enterprise feels it can make money off of certain drugs. Then, it becomes okay. Cannabis can't be copyrighted, but Benadryl can. Try taking 20 Benadryl and see how you feel.
And it's perfectly legal to buy.
People start believing this, and the fake problem becomes 'real.' After the govt. establishes the 'problem,' it promotes itself as being the 'solution.' People buy it, and the govt continues promoting the 'real' 'problem' as getting 'worse.' Repeat cycle.
Conservatives see it as a moral issue, and liberals see it as unconstitutional. While technically true, the constitution is paper, and can't raise taxes and campaign to promote it's importance. (Smacks of anything but fair-representation of the people, doesn't it?)
But the government sees it as none of these issues. Rather, it's a way to maintain dominance. The War on Drugs ('The War on _____' for that matter) is better commercial marketing than anything else. But there's a catch:
Unless, private enterprise feels it can make money off of certain drugs. Then, it becomes okay. Cannabis can't be copyrighted, but Benadryl can. Try taking 20 Benadryl and see how you feel.
And it's perfectly legal to buy.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
The Sadists Come Out At Night
Why do sadistic fucks always refer to beating their kids as 'discipline?'
Where does the right to discipline imply the right to hurt?
The kid-beaters keep saying 'Spare the rod, spoil the child!' as if that's justification.
Yeah, and the Holocaust was good for population control...
Where does the right to discipline imply the right to hurt?
The kid-beaters keep saying 'Spare the rod, spoil the child!' as if that's justification.
Yeah, and the Holocaust was good for population control...
Cheesy? Nah.
A sociologist studies statistics, graphs, and polls, and notices a strange existence of 'pairs.'
A psychologist studies various regions of the brain, and its responses to various controlled stimuli, and hypothesizes on the meaning and effect.
But the philosopher thinks for a day, and calls it love.
A psychologist studies various regions of the brain, and its responses to various controlled stimuli, and hypothesizes on the meaning and effect.
But the philosopher thinks for a day, and calls it love.
Ideological Reality of Realistic Ideals
Could society become so disenchanted that true definition of reality is considered ideological?
Perhaps there exists a breakdown of true reality, devoid of bias, perception, prejudice, etc., but it's overlooked as being non-realistic. It could be anything, reasonably well-known or not, silly or serious, childish or mature, etc.
Maybe New Orleans really was ravaged because of all the godless sodomites.
Or not.
Perhaps there exists a breakdown of true reality, devoid of bias, perception, prejudice, etc., but it's overlooked as being non-realistic. It could be anything, reasonably well-known or not, silly or serious, childish or mature, etc.
Maybe New Orleans really was ravaged because of all the godless sodomites.
Or not.
Saturday, November 24, 2007
Pop Tarts and Lies
A Pop Tart isn't a "Toaster Pastry," it's a jam-filled cookie.
Why the hell would they think to call it a 'pastry' anything? It's a goddamn cookie.
Try making a 'homemade' Pop Tart. It suddenly becomes a strudel.
Why the hell would they think to call it a 'pastry' anything? It's a goddamn cookie.
Try making a 'homemade' Pop Tart. It suddenly becomes a strudel.
Friday, November 23, 2007
The 'Fair Tax:' As "Fair" as Making a Crippled Take the Stairs
Which is 'fairer:' Require everyone to take the stairs so that everyone does it the same way, or allow ramps to be built for individuals who can't walk so that everyone can have access?
1.) America currently has a progressive income tax (the more money you make, the more you're taxed). However, if everyone pays the same amount (in this case, a standard sales tax), the tax burden is taken off the higher incomes and distributed evenly over everyone. However, the lower and middle class families would be spending a greater percentage of their income to meet their needs. The poorest families would be paying the same amount for their needs as the ExxonMobil board of directors, who could essentially buy the poor family itself. Plus tax.
2.) The idea of "fairness" can be 'applied' a few different ways. One way would be to equalize the tax payers spending, so that everyone pays the same amount (NST). In this way, no one has to pay any more than anyone else ("fair?"). This is essentially the same thing as arguing that a handicapped person should take the stairs and not have a "special" ramp built for them. However, the other way would be to tax an individual's income. In this way, people who make less money don't have to divert quite as much of their pay to taxes, and more can be spent on family needs and necessities.
Could it work? Perhaps. But could it work fairly? Hell no.
1.) America currently has a progressive income tax (the more money you make, the more you're taxed). However, if everyone pays the same amount (in this case, a standard sales tax), the tax burden is taken off the higher incomes and distributed evenly over everyone. However, the lower and middle class families would be spending a greater percentage of their income to meet their needs. The poorest families would be paying the same amount for their needs as the ExxonMobil board of directors, who could essentially buy the poor family itself. Plus tax.
2.) The idea of "fairness" can be 'applied' a few different ways. One way would be to equalize the tax payers spending, so that everyone pays the same amount (NST). In this way, no one has to pay any more than anyone else ("fair?"). This is essentially the same thing as arguing that a handicapped person should take the stairs and not have a "special" ramp built for them. However, the other way would be to tax an individual's income. In this way, people who make less money don't have to divert quite as much of their pay to taxes, and more can be spent on family needs and necessities.
Could it work? Perhaps. But could it work fairly? Hell no.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Which is Better: a Hot Dog or the Antichrist? A Comparative Analysis
Once upon a time, some American meat plant owner was sitting around thinking, "how can I cut costs so as to make a hundred gillion dollars more this year? Oh I know, after I cut the pay of my workers and lower their pensions, I think It'd be a great idea to get rid of my waste cost because I don't get any return for it."
The "all-American hot dog," once destined for the dumpster, now allows for families to feel better by buying a "cheaper, healthier-because-it's-smaller alternative to a bratwurst or a sausage.
Is this really how it happened? I can't come up with any plausible alternative.
I'm going to be logical and go with the anti-Christ. At least he's supposed to solve the world's problems.
The "all-American hot dog," once destined for the dumpster, now allows for families to feel better by buying a "cheaper, healthier-because-it's-smaller alternative to a bratwurst or a sausage.
Is this really how it happened? I can't come up with any plausible alternative.
I'm going to be logical and go with the anti-Christ. At least he's supposed to solve the world's problems.
Breakdown of Society in 3 Minutes
Look for principles in everything. It takes all the work out of arguing with that redneck uncle you might have that always wants to argue about a communist under every bed, a terrorist under every head cover, and a black man behind every crime.
The basis of society can be understood as an ongoing struggle for dominance of 3 main classes: Government, Enterprise, and People.
Each have their distinct strengths and weaknesses. Government can use law enforcement and propaganda but has to maintain basic credibility by projecting itself as needed. Enterprise can become just as lethally powerful as government, but must fight for credibility as long as it doesn't control the majority of its market. The People maintain the strongest numbers and most potential strength, but mobilization is near impossible and apathy inhibits change.
Sometimes, two entities can work together to undermine the third. For example, anti-trust laws serve the People, by enforcing more honest practices, and Government, by instilling a variable 'purpose' for more Government power.
It seems logical to put the will and need of the People first, but it's surprising how many beliefs and actions are promoted as being "for the people" while actually being anything but that.
The basis of society can be understood as an ongoing struggle for dominance of 3 main classes: Government, Enterprise, and People.
Each have their distinct strengths and weaknesses. Government can use law enforcement and propaganda but has to maintain basic credibility by projecting itself as needed. Enterprise can become just as lethally powerful as government, but must fight for credibility as long as it doesn't control the majority of its market. The People maintain the strongest numbers and most potential strength, but mobilization is near impossible and apathy inhibits change.
Sometimes, two entities can work together to undermine the third. For example, anti-trust laws serve the People, by enforcing more honest practices, and Government, by instilling a variable 'purpose' for more Government power.
It seems logical to put the will and need of the People first, but it's surprising how many beliefs and actions are promoted as being "for the people" while actually being anything but that.
Monday, November 19, 2007
Tools or Mules?
Any idea or conclusion should only be as strong as the logic that formed it.
It's important to understand the difference in conclusions that are well rounded, fair, and balanced, while seeing through bullshit that might call itself "Fair and Balanced." Ahem. A trademarked slogan doesn't mean anything.
It generally isn't good to believe everything you hear, but a stubborn mentality isn't healthy either.
Balance?
It's important to understand the difference in conclusions that are well rounded, fair, and balanced, while seeing through bullshit that might call itself "Fair and Balanced." Ahem. A trademarked slogan doesn't mean anything.
It generally isn't good to believe everything you hear, but a stubborn mentality isn't healthy either.
Balance?
Friday, November 16, 2007
Skepticism: A Pwnage Analysis
The point of Skepticism isn't to say "I'm right," as much as it's saying "You're probably not right." To be 'sure' of anything is both a bias and uncertainty. Does this mean that everything is a lie? Not necessarily. No one really knows. Skepticism isn't meant to instill ideals, thus it isn't contradictory of itself. Rather, it's meant to allow for objective interpretation.
My observation is no more credible than yours, thus, they both have equal 'truthiness.' To understand skepticism is to understand that anything can and probably should be taken with a grain of salt...there's just too many perceptions and "truths."
If you look deep enough into any "truth," you get to a point where you can't go any further. If we can't get to the root of anything, how can we absolutely profess it to be true?
My observation is no more credible than yours, thus, they both have equal 'truthiness.' To understand skepticism is to understand that anything can and probably should be taken with a grain of salt...there's just too many perceptions and "truths."
If you look deep enough into any "truth," you get to a point where you can't go any further. If we can't get to the root of anything, how can we absolutely profess it to be true?
Saturday, November 10, 2007
Universal Necessity
If the government requires all citizens to have something (i.e. liability car insurance) then they should also mandate that little or no profits be made off of that requirement. If parts of society create an undue burden on a strong majority of the population, it's easy to understand a fair, federal involvement, or standard, applied to that operation (Economically, not socially).
Many people live in areas where owning a vehicle is essential to "survival," whether it's because the transit system is poor and impractical, or things are just too far to walk. However, government mandates require owners to have liability car insurance. Therefore, since it is legally required, a business shouldn't be allowed to charge more than the absolute lowest price for the minimal coverage.
Is it moral to allow a person to unfairly profit from a public necessity? (*cough* healthcare *cough*)(no pun intended) (ok maybe just a little)
Many people live in areas where owning a vehicle is essential to "survival," whether it's because the transit system is poor and impractical, or things are just too far to walk. However, government mandates require owners to have liability car insurance. Therefore, since it is legally required, a business shouldn't be allowed to charge more than the absolute lowest price for the minimal coverage.
Is it moral to allow a person to unfairly profit from a public necessity? (*cough* healthcare *cough*)(no pun intended) (ok maybe just a little)
Friday, November 2, 2007
Philosophy of Government
3 base tier system of core societal values: Liberty, Equality, Order. The order of preference regarding the importance of these values dictates political position. Imo:
Libertarian : Liberty / Equality / Order
Liberal : Equality / Liberty / Order
Conservative : Order / Liberty / Equality
Populist : Equality / Order / Liberty
Statist : Order / Equality / Liberty
Centrist: Liberty / Order / Equality
Thursday, November 1, 2007
D.A.R.E. To Tell Kids The Truth
Perhaps the greatest modern day hoax is the threat of cannabis on society. Nothing comes even remotely close, except perhaps organized religion, to describing the amount of silly, unfounded, prejudice, alarmist, wasteful, and uneducated information regarding cannabis circulating today. Not even privatized healthcare is quite as awe-inspiring-ly appalling as the war on cannabis, and profiting from someones sickness ranks pretty high on the bullshit meter.
Environmental, Spiritual, Intellectual, Stimulating, Agricultural, Medicinal, on and on and on...
Getting high is like being a kid all over again. It's amazing the hostility towards it, stemming only it seems from ignorance and prejudice. What's wrong with feeling like you did when you were kid again? Like that Twilight Zone episode where the old folks break out of their retirement home so they can go play kick the can and become kids again.
Not to mention the music sounds so much fucking better...
Environmental, Spiritual, Intellectual, Stimulating, Agricultural, Medicinal, on and on and on...
Getting high is like being a kid all over again. It's amazing the hostility towards it, stemming only it seems from ignorance and prejudice. What's wrong with feeling like you did when you were kid again? Like that Twilight Zone episode where the old folks break out of their retirement home so they can go play kick the can and become kids again.
Not to mention the music sounds so much fucking better...
Potential
Our ability as thinkers could not begin to scratch the surface of the true potential of reality. Think about the earliest existence of humans, and their full mental capacity to understand everything. I doubt that it could even come close to scratching the surface of what we can conceptualize now.
So what about 600,000 years from now? Providing humans are still around, wouldn’t it be safe to guess that our mental abilities will have grown substantially? Wouldn’t our culture, methods, cognitive abilities, and basic rationale be ridiculed as being “primitive” and “ancient?”
There is far greater potential in reality than exists ability to understand it.
So what about 600,000 years from now? Providing humans are still around, wouldn’t it be safe to guess that our mental abilities will have grown substantially? Wouldn’t our culture, methods, cognitive abilities, and basic rationale be ridiculed as being “primitive” and “ancient?”
There is far greater potential in reality than exists ability to understand it.
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
Reality
“I” know that “I” exist. Perhaps everything else is real, or just a mental manifestation....but I can’t truly prove or understand anything else, as anything but “I” could simply be a mental manifestation.
Perception is everything…Perception is reality. And if perception is reality, then there are no facts…no “basic understanding.” It becomes impossible to “know” anything. “Knowing” is merely personal interpretation.
For all the mathematics, logic, rationale, etc. that’s been conceptualized, uncertainty is the only true constant. And, perhaps, even that is uncertain.
Perception is everything…Perception is reality. And if perception is reality, then there are no facts…no “basic understanding.” It becomes impossible to “know” anything. “Knowing” is merely personal interpretation.
For all the mathematics, logic, rationale, etc. that’s been conceptualized, uncertainty is the only true constant. And, perhaps, even that is uncertain.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)