On your marks... get ready... yawn.
I had been meaning to write an introductory post about myself for sometime. I debated with myself about the types and depth of information I would provide. I have chosen to use Neill’s survey post as a guideline. Given the timing of this, it will seem excessively political, but waiting until after the election wouldn’t ameliorate that. Please take it as given that everything below is my opinion, and is in no way intended to dissuade you from your own beliefs.
Overview
I understand that my opinions fall well into a minority. I accept that other people do not hold my views, and I continuously wish that they would have the same respect for mine (although this is not often the case).
There is nothing more fundamentally important in life than personal liberty. We’ve all heard the old saw, “you can’t shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theater,” to describe the lack of freedom of speech. It is of course, a necessary limitation; such reckless behavior is a violation of other people’s freedoms.
With freedom comes a number of responsibilities - personal responsibilities - the shirking of which is the abdication of freedom. The inability of some people to take the blame for their own actions is to me the indicator that they are unwilling to live in a society of consenting adults.
Moderation is a requirement for any philosophy to be applied in an appropriate manner in the real world. In the realm of personal liberties, the moderation line is the point at which one person’s freedoms impinge upon another’s. There are cases where the line can seem a gray area. In such cases, I will almost always side with the person who “just wants to be left alone” (be free of an outside influence).
Hypocrisy is the single easiest way to destroy your own credibility. I despise it, especially when I am the one being a hypocrite. People are not perfect, it is possible to believe one thing, yet do another. I know I’ve failed my own ethical standards on occasion. However repeated, blatant or unrepentant duplicity is the result of an inconsistent belief system, or an outright lie.
Conflict is unavoidable. There are too many incompatible points of view to believe that we can all “just get along.” However, that’s not an excuse to cause violence or visit harm upon another. I believe there is only one case where violence is the correct course of action: self-preservation. That however, can take on a number of facets: national defense, preservation of freedom, defending yourself (or family, or property) from attack, and a short list of others. [Note: this does not include play-violence, like fencing or video games.]
Religion, morals and ethics
I consider myself a non-theist, in the sense that I do not believe in any sentient creator-being. If you wish to call the sum total of natural and physical laws, known and unknown, the essence of God (as Einstein once did), then I cannot deny it. However there is no will or intelligence capriciously guiding those forces.
Morals, defined as a set of religious guidelines, are an anathema to me. But, being without religion, or indeed even without a god, does not indicate that I am without ethics. In fact, I have a strong sense of ethics - a code by which I live - much of which overlaps with traditional morals. My code is founded upon the golden rule, which the Christians phrase “Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you” (which sounds better to me than the version from Mosaic Law). My sarcastic demeanor and critical eye can lead me astray from that value. If you have been hurt by my words in the past, I apologize - it is a personality flaw of mine.
The most pervasive and destructive evil that I see is the desire to possess what is not earned. Many people even feel they have a right - an entitlement - to other people’s wealth and property. These two factors alone have caused untold misery in the form of excess personal and national debt, not to mention a large part of our current economic difficulty.
The “it’s not prevented, therefore it’s encouraged” argument infuriates me. You will usually see me silent when someone uses it, because I have difficulty expressing my rage over the total lack of ethics and personal responsibility it represents.
Consent is the cornerstone of responsible, adult interaction. Non-consensual activity is the absolute vilest form of violating another’s rights. Naturally, rape and murder come to mind, but it extends far beyond that. Up-skirt photos, copyright infringement, and even spam fall under this heading. They should all be dealt with ruthlessly.
I believe that proselytizing is the attempt to use your freedom of speech to curtail someone else’s freedom of religion. I don’t think that I’d want it to be illegal, but I definitely think it’s unethical (in the unsolicited form, that is). I choose not to show people the lunacy of their beliefs, no matter how blatant it is, for this very reason.
Socio-Politics (i.e.: wankery)
Because freedoms, as stated above, take preeminence in my philosophy, I am not burdened by the notion that the right to life is immutable. This manifests itself in many ways (as you will see below).
Abortion: the freedom of an adult woman to choose what’s done to her body takes precedence over the potential life that she carries. That being said, any woman who can’t find a better method of contraception needs to be put back on the short bus for more education.[1] A minor’s choices should be limited to only what their parents will allow - the parent’s choices should be unfettered by external influence - it should be solely a matter of the parent’s ethics and the child’s health. It is also my opinion that an infant born to a minor should be the legal responsibility of the minor’s parents (until the mother comes of age).
Drugs: marijuana should be legalized, just like alcohol, with at least as stiff penalties for improper use. Again, it’s the freedom to do with your body what you see fit. I have “experimented” with it in the past, and don’t care to again. I feel the same about most drugs, but I would also be in favor of long-term side-effect studies prior to legalization.
Euthanasia: again, a person’s freedom to do what they will, with their own body, should be held above the “sanctity” of life. This may become an ethical dilemma for a medical practitioner who has sworn to the Hippocratic oath, but that is a matter between patient and doctor, not citizen and government.[2]
Stem cells: the only limit human to creativity or curiosity should be the point at which it violates another citizen’s freedoms. [Note: you have to be born before you’re a citizen.]
Death Penalty: a citizen’s right to life is outweighed by a society’s freedom to remove a destructive influence. I am therefore in favor of the death penalty in theory. As the law is currently practiced in this country, it costs more to put a criminal to death than it does to incarcerate them permanently. I would personally prefer the sentence of banishment - but that would require the ability to enforce it (which does not presently exist in the US). Given that situation, I believe the best course of action is to keep the penalty on the books, but never (or extremely rarely) invoke it.
Cloning: like stem cells, the medical and scientific advancement that leads to human cloning should not be curtailed. However, from a Darwinian view, whole-organism cloning is an evolutionary dead-end. That is to say, it should be legal, but considered unethical. On the other hand, organ and tissue cloning would be a huge boon to heathcare.
Pre-marital sex: consenting adults should never be limited in activities engaged in private.
Prostitution: I don’t think it’ll come as a surprise to anyone who’s plowed through all this sillyness when I say prostitution should be legalized, licensed and medically monitored. It would hopefully break the exploitive grip of abusive pimps and sex-for-drugs.
Same-sex marriage: should not be legalized - nor should hetero-marriages. The romantic and contractual obligation between two people should not be scrutinized or validated by the government at all - it should be solely a matter of contractual law (and what ever religious morays the participants hold).
Spanking: punishment and discipline should be strictly a matter of parental choice. The results of the movement toward a complete hands-off approach are quite evident in their behavior. Having no non-physical tools for discipline however, is a sign of someone who should not be a parent.
Alcohol age: there is an age at which we as a society expect a citizen to become an adult - with all the associated rights, privileges, and responsibilities. It seems inconsistent, perhaps even hypocritical, that there is a number of years between attaining that milestone and being allowed to (legally) drink alcohol. If a person is not physically mature enough to drink, they should not be considered mature enough to join the military, or vote.
Iraq: in hindsight, there was little or no eminent national threat from them. If that was known at the time[3], then we should not have gone in. However once we did, and destabilized the nation, it’s only fair that we hang around long enough to see that they aren’t invaded and carved up by their neighbors.
Political parties are ruled by their respective extremists. This I think is illustrated quite well by the democrats choosing the first and third most socialist senators (as measured by National Journal) for their presidential ticket. Palin is the other side of the coin - a rabid neo-con. Personally, I admire Palin; she is a strong, attractive woman who’s gone to the top of her career while still maintaining a healthy family life. I can’t vote for her, because I think she’s dead wrong on a number of social issues.
In general, I vote Libertarian when I can, as that’s the party that most closely reflects my beliefs. Just like all the other parties, it’s ruled by the fringe - nutcases with no concept of moderation. Even if it’s simply viewed as a protest vote, I can pretend I’m voicing my opinion on the direction I think the country should be headed. I’m quite disappointed that they chose a kook like Bob Barr for this term’s nominee.
There is a great deal of hate these days between the two major parties. So much so that neither seems to be interested in doing what’s right, only what will embarrass or harm the other. The Democrats purport to be for social liberties, but time and time again they’ve proven otherwise - from the ability to protect your home with a gun to the type of light bulb you can use there. Republicans also want to take your freedom - but they go the route of foisting their religious views on everyone else. As I’ve said before, I think we’re screwed either way this election.[4]
[1] I have in the past suggested harsher treatment of such idiots.
[2] Living in Florida, the retirement capitol of the world, I have made jokes about mandatory euthanasia, but they were just jokes.
[3] I’m not convinced that it was all a set-up; I’m still betting on stupidity over malice.
[4] This too, I’ve said in less flattering ways.
Economics
I have voiced my opinion on some economic issues in a couple of Neill’s posts ( here and here); I will try to avoid rehashing those subjects. A large part of my economic view is founded on the fact that our government is massively inefficient (perhaps even the least efficient money-spender) - and that it is, by it very nature, politically biased - interested only in its own growth, rather than any potential help or harm it may do.
There are a handful of things that a government must do, to maintain liberty, and promote personal freedoms; expanding beyond its central purpose necessarily means intrusion into citizen's lives, limiting their liberties. These duties are:
· Provide for the common defense. Without the ability to forcibly maintain sovereignty, the rest is meaningless. This heading also includes important factors like protecting overseas national interests and border security.
· Establish justice. This includes providing police that are not beholden to corporate interests, develop a system of arbitration for civil matters, and maintain an equitable system of prosecuting and punishing criminals.
· Develop infrastructure. the means by which trade is conducted, be it roads, shipping lanes, telephone, electricity or internet (et al) should be built and maintained by an entity beholden to only the citizens, and completely without corporate or financing interests. This also includes regulation of inter-state and international trade, and maintaining safe working conditions.
Vastly more bloated than any Microsoft product, the US government has strayed from the core duties. According to the keynesian economic theory, regulation of the economy through government spending is best accomplished by spending into debt during slow economic times, and paying off that debt once the economy has recovered. The fact that during both good and bad times over the last 15+ years, the congress has gotten bolder and bolder about spending your money without your consent, has left us with a debt that will take generations to pay down to manageable levels (if we start immediately). Now that we’re faced with another economic crunch, we’re deep in the hole and have to invent new money to spend our way out of it. Hello, inflation.
Parent after parent will mouth the words, “I’d give my life for my children.” Yet they will all collect social security and medicare, saddling their children (and their children’s children) with an ever-expanding debt, and the resulting taxes that barely pays off the interest, never mind the bureaucratic waste.
Banking, financing and currency are all dangerously askew from their functional purpose. That may however, need to be the topic of another post.
Closing
If you’ve bothered to read all that I’ve written above, you probably know more about me and how I think than my last lover. Congratulations. Is there anything I left out?
Shun or praise me, this is who I am.
[edited to add links]
Overview
I understand that my opinions fall well into a minority. I accept that other people do not hold my views, and I continuously wish that they would have the same respect for mine (although this is not often the case).
There is nothing more fundamentally important in life than personal liberty. We’ve all heard the old saw, “you can’t shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theater,” to describe the lack of freedom of speech. It is of course, a necessary limitation; such reckless behavior is a violation of other people’s freedoms.
With freedom comes a number of responsibilities - personal responsibilities - the shirking of which is the abdication of freedom. The inability of some people to take the blame for their own actions is to me the indicator that they are unwilling to live in a society of consenting adults.
Moderation is a requirement for any philosophy to be applied in an appropriate manner in the real world. In the realm of personal liberties, the moderation line is the point at which one person’s freedoms impinge upon another’s. There are cases where the line can seem a gray area. In such cases, I will almost always side with the person who “just wants to be left alone” (be free of an outside influence).
Hypocrisy is the single easiest way to destroy your own credibility. I despise it, especially when I am the one being a hypocrite. People are not perfect, it is possible to believe one thing, yet do another. I know I’ve failed my own ethical standards on occasion. However repeated, blatant or unrepentant duplicity is the result of an inconsistent belief system, or an outright lie.
Conflict is unavoidable. There are too many incompatible points of view to believe that we can all “just get along.” However, that’s not an excuse to cause violence or visit harm upon another. I believe there is only one case where violence is the correct course of action: self-preservation. That however, can take on a number of facets: national defense, preservation of freedom, defending yourself (or family, or property) from attack, and a short list of others. [Note: this does not include play-violence, like fencing or video games.]
Religion, morals and ethics
I consider myself a non-theist, in the sense that I do not believe in any sentient creator-being. If you wish to call the sum total of natural and physical laws, known and unknown, the essence of God (as Einstein once did), then I cannot deny it. However there is no will or intelligence capriciously guiding those forces.
Morals, defined as a set of religious guidelines, are an anathema to me. But, being without religion, or indeed even without a god, does not indicate that I am without ethics. In fact, I have a strong sense of ethics - a code by which I live - much of which overlaps with traditional morals. My code is founded upon the golden rule, which the Christians phrase “Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you” (which sounds better to me than the version from Mosaic Law). My sarcastic demeanor and critical eye can lead me astray from that value. If you have been hurt by my words in the past, I apologize - it is a personality flaw of mine.
The most pervasive and destructive evil that I see is the desire to possess what is not earned. Many people even feel they have a right - an entitlement - to other people’s wealth and property. These two factors alone have caused untold misery in the form of excess personal and national debt, not to mention a large part of our current economic difficulty.
The “it’s not prevented, therefore it’s encouraged” argument infuriates me. You will usually see me silent when someone uses it, because I have difficulty expressing my rage over the total lack of ethics and personal responsibility it represents.
Consent is the cornerstone of responsible, adult interaction. Non-consensual activity is the absolute vilest form of violating another’s rights. Naturally, rape and murder come to mind, but it extends far beyond that. Up-skirt photos, copyright infringement, and even spam fall under this heading. They should all be dealt with ruthlessly.
I believe that proselytizing is the attempt to use your freedom of speech to curtail someone else’s freedom of religion. I don’t think that I’d want it to be illegal, but I definitely think it’s unethical (in the unsolicited form, that is). I choose not to show people the lunacy of their beliefs, no matter how blatant it is, for this very reason.
Socio-Politics (i.e.: wankery)
Because freedoms, as stated above, take preeminence in my philosophy, I am not burdened by the notion that the right to life is immutable. This manifests itself in many ways (as you will see below).
Abortion: the freedom of an adult woman to choose what’s done to her body takes precedence over the potential life that she carries. That being said, any woman who can’t find a better method of contraception needs to be put back on the short bus for more education.[1] A minor’s choices should be limited to only what their parents will allow - the parent’s choices should be unfettered by external influence - it should be solely a matter of the parent’s ethics and the child’s health. It is also my opinion that an infant born to a minor should be the legal responsibility of the minor’s parents (until the mother comes of age).
Drugs: marijuana should be legalized, just like alcohol, with at least as stiff penalties for improper use. Again, it’s the freedom to do with your body what you see fit. I have “experimented” with it in the past, and don’t care to again. I feel the same about most drugs, but I would also be in favor of long-term side-effect studies prior to legalization.
Euthanasia: again, a person’s freedom to do what they will, with their own body, should be held above the “sanctity” of life. This may become an ethical dilemma for a medical practitioner who has sworn to the Hippocratic oath, but that is a matter between patient and doctor, not citizen and government.[2]
Stem cells: the only limit human to creativity or curiosity should be the point at which it violates another citizen’s freedoms. [Note: you have to be born before you’re a citizen.]
Death Penalty: a citizen’s right to life is outweighed by a society’s freedom to remove a destructive influence. I am therefore in favor of the death penalty in theory. As the law is currently practiced in this country, it costs more to put a criminal to death than it does to incarcerate them permanently. I would personally prefer the sentence of banishment - but that would require the ability to enforce it (which does not presently exist in the US). Given that situation, I believe the best course of action is to keep the penalty on the books, but never (or extremely rarely) invoke it.
Cloning: like stem cells, the medical and scientific advancement that leads to human cloning should not be curtailed. However, from a Darwinian view, whole-organism cloning is an evolutionary dead-end. That is to say, it should be legal, but considered unethical. On the other hand, organ and tissue cloning would be a huge boon to heathcare.
Pre-marital sex: consenting adults should never be limited in activities engaged in private.
Prostitution: I don’t think it’ll come as a surprise to anyone who’s plowed through all this sillyness when I say prostitution should be legalized, licensed and medically monitored. It would hopefully break the exploitive grip of abusive pimps and sex-for-drugs.
Same-sex marriage: should not be legalized - nor should hetero-marriages. The romantic and contractual obligation between two people should not be scrutinized or validated by the government at all - it should be solely a matter of contractual law (and what ever religious morays the participants hold).
Spanking: punishment and discipline should be strictly a matter of parental choice. The results of the movement toward a complete hands-off approach are quite evident in their behavior. Having no non-physical tools for discipline however, is a sign of someone who should not be a parent.
Alcohol age: there is an age at which we as a society expect a citizen to become an adult - with all the associated rights, privileges, and responsibilities. It seems inconsistent, perhaps even hypocritical, that there is a number of years between attaining that milestone and being allowed to (legally) drink alcohol. If a person is not physically mature enough to drink, they should not be considered mature enough to join the military, or vote.
Iraq: in hindsight, there was little or no eminent national threat from them. If that was known at the time[3], then we should not have gone in. However once we did, and destabilized the nation, it’s only fair that we hang around long enough to see that they aren’t invaded and carved up by their neighbors.
Political parties are ruled by their respective extremists. This I think is illustrated quite well by the democrats choosing the first and third most socialist senators (as measured by National Journal) for their presidential ticket. Palin is the other side of the coin - a rabid neo-con. Personally, I admire Palin; she is a strong, attractive woman who’s gone to the top of her career while still maintaining a healthy family life. I can’t vote for her, because I think she’s dead wrong on a number of social issues.
In general, I vote Libertarian when I can, as that’s the party that most closely reflects my beliefs. Just like all the other parties, it’s ruled by the fringe - nutcases with no concept of moderation. Even if it’s simply viewed as a protest vote, I can pretend I’m voicing my opinion on the direction I think the country should be headed. I’m quite disappointed that they chose a kook like Bob Barr for this term’s nominee.
There is a great deal of hate these days between the two major parties. So much so that neither seems to be interested in doing what’s right, only what will embarrass or harm the other. The Democrats purport to be for social liberties, but time and time again they’ve proven otherwise - from the ability to protect your home with a gun to the type of light bulb you can use there. Republicans also want to take your freedom - but they go the route of foisting their religious views on everyone else. As I’ve said before, I think we’re screwed either way this election.[4]
[1] I have in the past suggested harsher treatment of such idiots.
[2] Living in Florida, the retirement capitol of the world, I have made jokes about mandatory euthanasia, but they were just jokes.
[3] I’m not convinced that it was all a set-up; I’m still betting on stupidity over malice.
[4] This too, I’ve said in less flattering ways.
Economics
I have voiced my opinion on some economic issues in a couple of Neill’s posts ( here and here); I will try to avoid rehashing those subjects. A large part of my economic view is founded on the fact that our government is massively inefficient (perhaps even the least efficient money-spender) - and that it is, by it very nature, politically biased - interested only in its own growth, rather than any potential help or harm it may do.
There are a handful of things that a government must do, to maintain liberty, and promote personal freedoms; expanding beyond its central purpose necessarily means intrusion into citizen's lives, limiting their liberties. These duties are:
· Provide for the common defense. Without the ability to forcibly maintain sovereignty, the rest is meaningless. This heading also includes important factors like protecting overseas national interests and border security.
· Establish justice. This includes providing police that are not beholden to corporate interests, develop a system of arbitration for civil matters, and maintain an equitable system of prosecuting and punishing criminals.
· Develop infrastructure. the means by which trade is conducted, be it roads, shipping lanes, telephone, electricity or internet (et al) should be built and maintained by an entity beholden to only the citizens, and completely without corporate or financing interests. This also includes regulation of inter-state and international trade, and maintaining safe working conditions.
Vastly more bloated than any Microsoft product, the US government has strayed from the core duties. According to the keynesian economic theory, regulation of the economy through government spending is best accomplished by spending into debt during slow economic times, and paying off that debt once the economy has recovered. The fact that during both good and bad times over the last 15+ years, the congress has gotten bolder and bolder about spending your money without your consent, has left us with a debt that will take generations to pay down to manageable levels (if we start immediately). Now that we’re faced with another economic crunch, we’re deep in the hole and have to invent new money to spend our way out of it. Hello, inflation.
Parent after parent will mouth the words, “I’d give my life for my children.” Yet they will all collect social security and medicare, saddling their children (and their children’s children) with an ever-expanding debt, and the resulting taxes that barely pays off the interest, never mind the bureaucratic waste.
Banking, financing and currency are all dangerously askew from their functional purpose. That may however, need to be the topic of another post.
Closing
If you’ve bothered to read all that I’ve written above, you probably know more about me and how I think than my last lover. Congratulations. Is there anything I left out?
Shun or praise me, this is who I am.
[edited to add links]