We can all agree on one thing: The violence and killing in Charlottesville, Virginia by a neo-Nazi suspect named James Alex Fields was a horrific and barbaric act by someone totally bereft of moral principles. Beyond that, Americans have chosen sides and have engaged in a shouting match over who is right and who is wrong; who is victim and who is victimizer.
The crux of the problem, as it has been for over 200 years in this country is race. Everyone praising their race, while denigrating other races. The real truth is that they are all wrong. No race is inherently superior or inferior to another race. The underlying factor in all of this racial strife is the fallacious concept of race pride. That is the root cause.
People who bask in race pride invariably suffer from low self-esteem. In order to nurture any sense of pride, they must turn to the accomplishments of others of their own race in order to feel good about themselves.
For example, I am a white man.Other than Barack Obama, every US president has been white. Bill Gates is white, Steve Jobs and Henry Ford were white .Jonas Salk, the doctor responsible for the eradication of polio with the Salk vaccine, was white. Elvis was white. White supremists might say those are the reasons to take pride in the white race. I say; Bullshit! All those great people I mentioned have nothing to do with me. I didn't find a cure for polio, or develop personal computers or smart phones, and I certainly was never president.
The only thing we have a right to take pride in is our own accomplishments and achievements, and the victories over our own personal struggles. Just as I would be wrong to feel ladened with guilt over the crimes by white men like John Wayne Gacy or Adolph Hitler, I would be equally foolish to take pride in things I had absolutely nothing to do with.
Race pride is the sanctuary of those who have nothing else to take pride in. That is the real truth behind the fallacy of race pride.
Saturday, August 19, 2017
Saturday, July 29, 2017
AT WAR WITH OURSELVES
There was a time when the United States was simply one nation. We were just Americans. One for all, all for one. One nation under God. No matter where their country of origin, once the immigrants arrived on our shores they became "Americans." Yes, because we are human, we have been tainted by racism and religious bigotry, but overall, our country has achieved greatness because of our cohesion.
Sadly, that cohesion has deteriorated, and the impetus for its destruction has been the growth of the Federal welfare state. It started in the 1930's with Social Security and unemployment insurance. It accelerated in the 1960's with President Johnson's Great Society, which gave us Medicare, Medicaid, Aid to Dependent Children. Today the government will pay for your college, your rent, your kid's school lunch, birth control, abortions, gender reassignment and a host of other services.
What the government has done in essence is given the American people a proclamation: We have billions of dollars to give away. Whichever group shouts, screams, yells and hollers the loudest and longest will get the most money. That's when we began to multiply and divide, as various groups fought one another to receive the handouts. This dicing and slicing of the population received a title.PRESSURE GROUP WARFARE.
No longer are we one people. Now it is whites vs. blacks. vs. Hispanics vs, students vs. seniors vs. straights vs. LGBT vs. union members vs. non-union members vs.handicapped, ad nauseum. The government has pitted citizen against citizen, each group crying out, "Our group deserves it more than your group! Screw you! Give us the money!"
The Civil War split this country into two. Pressure group warfare has split us into an infinite number of pieces, and like Humpty Dumpty, those pieces may not be able to be put back together again.
The government has bought the soul of America. It is time for us to refund the money and regain the spirit that brought us greatness.
Sadly, that cohesion has deteriorated, and the impetus for its destruction has been the growth of the Federal welfare state. It started in the 1930's with Social Security and unemployment insurance. It accelerated in the 1960's with President Johnson's Great Society, which gave us Medicare, Medicaid, Aid to Dependent Children. Today the government will pay for your college, your rent, your kid's school lunch, birth control, abortions, gender reassignment and a host of other services.
What the government has done in essence is given the American people a proclamation: We have billions of dollars to give away. Whichever group shouts, screams, yells and hollers the loudest and longest will get the most money. That's when we began to multiply and divide, as various groups fought one another to receive the handouts. This dicing and slicing of the population received a title.PRESSURE GROUP WARFARE.
No longer are we one people. Now it is whites vs. blacks. vs. Hispanics vs, students vs. seniors vs. straights vs. LGBT vs. union members vs. non-union members vs.handicapped, ad nauseum. The government has pitted citizen against citizen, each group crying out, "Our group deserves it more than your group! Screw you! Give us the money!"
The Civil War split this country into two. Pressure group warfare has split us into an infinite number of pieces, and like Humpty Dumpty, those pieces may not be able to be put back together again.
The government has bought the soul of America. It is time for us to refund the money and regain the spirit that brought us greatness.
Sunday, July 16, 2017
ELECTION HACKING OR PUBLIC SERVICE?
The so-called scandal that has been dogging Donald Trump centers around the Trump's campaign staff's alleged collusion with the Russians to interfere with the outcome of the presidential election. The most recent allegations involve Donald Trump, Jr. and his meeting with a group of Russians for the purpose of receiving damning information about Hillary Clinton. Commentators in the media are saying that this is the scandal that could finally bring down the Trump presidency. After all, how dare a presidential candidate meet with a foreign power to effect election results.
But wait! There is another take on this situation that has not been discussed. If a presidential candidate--regardless of who it is--has damaging information about another candidate--regardless of who it is--should they not make it public? If a candidate for president of the United States has engaged in illegal, immoral or unethical behavior, the voters have a right to know. To have knowledge of such behavior and not disclose it, should itself be a crime. Anyone possessing knowledge of a candidate's illegal, immoral or unethical behavior has a civic and moral obligation to disclose this information to the voters of this country. To withhold it would be a moral lapse and potentially damaging to our nation.
Thus, it could be easily argued that the Trump Jr's. meeting with the Russians had the potential to be of public service. Has it turned out, the Russians had no damaging evidence against Clinton. But if they did, why would obtaining this evidence have constituted a scandal and crime? To attack Trump for attempting to obtain and release incriminating evidence would be the political equivalent of shooting the messenger.
But wait! There is another take on this situation that has not been discussed. If a presidential candidate--regardless of who it is--has damaging information about another candidate--regardless of who it is--should they not make it public? If a candidate for president of the United States has engaged in illegal, immoral or unethical behavior, the voters have a right to know. To have knowledge of such behavior and not disclose it, should itself be a crime. Anyone possessing knowledge of a candidate's illegal, immoral or unethical behavior has a civic and moral obligation to disclose this information to the voters of this country. To withhold it would be a moral lapse and potentially damaging to our nation.
Thus, it could be easily argued that the Trump Jr's. meeting with the Russians had the potential to be of public service. Has it turned out, the Russians had no damaging evidence against Clinton. But if they did, why would obtaining this evidence have constituted a scandal and crime? To attack Trump for attempting to obtain and release incriminating evidence would be the political equivalent of shooting the messenger.
Sunday, June 25, 2017
WHY GOD? WHY RELIGION?
Why do human beings almost universally believe in a Supreme Being (or Beings), and why do we have organized religions?
Those are two aspects of human existence that have been part of our makeup for tens of thousands of years, and because of this, we take these two constructs for granted in the same way we take the moon and sun for granted. It just is. We don't really think about them. In relation to our lives, they have always been there and will always be there.
How do we know early humans held some version of religious belief? In France, the Lascaux Palaeothic cave paintings depicted mystical rituals that were performed to insure future hunting success, a clear indicator that homo sapiens believed in mystical powers that controlled their lives. Also, archeological digs unearthed the remains of bodies that were buried with ceremonial trinkets and tools, another indicator in a belief in an afterlife.
So what compelled homo sapiens to devise these rituals? What purpose did they serve? What needs were satisfied? In order to find the answers, we must transport ourselves to the Palaeothic period. Humans began to populate Europe around 100,000 BC. It was the ice age, and life was hard, brutish and short. Hunger and deprivation were the norm. One can imagine a clan of 20 or 30 hunter-gathers sitting around a fire in a long, cold, harsh night. They would tell stories to pass the time, questioning the bewildering world around them. These were nomadic clans with no conception of science or technology, or the workings of nature.They battled cold, snow, ice, rain, drought, floods and wild beasts. And lacking the basic scientific knowledge to figure out the world they inhabited, these prehistoric minds formulated their own explanations. This is how the myths and legends originated. Every natural phenomenon had its own special god or spirit overseer: There was a god of rain; god of fire, and of the sun and moon, droughts, floods hunting, planting,etc.. To please these gods meant bountiful hunting, good weather, protection from predators. Displeasing these gods meant floods, hunger, eclipses of the sun and moon, and disease. Inventing these various gods gave order to the chaotic lives of early humans. I
These stories were told and retold and embellished as they were past down from generation to generation. By assigning a higher power to every aspect of nature, pre-historic humans were able to assemble their lives and environment into an orderly, and to some degree, predictable mode. Now everything happened for a reason, and if they followed a certain code of behavior, they possessed the potential to intervene and alter natural events. This is where religion comes into play.
Over thousands of years a code of conduct was gradually constructed for the sole purpose of appeasing and pacifying the gods in an effort to bring about good fortune.Follow the rules, and the gods would reward them; disobey the rules, and the gods would bring down punishments, like plagues, floods, droughts and infestation.
Eventually these beliefs were codified into precise rules, with specific tribe members--usually elders- to oversee their enforcement and to act as the earthly representitives of the gods.Therein lies the roots of organized religion, replete with special ceremonies, sacrifices, and earthly envoys to act as guardians.
Why would home sapiens find it necessary to concoct explanations for things they cannot prove? Best selling author and psychologist, Michael Shermer, has a theory that supplies the answer. His theory puts forth two concepts: patternicity and agenticity.
He says that over thousands of years the human brain became wired to discern patterns regarding the world around them. The more patterns early humans could find, the greater their chances for survival. For example, fifty thousand years ago humans were primarily hunters, In order to increase their success as hunters, they learned to take notice of the migration habits of certain animals; what time certain animals gathered at a watering hole; which animals were nocturnal, and which animals hunted only in daylight.
When humans morphed into farmers they had to take notice of weather patterns to determine the best time of year to plant certain crops.
Agenticity refers to the powers that devise and control these patterns.Because early humans lacked any knowledge of scientific principles, they created gods to be the agents of these diverse patterns.
There is yet one more reason for the creation of gods and religion: Death. Surely pre-historic humans must have stared at their deceased comrades and wondered what happens to humans when they die.One thing we know for certain that is hardwired into our brains:the fight for survival. No rationale person wants to die. We all hold a secret wish to live forever, even though we also realize we cannot escape from the inevitability of our own demise.
It is not difficult to imagine ancient humans pondering death, what it means, and what happens after we die.Nor is it difficult to understand why they would have concocted scenarios about an afterlife. After all, who wants to believe that death means the end of everything? So depending on what religion was celebrated and what region of the planet ancient humans lived, they all had their own unique vision of the afterlife.It might be called heaven, or paradise, or the happy hunting grounds, It may entail a trip down the River Styx, or reincarnation into another life form, but the one common denominator in all of these scenarios is the belief in life after death. In fact, humans want so desperately an eternal life that they even accept the Judeo-Christian belief in Hell. Imagine. We want an afterlife so badly, we are willing to embrace an eternity of unspeakable pain,suffering and horror beyond human comprehension. At least we won't be dead.
That is the crux for a belief in a Supreme Being or God. It provides order in a chaotic world and holds the promise of eternal life. However irrational and illogical these beliefs may be, they have helped humans for eons make sense of their lives and the world around them,.
We, in a sense,are adults who still behave like children. We refuse to relinquish the belief in a Santa Claus, that ageless spirit who spans the centuries, who knows all and sees all, who rewards the good and punishes the bad. And like children, we are taken in by fairytales and myths because they are the panacea for a sometimes bewildering and dangerous world.
Let's be honest.. How fabulous would it be to spend an eternity at the North Pole, interacting with Santa and his elves?
Those are two aspects of human existence that have been part of our makeup for tens of thousands of years, and because of this, we take these two constructs for granted in the same way we take the moon and sun for granted. It just is. We don't really think about them. In relation to our lives, they have always been there and will always be there.
How do we know early humans held some version of religious belief? In France, the Lascaux Palaeothic cave paintings depicted mystical rituals that were performed to insure future hunting success, a clear indicator that homo sapiens believed in mystical powers that controlled their lives. Also, archeological digs unearthed the remains of bodies that were buried with ceremonial trinkets and tools, another indicator in a belief in an afterlife.
So what compelled homo sapiens to devise these rituals? What purpose did they serve? What needs were satisfied? In order to find the answers, we must transport ourselves to the Palaeothic period. Humans began to populate Europe around 100,000 BC. It was the ice age, and life was hard, brutish and short. Hunger and deprivation were the norm. One can imagine a clan of 20 or 30 hunter-gathers sitting around a fire in a long, cold, harsh night. They would tell stories to pass the time, questioning the bewildering world around them. These were nomadic clans with no conception of science or technology, or the workings of nature.They battled cold, snow, ice, rain, drought, floods and wild beasts. And lacking the basic scientific knowledge to figure out the world they inhabited, these prehistoric minds formulated their own explanations. This is how the myths and legends originated. Every natural phenomenon had its own special god or spirit overseer: There was a god of rain; god of fire, and of the sun and moon, droughts, floods hunting, planting,etc.. To please these gods meant bountiful hunting, good weather, protection from predators. Displeasing these gods meant floods, hunger, eclipses of the sun and moon, and disease. Inventing these various gods gave order to the chaotic lives of early humans. I
These stories were told and retold and embellished as they were past down from generation to generation. By assigning a higher power to every aspect of nature, pre-historic humans were able to assemble their lives and environment into an orderly, and to some degree, predictable mode. Now everything happened for a reason, and if they followed a certain code of behavior, they possessed the potential to intervene and alter natural events. This is where religion comes into play.
Over thousands of years a code of conduct was gradually constructed for the sole purpose of appeasing and pacifying the gods in an effort to bring about good fortune.Follow the rules, and the gods would reward them; disobey the rules, and the gods would bring down punishments, like plagues, floods, droughts and infestation.
Eventually these beliefs were codified into precise rules, with specific tribe members--usually elders- to oversee their enforcement and to act as the earthly representitives of the gods.Therein lies the roots of organized religion, replete with special ceremonies, sacrifices, and earthly envoys to act as guardians.
Why would home sapiens find it necessary to concoct explanations for things they cannot prove? Best selling author and psychologist, Michael Shermer, has a theory that supplies the answer. His theory puts forth two concepts: patternicity and agenticity.
He says that over thousands of years the human brain became wired to discern patterns regarding the world around them. The more patterns early humans could find, the greater their chances for survival. For example, fifty thousand years ago humans were primarily hunters, In order to increase their success as hunters, they learned to take notice of the migration habits of certain animals; what time certain animals gathered at a watering hole; which animals were nocturnal, and which animals hunted only in daylight.
When humans morphed into farmers they had to take notice of weather patterns to determine the best time of year to plant certain crops.
Agenticity refers to the powers that devise and control these patterns.Because early humans lacked any knowledge of scientific principles, they created gods to be the agents of these diverse patterns.
There is yet one more reason for the creation of gods and religion: Death. Surely pre-historic humans must have stared at their deceased comrades and wondered what happens to humans when they die.One thing we know for certain that is hardwired into our brains:the fight for survival. No rationale person wants to die. We all hold a secret wish to live forever, even though we also realize we cannot escape from the inevitability of our own demise.
It is not difficult to imagine ancient humans pondering death, what it means, and what happens after we die.Nor is it difficult to understand why they would have concocted scenarios about an afterlife. After all, who wants to believe that death means the end of everything? So depending on what religion was celebrated and what region of the planet ancient humans lived, they all had their own unique vision of the afterlife.It might be called heaven, or paradise, or the happy hunting grounds, It may entail a trip down the River Styx, or reincarnation into another life form, but the one common denominator in all of these scenarios is the belief in life after death. In fact, humans want so desperately an eternal life that they even accept the Judeo-Christian belief in Hell. Imagine. We want an afterlife so badly, we are willing to embrace an eternity of unspeakable pain,suffering and horror beyond human comprehension. At least we won't be dead.
That is the crux for a belief in a Supreme Being or God. It provides order in a chaotic world and holds the promise of eternal life. However irrational and illogical these beliefs may be, they have helped humans for eons make sense of their lives and the world around them,.
We, in a sense,are adults who still behave like children. We refuse to relinquish the belief in a Santa Claus, that ageless spirit who spans the centuries, who knows all and sees all, who rewards the good and punishes the bad. And like children, we are taken in by fairytales and myths because they are the panacea for a sometimes bewildering and dangerous world.
Let's be honest.. How fabulous would it be to spend an eternity at the North Pole, interacting with Santa and his elves?
Friday, April 28, 2017
NO GOD/? NO MORALITY?
Can there be a standard of morality without God? The religious would vehemently declare no! According to conventional thinking, the absence of God would leave a vacuum in moral standards, which, in turn, would lead to utter and complete chaos and violence throughout society. That would beg the question. Without God, would it be alright to murder?
The common denominator of all religions is the belief in a supreme being and a belief in an afterlife. In accordance with those beliefs is the belief that if you follow God's rules, you will be rewarded in the afterlife; and if you disobey God's rules, you will be punished in the afterlife. In the christian religion, the fifth of the ten commandments clearly states, "Thou shalt not kill." Murder someone and you will spend an eternity in Hell without the possibility of parole.
In discussing morality, let us examine the crime of murder. The overwhelming majority of human beings do not murder.Why not? There are 3 reasons: 1) It is against God's law. 2) Society has laws against murder. 3) The vast majority of human beings understand that it is innately wrong to take another human life.
Believers would tell us that in a world without God, the murder rate would explode. True? I contend it would not. Tens of thousands of years ago, when early homo sapiens emerged from their caves, they formed cohesive social groups for the purpose of security and survival. They had no concept of a supreme being to guide them. They did, however, understand that certain behaviors, like murder and thievery, were detrimental to their welfare. Therefore, the survival of the group became the measure of morality for early man.
Therein lies the governing principle. Yes, there can be morality without a belief in God. Human kind, not a supreme being, becomes the standard of morality.That which aides and promotes the security, prosperity and fulfillment of humankind is moral. That which endangers the security and fulfillment of humankind is immoral.
One final note. Believers claim there can be no moral standards if God does not exist. But God cannot be held as a standard of morality. Why Not? Because by his very nature, God is incapable of immoral action. If he had the capacity to engage in immoral action, he wouldn't be God. Therefore, he cannot be a standard of morality because he is amoral, just as animals are amoral. Are dogs, cats, elephants, fruit flies capable of immoral acts? Of course not, because they are not volitional beings. They are driven and directed by pure instinct.hardwired into their brains.As a result, animals cannot be held up as a standard of morality; nor can a supreme being whose very nature--just like animals--precludes him from acting immorally.
The innate nature of human beings ultimately demands order over chaos, security over terror, and a code of conduct that protects the people we love and cherish. That is the basis for morality.
The common denominator of all religions is the belief in a supreme being and a belief in an afterlife. In accordance with those beliefs is the belief that if you follow God's rules, you will be rewarded in the afterlife; and if you disobey God's rules, you will be punished in the afterlife. In the christian religion, the fifth of the ten commandments clearly states, "Thou shalt not kill." Murder someone and you will spend an eternity in Hell without the possibility of parole.
In discussing morality, let us examine the crime of murder. The overwhelming majority of human beings do not murder.Why not? There are 3 reasons: 1) It is against God's law. 2) Society has laws against murder. 3) The vast majority of human beings understand that it is innately wrong to take another human life.
Believers would tell us that in a world without God, the murder rate would explode. True? I contend it would not. Tens of thousands of years ago, when early homo sapiens emerged from their caves, they formed cohesive social groups for the purpose of security and survival. They had no concept of a supreme being to guide them. They did, however, understand that certain behaviors, like murder and thievery, were detrimental to their welfare. Therefore, the survival of the group became the measure of morality for early man.
Therein lies the governing principle. Yes, there can be morality without a belief in God. Human kind, not a supreme being, becomes the standard of morality.That which aides and promotes the security, prosperity and fulfillment of humankind is moral. That which endangers the security and fulfillment of humankind is immoral.
One final note. Believers claim there can be no moral standards if God does not exist. But God cannot be held as a standard of morality. Why Not? Because by his very nature, God is incapable of immoral action. If he had the capacity to engage in immoral action, he wouldn't be God. Therefore, he cannot be a standard of morality because he is amoral, just as animals are amoral. Are dogs, cats, elephants, fruit flies capable of immoral acts? Of course not, because they are not volitional beings. They are driven and directed by pure instinct.hardwired into their brains.As a result, animals cannot be held up as a standard of morality; nor can a supreme being whose very nature--just like animals--precludes him from acting immorally.
The innate nature of human beings ultimately demands order over chaos, security over terror, and a code of conduct that protects the people we love and cherish. That is the basis for morality.
Tuesday, March 14, 2017
THE TIMES THEY WILL BE A'CHANGIN' (AND NOT FOR THE BETTER)
What you are about to read can easily be misconstrued as racist; however, the following has nothing to do with the superiority or inferiority of one race compared to another.The issue at hand is not racial; it is cultural differences in political and social terms.
The undeniable fact is all cultures have their differences, whether it's a religious culture, ethnic culture, geographic culture, etc..My concern is with the changing social and political culture in the United States. And let there be no doubt. The culture is changing.
On the day John F. Kennedy was sworn into office in January of 1961, the US was 80% white. In 2016 the country was 62% white. And at the present rate of demographic changes, it is predicted that by 2050, the US will be 45% white. Statistics would bare out that prediction. In 2016, caucasians accounted for 78% of all deaths in our country. In addition, for the first time in our history in children age 5 and under, whites are already a minority.
These numbers beg the question: Are these population trends a good thing or a bad thing? The answer lies in one's political beliefs. From my perspective as a libertarian, these statistics fill me with grave concern. Let me cite the reasons.
1) As a libertarian, I believe in minimal government, as encapsulated in the old adage, "He who governs least governs best." To be more specific, I believe in the supremacy of the individual and individual liberty over government interference and intrusion in the lives of its citizens. Accordingly, I strongly support the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The whole purpose of the Constitution is to protect the individual from unfettered government power and coercion.
2) Taxation is theft. It is the theft of honestly earned wages. Therefore, I am opposed to higher taxes, whether it be on the middle-class, the rich, or big business.
3) Because taxation is theft, I am opposed to the welfare state, entitlements and corporate subsidies. These programs, in effect, steal money from one group of citizens to bestow it on another group of citizens chosen by elected officials who seek to buy votes and encourage political bootlickers.
4) I am in favor of a free market economy. Government manipulation of free enterprise inevitably results in, recessions, high unemployment and in equality of opportunity. Need proof? Look at the difference between North Korea and South Korea. Or the difference in China under Chairman Mao a half century ago, and China today, a semi-capitalist society.
We libertarians believe these principles have resulted in making the US one of the freest and prosperous nations on the planet.
So how are these principles threatened by a growing minority population? Eighty to ninety percent of black voters vote Democrat. Sixty-five to seventy percent of Hispanic voters vote Democrat. By supporting liberal Democrats, these groups support the liberal agenda, which includes expanding the welfare and entitlement state, subsidies for favored corporations, raising taxes on the middle-class and rich to pay for these entitlements and subsidies.This, in turn, reduces the living standard of the middle-class, penalizes hard work and personal initiative, and creates a class of people who live off the toil of productive citizens, ultimately lowering the living standards for everyone. In addition, these liberal supporters regard free enterprise with disdain and support strict control of all businesses by the government. Finally, too many young blacks and Hispanics contemptuously regard the Constitution as an irrelevant document authored by a "bunch of old white guys."
So why would a growing minority population foster such an anti-individual agenda? Would they not foster a society rooted in the libertarian principles of minimal government, low taxes and free enterprise? Because only a mere handful of Hispanics and blacks call themselves libertarian or conservative. That means that as the white population dwindles, the pool of libertarians and conservatives will dwindle, as well, reducing these ideologies to irrelevance,while liberal and socialist ideologies will continue to grow.
The result is that the welfare state will rein supreme, and the priniciples of individualism fostered by our Founding Fathers will be overrun by the rule of statists who hold the Constitution and the supremacy of the individual in contempt.
My granddaughters will live in a country starkly different from the one I have known throughout my life. And I fear they will be the worse off for it.
The undeniable fact is all cultures have their differences, whether it's a religious culture, ethnic culture, geographic culture, etc..My concern is with the changing social and political culture in the United States. And let there be no doubt. The culture is changing.
On the day John F. Kennedy was sworn into office in January of 1961, the US was 80% white. In 2016 the country was 62% white. And at the present rate of demographic changes, it is predicted that by 2050, the US will be 45% white. Statistics would bare out that prediction. In 2016, caucasians accounted for 78% of all deaths in our country. In addition, for the first time in our history in children age 5 and under, whites are already a minority.
These numbers beg the question: Are these population trends a good thing or a bad thing? The answer lies in one's political beliefs. From my perspective as a libertarian, these statistics fill me with grave concern. Let me cite the reasons.
1) As a libertarian, I believe in minimal government, as encapsulated in the old adage, "He who governs least governs best." To be more specific, I believe in the supremacy of the individual and individual liberty over government interference and intrusion in the lives of its citizens. Accordingly, I strongly support the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The whole purpose of the Constitution is to protect the individual from unfettered government power and coercion.
2) Taxation is theft. It is the theft of honestly earned wages. Therefore, I am opposed to higher taxes, whether it be on the middle-class, the rich, or big business.
3) Because taxation is theft, I am opposed to the welfare state, entitlements and corporate subsidies. These programs, in effect, steal money from one group of citizens to bestow it on another group of citizens chosen by elected officials who seek to buy votes and encourage political bootlickers.
4) I am in favor of a free market economy. Government manipulation of free enterprise inevitably results in, recessions, high unemployment and in equality of opportunity. Need proof? Look at the difference between North Korea and South Korea. Or the difference in China under Chairman Mao a half century ago, and China today, a semi-capitalist society.
We libertarians believe these principles have resulted in making the US one of the freest and prosperous nations on the planet.
So how are these principles threatened by a growing minority population? Eighty to ninety percent of black voters vote Democrat. Sixty-five to seventy percent of Hispanic voters vote Democrat. By supporting liberal Democrats, these groups support the liberal agenda, which includes expanding the welfare and entitlement state, subsidies for favored corporations, raising taxes on the middle-class and rich to pay for these entitlements and subsidies.This, in turn, reduces the living standard of the middle-class, penalizes hard work and personal initiative, and creates a class of people who live off the toil of productive citizens, ultimately lowering the living standards for everyone. In addition, these liberal supporters regard free enterprise with disdain and support strict control of all businesses by the government. Finally, too many young blacks and Hispanics contemptuously regard the Constitution as an irrelevant document authored by a "bunch of old white guys."
So why would a growing minority population foster such an anti-individual agenda? Would they not foster a society rooted in the libertarian principles of minimal government, low taxes and free enterprise? Because only a mere handful of Hispanics and blacks call themselves libertarian or conservative. That means that as the white population dwindles, the pool of libertarians and conservatives will dwindle, as well, reducing these ideologies to irrelevance,while liberal and socialist ideologies will continue to grow.
The result is that the welfare state will rein supreme, and the priniciples of individualism fostered by our Founding Fathers will be overrun by the rule of statists who hold the Constitution and the supremacy of the individual in contempt.
My granddaughters will live in a country starkly different from the one I have known throughout my life. And I fear they will be the worse off for it.
Tuesday, February 21, 2017
AND THE OSCAR FOR MOST HYPOCRITICAL LOGIC GOES TO...
Following last year's uproar concerning a lack of racial and sexual diversity in its nominees, the Academy Of Motion Pictures Arts And Sciences decided to make procedural changes. The previous two years had seen 20 white acting nominees, which created the pressure for greater diversity.
To facilitate change, the Academy added 683 new members to the already 6687 voting members. The new additions were females, blacks and hispanics. The Academy's strategy was a simple one. Over the years, nominees in the various categories had been overwhelmingly white and male because the voters were overwhelmingly white males. Therefore, adding racial minorities and women to the membership would achieve more diversity in the voting.
Oscar, it turns out, is not only befuddled in his logic, he is a hypocrite as well. Here is the major flaw in the Academy's thinking. The nominees have been overwhelmingly white males because the voters were overwhelmingly white males, meaning the voters had an obvious bias in favor of their own kind, The Academy says that is blatantly unfair, unjust and fundamentally wrong. Adding the 683 new members would level the playing field.That strategy implies that diversity would be achieved because women would vote for women, blacks would vote for blacks, hispanics would vote for hispanics. Problem solved. Except the new strategy allows the same "sin" to continue, which is, every member casts their votes on the basis of their own race and, or gender.
If it is fundamentally wrong for white males to vote exclusively for white males, then reason dictates that it is also wrong for blacks to vote on the basis of race, hispanics to vote on the basis of ethnicity, and women to vote on the basis of gender.
The only criteria for voting should be merit. To replace that with a tacit quota system is to downplay excellence and achievement in favor of numbers.
Oscar, you lose because there are no 12 inch tall metallic voters.
To facilitate change, the Academy added 683 new members to the already 6687 voting members. The new additions were females, blacks and hispanics. The Academy's strategy was a simple one. Over the years, nominees in the various categories had been overwhelmingly white and male because the voters were overwhelmingly white males. Therefore, adding racial minorities and women to the membership would achieve more diversity in the voting.
Oscar, it turns out, is not only befuddled in his logic, he is a hypocrite as well. Here is the major flaw in the Academy's thinking. The nominees have been overwhelmingly white males because the voters were overwhelmingly white males, meaning the voters had an obvious bias in favor of their own kind, The Academy says that is blatantly unfair, unjust and fundamentally wrong. Adding the 683 new members would level the playing field.That strategy implies that diversity would be achieved because women would vote for women, blacks would vote for blacks, hispanics would vote for hispanics. Problem solved. Except the new strategy allows the same "sin" to continue, which is, every member casts their votes on the basis of their own race and, or gender.
If it is fundamentally wrong for white males to vote exclusively for white males, then reason dictates that it is also wrong for blacks to vote on the basis of race, hispanics to vote on the basis of ethnicity, and women to vote on the basis of gender.
The only criteria for voting should be merit. To replace that with a tacit quota system is to downplay excellence and achievement in favor of numbers.
Oscar, you lose because there are no 12 inch tall metallic voters.
Tuesday, January 24, 2017
PIPELINE TO PROSPERITY
Today President Trump overturned restrictions on oil drilling that were put in place by former President Obama. That means the Keystone XL pipeline and the Dakota Access pipeline can be fully operational.
As expected, environmentalists were apoplectic over Trump's action, likening it to a zombie apocalypse. Despite the objections of critics, the freeing up of the two pipelines represents a positive development. I have put together a list of reasons why we shall all benefit.
1. It increased the supply of oil, which in turn holds down the price of gasoline. It is the time tested law of supply and demand.
2. Cheaper gasoline means more money in the pockets of working people and their families. How can that be bad?
3. Cheaper gasoline means the auto industry will continue to meet consumer demands for larger, more expensive vehicles, which generate higher profits. Higher profits add up to greater job security, higher pay and increased stock prices. Increased stock prices mean more valuable and secure pension funds and personal IRA accounts and 401K accounts
4. More American petroleum means means fewer oil imports.That translates into billions of dollars less flowing out of our country and into the coffers of middle-east countries that provide safe haven and financial support to radical Islamic terrorists.
5.More American oil means we become exporters as well as importers.bringing billions of dollars into our economy.
6. Oil exploration means the creation of thousands of good paying jobs for American workers.
7.Less unemployment means less welfare expenditures, which in turn means less strain on the Federal budget and American taxpayers.
Along with environmentalists, Native Americans have fought the pipelines, claiming they are an intrusion upon sacred grounds, To penalize American workers and the American economy because of tribalism, myth, superstition and the belief in the supernatural is itself a crime against the human intellect.Angels demons and spirits have no place in a civilization created by courage, vision and the inventiveness of the human mind.
As expected, environmentalists were apoplectic over Trump's action, likening it to a zombie apocalypse. Despite the objections of critics, the freeing up of the two pipelines represents a positive development. I have put together a list of reasons why we shall all benefit.
1. It increased the supply of oil, which in turn holds down the price of gasoline. It is the time tested law of supply and demand.
2. Cheaper gasoline means more money in the pockets of working people and their families. How can that be bad?
3. Cheaper gasoline means the auto industry will continue to meet consumer demands for larger, more expensive vehicles, which generate higher profits. Higher profits add up to greater job security, higher pay and increased stock prices. Increased stock prices mean more valuable and secure pension funds and personal IRA accounts and 401K accounts
4. More American petroleum means means fewer oil imports.That translates into billions of dollars less flowing out of our country and into the coffers of middle-east countries that provide safe haven and financial support to radical Islamic terrorists.
5.More American oil means we become exporters as well as importers.bringing billions of dollars into our economy.
6. Oil exploration means the creation of thousands of good paying jobs for American workers.
7.Less unemployment means less welfare expenditures, which in turn means less strain on the Federal budget and American taxpayers.
Along with environmentalists, Native Americans have fought the pipelines, claiming they are an intrusion upon sacred grounds, To penalize American workers and the American economy because of tribalism, myth, superstition and the belief in the supernatural is itself a crime against the human intellect.Angels demons and spirits have no place in a civilization created by courage, vision and the inventiveness of the human mind.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)