For most of my life I believed that if a person generally understood the difference between right and wrong, it meant that they were a moral person. Maybe they did not see the actions they were taking as being immoral for some reason, but the people themselves had good intentions at heart. The best example I can think of of this kind of person would have to be a supporter of say the war on drugs.
Drugs are completely destructive. In my opinion, people become addicted to them because fantasy is preferable to the reality of their lives. The drug replaces the pain of reality with the pleasure of fantasy. It erodes the need for the people to take actions which would make their lives better. Sometimes life changes that are necessary for a person's true happiness can be difficult and perhaps be seen as completely unobtainable; why not take x drug, by the way we are talking prescription or street-drugs, and do it that way?
So the drug warrior is looking at the situation saying "this is awful! we need to get drugs off the street and out of our society." Fine. This is a goal that I believe in as well, though I do not consider myself a supporter of the war on drugs. So "Hooray" for those cops fighting the good fight...
BUT
There is a problem with the drug war. It involves coercing people who have not initiated force against other people. Whenever force is used against someone that is not in the immediate defense of them-self or another person, that force is not justified. Everyone gets this. As a private citizen, I cannot "defend myself" against my neighbor when he is in his home smoking a joint. His actions are not causing me harm. The police, however, claim the moral obligation/right to knock down the door and drag that neighbor out of his house and throw him into a jail cell.
So here we have a violation of principle; using force against someone in a circumstance other than defense, or simply aggressive force. The use of aggressive force is being considered ok, only on the part of cops mind you, to get drugs off the streets.
"Sure", the drug warrior will say, "it is a violation of the non-aggression principle, but look at how harmful the drugs are!"
Yes, we all understand the point about the drugs. What the drug warrior is not doing is putting the aggressive force under the same microscope. He is accepting that which he considers evil (aggressive force) to eliminate that which he considers evil (drugs).
This situation challenges my former theory that a person is ethical so long as they know the difference between right and wrong, for an ethical person cannot by definition accept evil as an acceptable methodology to solve problems.
In hindsight, the person who knows right from wrong AND accepts an evil methodology is worse than the person who does not know. At least the person who does not know has the potential for morality; the person who knowingly accepts evil has sealed their coffin.
Sure, accepting evil methodologies in life can be revised and actions can change so as to reject evil methodologies, but as long as evil is accepted, I for one can no longer accept the proposition that knowledge is enough for morality.
Since we are saying knowledge is not enough and judging the drug warrior based on their actions, we must add a condition of action to what makes a person ethical. The knowledge must be applied.
Note: I am not going to discuss the need for knowledge to determine if a person is ethical. The need for knowledge is too obvious: accidentally doing the right thing is just that, an accident.
Knowledge includes moral principles. Most people get this principle in Kindergarten. Don't steal, don't hit, don't lie... Libertarian circles simply call it the Non Aggression Principle (NAP). The logic behind the NAP is very simple: Man is a limited being. Man does not have perfect knowledge, cannot be everywhere at once, and must choose what endeavors to pursue in his own life. Man deals with reality the best he can. Any person interfering with this reality in others blocks their ability to freely and openly live their lives. If you steal from someone, you rob them of the choice to do what they wish with their own things. If you lie to someone, you distort their perception of reality in order to trick them into doing something they wouldn't otherwise do. If you hit someone, you damage the vessel with which they live. <---Disclaimer: Sometimes people prefer being lied to, sometimes people prefer being stolen from, and sometimes people want to be hit. A boss at work may request that you leave out details of an event so they do not have to take a particular action. A person addicted from heroin may plea with a friend to "please go into my house while I'm at work tomorrow and get all my 'stuff' out, so that if I want to do it, I won't be able to." And a person who takes pleasure out of boxing may jump in the ring with another and spar. These situations are sometimes tricky and each one must be treated as an individual case, as specifics vary, but generally, when someone WANTS to be hit, jumping into the ring and sparring does not constitute a violation of the NAP since they WANT it.
The harder thing which knowledge includes sometimes is the perception that a certain action violates moral principles. Most of the confusion here rests with government. Government is the only entity in society which may tell people all over the country that they will "pay their taxes or get locked up in jail." Yet many people miss this obvious violation of the NAP. Indeed, any time the government passes a law, the message taken away is "Do x or you will be locked up in jail." When x does not = a restraint from initiating aggressive force against other people, the government IS initiating aggressive force!
Force can only be aggressive or defensive. These two categories are not hard to see at all... Sure, if you turn a corner of a building somewhere and see one person hitting another, it is true that you do not understand the context that warranted, or didn't warrant for that matter, the striking. However, when someone clearly says to people "you will drive how I want you to drive or you will receive tickets from my agents, and if you don't pay those tickets you will eventually be thrown in jail" then the aggressive party is known.
To summarize, what makes a person ethical is they must first have ethical standards. Second, they must consciously try to live up to their ethical standards, and finally, if their attention is brought to the fact that they are doing something that does NOT live up to their ethical standards, they must abandon that action.
Showing posts with label Leaders. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Leaders. Show all posts
Saturday, September 13, 2014
Sunday, January 15, 2012
In Defense of Praxeology as a Science
Praxeology is a study of Human Action based on the axiom of action and the axiom of argumentation. The axiom of action clearly states that man acts in order to fulfill some felt uneasiness; he acts to change the world around him so that it is more in tune with what he feels will make him happier. The axiom of argumentation states that since all people can argue, all people inherently assume a cause and effect world. Neither of these axioms can be denied without proving them. An attempt to prove that human action is not aimed at satisfying some purpose is in itself an action aimed at satisfying a purpose. If I tell you you can argue, and you claim you cannot argue, you are putting up an argument.
This science of human action uses deductive logic from these two axioms in order to explain economic phenomena. "Kris went to the store to buy milk because he wanted milk and did not have any at the time." In that sentence, we see "Kris" acting with a purpose... to get some milk. We can deduce that he wanted milk based on the deduction that if he did not want the milk, he would not have bought it. And finally, if he already had milk, there would have been no need to go out and buy some. This is a pretty simple example of deductions that can be made based on the axioms of action and argumentation, but unfortunately there are many out there who would deny their validity.
The scientific method, which is just a scholarly way to say "trial and error", is used in the natural sciences in order to explain the workings of inanimate objects. The idea is to gather information, form a hypothesis that explains how the object will react to different stimuli, and then test that hypothesis and record the results. A chemist might say to himself, "If I mix A B and C chemicals, X will be the reaction." Then he would proceed with his experiment and mix A B and C, and record the results. If he gets the predicted results, he will proceed to run tests until he is certain that all variables have been accounted for, and there is absolutely no dispute that X is the result every single time A B and C are mixed together. This method is absolutely invaluable when it comes to natural sciences.
But social sciences are much different. A B and C are inanimate chemicals that have no choice but to obey the laws of physics (or the universe if you will). Human beings are different. While it is true that as human beings, we have our own inherent nature specific to us, there is no evidence that humans will react in the same exact way when exposed to the same exact stimuli. For example, it used to be that "I will never read a book. Books are boring, and better suited to fix lop-sided couches and tables." but now days, it is much more likely the case that "if I have the time, I would love to read some more of the classics and maybe something on economics, philosophy, logic, epistemology, mathematics, physics, banking, history, or freedom."
A praxeologist, observing people as thinking and animate beings, would argue that perhaps "kris had simply knocked books before giving them a try, and was persuaded to read a couple books at some point, and has discovered he was wrong about them." whereas a natural scientist, looking at people as though they react to the same stimuli in the same way, would say "somehow Kris likes books now. maybe it was the change in his diet, or maybe when his bed time changed, or perhaps when he tried beer for the first time, he started liking books. We should run some field tests to see what happened."
As it applies to economics, the person applying natural science principles to economics might say: "In case of a depression, the State should take some of everyone's money through taxation and go to war, to fix the economy. After all, some statistics argue that World War II got the U.S. out of the Great Depression." (A praxeologist would say, in the case of a depression, that the State should not take this course of action. Instead, it should relax regulations and cut spending so that people can spend their own money, and production can be directed towards fulfilling people's demands.)
Rather than making the obvious economic arguments here, I'm going to take a different route. The main thing that exists with both methods, that is the "trial and error" method and the "deductions based on axioms" method is that they are both based strongly in logic. Logic is about making arguments in the following format: "if A then B." In the natural sciences, the equation put into words would read "If my hypothesis is correct, then the outcome will be the same every time." A praxeological equation put into words would read something like "If Kris wants to write a blog post then he will set time aside to write it."
But why are experiments not included in the praxeological method? That is simple. The logical statement that makes experimentation the best way to study the natural sciences runs as the following: "If all variables can be controlled, and all characteristics in the object(s) under study can be known, never change then I should be able to determine how the object(s) will react to any given stimuli in every instance." With human beings - "all variables cannot be controlled, all characteristics change and cannot be known, therefore I should NOT be able to determine how they will react to a given stimuli in every instance."
The variables are endless; how clean was the air you breathed today? What have you thought about from the beginning of the day through now? What did you eat for breakfast and in what quantity? What time did you take your shower? Did you happen to see anything that would make you change your mind about jumping in front of a bus in order to save that squirrel? As it applies to economics, the necessary data is neither observable or quantifiable: "How bad do you want that glass of water? Would you rather have that five dollar bill, or that glass of water? Would you make the same decision if you were in the desert about to die of thirst? What would you pay for oxygen? Would say the same if you were on a shuttle in outer space, and oxygen was running low? Of course, therefore, this methodology is not justified to apply to human beings.
But what makes deductions from the axioms of argumentation and action a justified method? As stated above, every action is purposeful, and that purpose is to relieve one's uneasiness. "Yes, I wanted a glass of water, but then I discovered they also have Pepsi." <-- Here it must have been the case that new information changed my mind. My aim, however, never changed. I simply decided that Pepsi would remove more uneasiness I had than water.
The praxeological may be limited, since we assume (or I would say admit) that there are no constants in human actions or desires, but at least praxeology has with it the logic of admitting this truth. Those who want to use the scientific method to conduct social science are at a loss, since they approach the situation assuming that knowledge about how everyone will act and react and what their desires are can be quantified, measured, and used to conduct social engineering. This is precisely what F.A. Hayek referred to as "The Pretense of Knowledge." The humble scientist who is willing to admit that since there are no constants pertaining to the subject under study, such a methodology will only lead to mistakes. It is quite clear who the real scientist is... the person who is willing to admit there are limitations to we know when constants are non-existent.
If you are not convinced here, then by all means, use the trial-and-error method when conducting social science. But, keep in mind that in order to be honest with yourself, you should not propose any engineering until you have absolutely all the information you need, lest you want to make grave errors. If you are an honest natural scientist in this respect, you will never propose any sort of engineering, as you will never have all the information you need (since it is not quantifiable, and since it is literally always changing).
Thank You.
This science of human action uses deductive logic from these two axioms in order to explain economic phenomena. "Kris went to the store to buy milk because he wanted milk and did not have any at the time." In that sentence, we see "Kris" acting with a purpose... to get some milk. We can deduce that he wanted milk based on the deduction that if he did not want the milk, he would not have bought it. And finally, if he already had milk, there would have been no need to go out and buy some. This is a pretty simple example of deductions that can be made based on the axioms of action and argumentation, but unfortunately there are many out there who would deny their validity.
The scientific method, which is just a scholarly way to say "trial and error", is used in the natural sciences in order to explain the workings of inanimate objects. The idea is to gather information, form a hypothesis that explains how the object will react to different stimuli, and then test that hypothesis and record the results. A chemist might say to himself, "If I mix A B and C chemicals, X will be the reaction." Then he would proceed with his experiment and mix A B and C, and record the results. If he gets the predicted results, he will proceed to run tests until he is certain that all variables have been accounted for, and there is absolutely no dispute that X is the result every single time A B and C are mixed together. This method is absolutely invaluable when it comes to natural sciences.
But social sciences are much different. A B and C are inanimate chemicals that have no choice but to obey the laws of physics (or the universe if you will). Human beings are different. While it is true that as human beings, we have our own inherent nature specific to us, there is no evidence that humans will react in the same exact way when exposed to the same exact stimuli. For example, it used to be that "I will never read a book. Books are boring, and better suited to fix lop-sided couches and tables." but now days, it is much more likely the case that "if I have the time, I would love to read some more of the classics and maybe something on economics, philosophy, logic, epistemology, mathematics, physics, banking, history, or freedom."
A praxeologist, observing people as thinking and animate beings, would argue that perhaps "kris had simply knocked books before giving them a try, and was persuaded to read a couple books at some point, and has discovered he was wrong about them." whereas a natural scientist, looking at people as though they react to the same stimuli in the same way, would say "somehow Kris likes books now. maybe it was the change in his diet, or maybe when his bed time changed, or perhaps when he tried beer for the first time, he started liking books. We should run some field tests to see what happened."
As it applies to economics, the person applying natural science principles to economics might say: "In case of a depression, the State should take some of everyone's money through taxation and go to war, to fix the economy. After all, some statistics argue that World War II got the U.S. out of the Great Depression." (A praxeologist would say, in the case of a depression, that the State should not take this course of action. Instead, it should relax regulations and cut spending so that people can spend their own money, and production can be directed towards fulfilling people's demands.)
Rather than making the obvious economic arguments here, I'm going to take a different route. The main thing that exists with both methods, that is the "trial and error" method and the "deductions based on axioms" method is that they are both based strongly in logic. Logic is about making arguments in the following format: "if A then B." In the natural sciences, the equation put into words would read "If my hypothesis is correct, then the outcome will be the same every time." A praxeological equation put into words would read something like "If Kris wants to write a blog post then he will set time aside to write it."
But why are experiments not included in the praxeological method? That is simple. The logical statement that makes experimentation the best way to study the natural sciences runs as the following: "If all variables can be controlled, and all characteristics in the object(s) under study can be known, never change then I should be able to determine how the object(s) will react to any given stimuli in every instance." With human beings - "all variables cannot be controlled, all characteristics change and cannot be known, therefore I should NOT be able to determine how they will react to a given stimuli in every instance."
The variables are endless; how clean was the air you breathed today? What have you thought about from the beginning of the day through now? What did you eat for breakfast and in what quantity? What time did you take your shower? Did you happen to see anything that would make you change your mind about jumping in front of a bus in order to save that squirrel? As it applies to economics, the necessary data is neither observable or quantifiable: "How bad do you want that glass of water? Would you rather have that five dollar bill, or that glass of water? Would you make the same decision if you were in the desert about to die of thirst? What would you pay for oxygen? Would say the same if you were on a shuttle in outer space, and oxygen was running low? Of course, therefore, this methodology is not justified to apply to human beings.
But what makes deductions from the axioms of argumentation and action a justified method? As stated above, every action is purposeful, and that purpose is to relieve one's uneasiness. "Yes, I wanted a glass of water, but then I discovered they also have Pepsi." <-- Here it must have been the case that new information changed my mind. My aim, however, never changed. I simply decided that Pepsi would remove more uneasiness I had than water.
The praxeological may be limited, since we assume (or I would say admit) that there are no constants in human actions or desires, but at least praxeology has with it the logic of admitting this truth. Those who want to use the scientific method to conduct social science are at a loss, since they approach the situation assuming that knowledge about how everyone will act and react and what their desires are can be quantified, measured, and used to conduct social engineering. This is precisely what F.A. Hayek referred to as "The Pretense of Knowledge." The humble scientist who is willing to admit that since there are no constants pertaining to the subject under study, such a methodology will only lead to mistakes. It is quite clear who the real scientist is... the person who is willing to admit there are limitations to we know when constants are non-existent.
If you are not convinced here, then by all means, use the trial-and-error method when conducting social science. But, keep in mind that in order to be honest with yourself, you should not propose any engineering until you have absolutely all the information you need, lest you want to make grave errors. If you are an honest natural scientist in this respect, you will never propose any sort of engineering, as you will never have all the information you need (since it is not quantifiable, and since it is literally always changing).
Thank You.
Saturday, January 14, 2012
A Little Something To Consider About Jesus
At best I consider myself to be a Quaker. I believe there is goodness in each and every person, and following that goodness is a simple decision. But since the dominant religion in the United States is Christianity, and the story of Jesus, whether true or not true, holds an enormous value to me, here are my thoughts.
Statists tend to believe that "if only people were forced to do A, B, or C, we would live in a much better world than we do now." or perhaps even just "if only people did A, B, or C..." and then go on passively accepting legislation to make it happen. (ex: If only people paid a higher wage... well, I'm not for actively forcing people to pay a higher wage, but if the state should pass a law to make it happen, I will not interfere with it.)
What I don't understand is, why don't more people look to Jesus' example when it comes to force?
Disclaimer: Jesus' name has been introduced to justify just about any political idea one can think of, so what I am going to do here is present the audience with a few simple facts to make my case... and I think it's one that is hard to ignore.
Here is a list of some of the miracles performed by Jesus:
After all, if God is all powerful, why doesn't He just force us to do as he wishes? The answer is hopefully obvious at this point. That particular method of solving problems is wrong.
So, when it comes to advocating state intervention to solve problems, why don't more people follow Jesus' example and choose peaceful methods over the state?
I thought about writing this blog because I see a man who comes by my work every single day, telling people about how they need to find Jesus. This man had the nerve to tell me, when I suggested that Barack Obama likes to kill people (see the acknowledged innocents who are dying because of our drones) his response wasn't that "that's part of war" or some other cliche, but it was "if it spreads the gospel, it is justified."
In other words, he thinks that BLOWING PEOPLE UP IS JUSTIFIED IF IT SPREADS CHRISTIANITY!! Again, Jesus could have forced people to follow him without harming a soul and he chose not to... does anyone honestly believe He would have said "bomb people until they choose to follow me"? The problem is, I know this man is not the only "Christian" who thinks this way.
If Christianity is about saving souls, what is the point of blowing up people engaged in blasphemy? Blowing them up would not save their soul, it would damn them (and perhaps your own in the process). If Christians want to save souls, it is clear that they should use the power of persuasion/reason and not force, as religious beliefs cannot be forced on a man; and blowing up blasphemers destroys their chance for repentance. It simply makes no sense to use force to spread a religion of peace.
I just want to wrap this up by being clear: it is not my intention to make an enemy out of Christianity. I think there are very good things about the religion... the 10 commandments are great, the message of love that I take from it is invaluable. My intention is to question the strategy of using force to spread the gospel, and any other good for that matter, and question whether or not people who advocate using violence to spread the gospel ought to be considered Christians at all.
Statists tend to believe that "if only people were forced to do A, B, or C, we would live in a much better world than we do now." or perhaps even just "if only people did A, B, or C..." and then go on passively accepting legislation to make it happen. (ex: If only people paid a higher wage... well, I'm not for actively forcing people to pay a higher wage, but if the state should pass a law to make it happen, I will not interfere with it.)
What I don't understand is, why don't more people look to Jesus' example when it comes to force?
Disclaimer: Jesus' name has been introduced to justify just about any political idea one can think of, so what I am going to do here is present the audience with a few simple facts to make my case... and I think it's one that is hard to ignore.
Here is a list of some of the miracles performed by Jesus:
- Turning Water into Wine
- The miracle of draught of fishes
- The Feeding of the 5000 and of the 4000 men
- Walking on water
- Transfiguration of Jesus
- Calming the storm
- Finding a Coin in the fish's mouth
- The Cursing of the Fig Tree
- He knew he was going to be betrayed
- Raising of Lazarus
- His own Resurrection
After all, if God is all powerful, why doesn't He just force us to do as he wishes? The answer is hopefully obvious at this point. That particular method of solving problems is wrong.
So, when it comes to advocating state intervention to solve problems, why don't more people follow Jesus' example and choose peaceful methods over the state?
I thought about writing this blog because I see a man who comes by my work every single day, telling people about how they need to find Jesus. This man had the nerve to tell me, when I suggested that Barack Obama likes to kill people (see the acknowledged innocents who are dying because of our drones) his response wasn't that "that's part of war" or some other cliche, but it was "if it spreads the gospel, it is justified."
In other words, he thinks that BLOWING PEOPLE UP IS JUSTIFIED IF IT SPREADS CHRISTIANITY!! Again, Jesus could have forced people to follow him without harming a soul and he chose not to... does anyone honestly believe He would have said "bomb people until they choose to follow me"? The problem is, I know this man is not the only "Christian" who thinks this way.
If Christianity is about saving souls, what is the point of blowing up people engaged in blasphemy? Blowing them up would not save their soul, it would damn them (and perhaps your own in the process). If Christians want to save souls, it is clear that they should use the power of persuasion/reason and not force, as religious beliefs cannot be forced on a man; and blowing up blasphemers destroys their chance for repentance. It simply makes no sense to use force to spread a religion of peace.
I just want to wrap this up by being clear: it is not my intention to make an enemy out of Christianity. I think there are very good things about the religion... the 10 commandments are great, the message of love that I take from it is invaluable. My intention is to question the strategy of using force to spread the gospel, and any other good for that matter, and question whether or not people who advocate using violence to spread the gospel ought to be considered Christians at all.
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
How Everyone can see Their Candidate Elected
It's true! There is not a single election that has ever required winners and losers. Every politician who runs for office can win any given election, and be replaced at any time the public disapproves of the job they are doing. How is this so?
Like everything else in social relations, voluntary interaction is superior to force. Those who want to follow Barack Obama, and let him decide what they will do, should be free to do so. If you want to follow Mitt Romney, and let him make your decisions for you, by all means, do as he says... but you're not permitted to force others to do the same, as such a use of force would clearly be considered a crime in a free society. Only defensive force is legitimate in a free society. If you want to follow Ron Paul, you are probably a hypocrite... (just a little joke to my fellow libertarians, as most of us would rather not have any "leaders").
I believe, despite what many libertarians and anarchists say, there will never be a society totally without leaders. Anyone who engages in any kind of education at all has leaders, and learning is a never ending thing in human existence. In a voluntary society, those with the most followers are those whom society choose to follow. In a society governed by the state, the majority are forced to obey those who have the most support during the election process. That George W. Bush's approval rating went literally to single digits had no impact as to whether or not he was to continue in his role as "our" leader. In a voluntary society, nobody would be forced to continue obeying the commands of a leader whom they lost respect for.
If there is a group who wants to follow Barack Obama and his staff, and have a healthcare system based on his allegedly wise instruction, they should be free to. If there is another group who wants to follow the medical wisdom of someone like Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, or Ron Paul, they should be free to do so... Voluntary obedience allows everyone to get what they want. Who knows, it just might be that trying multiple ideas at once would be a great strategy for society to determine the most positive course of action.
After all, a population the size of the United States' is bound to come up with great numbers of supporters for multiple candidates for any national office, especially the presidency. But who really has the right to say "everyone must follow the Santorum plan of action"? Or any other plan of action for that matter. Nobody does. If I choose to follow X, it can be deduced that I like and support the ideas of X. The same can be said for every other individual in the world... being free to choose allows us all to get what we want. Your candidate, or maybe even you, will never lose an election again. Want to jump into the race? Start spreading a message and plan of action and see if you get voted in... Just imagine the endless ideas that society could benefit from if only we were free to choose for ourselves, rather than fighting with each other... (and by the way, when the aim is to get someone with the power to make everyone's decisions, the fighting will never stop... it is inevitible that 330,000,000 people will not have a consensus on who leads, and as you may have read in my earlier blog, forcing others always means literally attacking the lives of others).
I will leave the reader with something to ponder. If obedience is based on force, how good is the leader? What kind of virtues do leaders who have to get obedience by forcing imprisonment really have? If our election process were based on voluntary interactions, isn't it at least plausible that the leaders to choose from would have more virtue, more value to offer? In politics, there is no need to debate things such as "Obama's qualities versus Perry's qualities" or whatever combination... but only to say, I should be free to follow whom I choose, and you should be free to follow whom you choose, and nobody should have the right to force anyone to follow anybody they don't freely choose.
Like everything else in social relations, voluntary interaction is superior to force. Those who want to follow Barack Obama, and let him decide what they will do, should be free to do so. If you want to follow Mitt Romney, and let him make your decisions for you, by all means, do as he says... but you're not permitted to force others to do the same, as such a use of force would clearly be considered a crime in a free society. Only defensive force is legitimate in a free society. If you want to follow Ron Paul, you are probably a hypocrite... (just a little joke to my fellow libertarians, as most of us would rather not have any "leaders").
I believe, despite what many libertarians and anarchists say, there will never be a society totally without leaders. Anyone who engages in any kind of education at all has leaders, and learning is a never ending thing in human existence. In a voluntary society, those with the most followers are those whom society choose to follow. In a society governed by the state, the majority are forced to obey those who have the most support during the election process. That George W. Bush's approval rating went literally to single digits had no impact as to whether or not he was to continue in his role as "our" leader. In a voluntary society, nobody would be forced to continue obeying the commands of a leader whom they lost respect for.
If there is a group who wants to follow Barack Obama and his staff, and have a healthcare system based on his allegedly wise instruction, they should be free to. If there is another group who wants to follow the medical wisdom of someone like Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, or Ron Paul, they should be free to do so... Voluntary obedience allows everyone to get what they want. Who knows, it just might be that trying multiple ideas at once would be a great strategy for society to determine the most positive course of action.
After all, a population the size of the United States' is bound to come up with great numbers of supporters for multiple candidates for any national office, especially the presidency. But who really has the right to say "everyone must follow the Santorum plan of action"? Or any other plan of action for that matter. Nobody does. If I choose to follow X, it can be deduced that I like and support the ideas of X. The same can be said for every other individual in the world... being free to choose allows us all to get what we want. Your candidate, or maybe even you, will never lose an election again. Want to jump into the race? Start spreading a message and plan of action and see if you get voted in... Just imagine the endless ideas that society could benefit from if only we were free to choose for ourselves, rather than fighting with each other... (and by the way, when the aim is to get someone with the power to make everyone's decisions, the fighting will never stop... it is inevitible that 330,000,000 people will not have a consensus on who leads, and as you may have read in my earlier blog, forcing others always means literally attacking the lives of others).
I will leave the reader with something to ponder. If obedience is based on force, how good is the leader? What kind of virtues do leaders who have to get obedience by forcing imprisonment really have? If our election process were based on voluntary interactions, isn't it at least plausible that the leaders to choose from would have more virtue, more value to offer? In politics, there is no need to debate things such as "Obama's qualities versus Perry's qualities" or whatever combination... but only to say, I should be free to follow whom I choose, and you should be free to follow whom you choose, and nobody should have the right to force anyone to follow anybody they don't freely choose.
Friday, December 23, 2011
If you can speak, then you already know better than to support the state!
There are many things in life that we do without even thinking about it. It can be very easy to dismiss some of these things as trivial and meaningless... perhaps even as unable to teach us anything about life and our understanding of it. For example, most people do not consciously think about the fact that they can in fact think...
When it comes to speaking, most people don't consider what knowledge can be derived from the fact that we can make sounds with our mouths to communicate ideas. One reason for this is because we know these sounds to mean definite things or ideas that we assume others,who speak our same language, can identify with. If I say "book", you probably know I am talking about something that can be read. You also probably know that I do not mean a newspaper, magazine, or blog. You are able to distinguish the characteristics of "book" from the characteristics of everything else in the universe. If you could not at least make a generalization of objects, speaking would be useless. It does one no good to say "book" when the receiver of the message "book" doesn't know it from that of "star" or "worm", etc. What is truly amazing is this is even true when there is a language barrier.
My own trip to China was a prime example of this. Now, the Chinese for the most part had no idea what I meant by "bathroom", but they did know that I was looking for something specific, with definite characteristics. Often times when looking for something, or trying to obtain something, where the language barrier was present, playing charades and drawing pictures proved to be extremely helpful. It's true that there was occasion where miscommunications occured, but the point is, each person knew that the other was looking for something with specific characteristics, and even for a specific purpose.
When we think of the State, or "government", we often think about justice, and what it means. Almost universally, the government is expected to seek out those who harm others and get retribution, or protect the peaceful from the aggressions of others. These two deeds are noble enough. The rapist must pay for his crimes. The thief ought to return what he has stolen. But these are not the only characteristics of the State.
While the State may offer protective services, it survives completely by threatening people in society with imprisonment for refusing to fund them through taxation. They strive to fine those for driving too fast, having the wrong vegetation, and countless other crimes which are completely victimless. In fact, some stats report as high as 86% of the prison community being filled with those who have never harmed another. And since justice inherently involves protecting those who have never harmed another from those willing to harm, we must conclude that the State has characteristics that are more inclined towards injustice rather than justice. But why should we come to this finding when on occasion the State does do something to help the peaceful?
Because there are no contradictions in reality. A tree cannot be a tree and also be a pen. A pair of scissors cannot be a spoon at the same time it is a pair of scissors; there are no square circles. Hence, an organization that survives through coercive methods against peaceful people cannot be an entity of justice just because it provides protection once in a while (it is most likely the case that the protection it offers is more about beating the competition, as the State claims for itself a monopoly on coercion in society). But if speaking is all one needs to do, why is the State supported? I have 3 theories.
1) It is most likely the case that the state is supported, not because people actively want it, but because they value the hardship of going against it less than they value going on with life and just putting up with it.
2) Anxiety occurs whenever one proposes abolishing the state. If the state doesn't provide protection (which, as we have seen, the state is not even an entity of protection) then nobody will and chaos will occur. This is really just a knee jerk reaction. Anyone who understands subjective theory of value, voluntarism, and entrepreneurship knows that protection services can and would occur in a pure market society, and they would actually be protection services.
3) As stated in the beginning of this blog, most people don't think about these things. For sure, it takes more than simple thought to overcome our prejudice in favor of statism, but sitting down and giving the matter serious thought is a terrific starting place... perhaps the only starting place, and there are many who will never do it.
It is my sincere hope that with the United States in the economic condition that it's in, with all the wars spreading, loss of liberties (we now have a president who says he can assassinate American citizens if he is suspicious of them, the U.S. being defined as a battleground, and indefinite detainment without due process whatsoever) that more people will start to think about these matters.
If you can speak, you know enough to reject an institution claiming a monopoly on coercion as being an institution of justice.
When it comes to speaking, most people don't consider what knowledge can be derived from the fact that we can make sounds with our mouths to communicate ideas. One reason for this is because we know these sounds to mean definite things or ideas that we assume others,who speak our same language, can identify with. If I say "book", you probably know I am talking about something that can be read. You also probably know that I do not mean a newspaper, magazine, or blog. You are able to distinguish the characteristics of "book" from the characteristics of everything else in the universe. If you could not at least make a generalization of objects, speaking would be useless. It does one no good to say "book" when the receiver of the message "book" doesn't know it from that of "star" or "worm", etc. What is truly amazing is this is even true when there is a language barrier.
My own trip to China was a prime example of this. Now, the Chinese for the most part had no idea what I meant by "bathroom", but they did know that I was looking for something specific, with definite characteristics. Often times when looking for something, or trying to obtain something, where the language barrier was present, playing charades and drawing pictures proved to be extremely helpful. It's true that there was occasion where miscommunications occured, but the point is, each person knew that the other was looking for something with specific characteristics, and even for a specific purpose.
When we think of the State, or "government", we often think about justice, and what it means. Almost universally, the government is expected to seek out those who harm others and get retribution, or protect the peaceful from the aggressions of others. These two deeds are noble enough. The rapist must pay for his crimes. The thief ought to return what he has stolen. But these are not the only characteristics of the State.
While the State may offer protective services, it survives completely by threatening people in society with imprisonment for refusing to fund them through taxation. They strive to fine those for driving too fast, having the wrong vegetation, and countless other crimes which are completely victimless. In fact, some stats report as high as 86% of the prison community being filled with those who have never harmed another. And since justice inherently involves protecting those who have never harmed another from those willing to harm, we must conclude that the State has characteristics that are more inclined towards injustice rather than justice. But why should we come to this finding when on occasion the State does do something to help the peaceful?
Because there are no contradictions in reality. A tree cannot be a tree and also be a pen. A pair of scissors cannot be a spoon at the same time it is a pair of scissors; there are no square circles. Hence, an organization that survives through coercive methods against peaceful people cannot be an entity of justice just because it provides protection once in a while (it is most likely the case that the protection it offers is more about beating the competition, as the State claims for itself a monopoly on coercion in society). But if speaking is all one needs to do, why is the State supported? I have 3 theories.
1) It is most likely the case that the state is supported, not because people actively want it, but because they value the hardship of going against it less than they value going on with life and just putting up with it.
2) Anxiety occurs whenever one proposes abolishing the state. If the state doesn't provide protection (which, as we have seen, the state is not even an entity of protection) then nobody will and chaos will occur. This is really just a knee jerk reaction. Anyone who understands subjective theory of value, voluntarism, and entrepreneurship knows that protection services can and would occur in a pure market society, and they would actually be protection services.
3) As stated in the beginning of this blog, most people don't think about these things. For sure, it takes more than simple thought to overcome our prejudice in favor of statism, but sitting down and giving the matter serious thought is a terrific starting place... perhaps the only starting place, and there are many who will never do it.
It is my sincere hope that with the United States in the economic condition that it's in, with all the wars spreading, loss of liberties (we now have a president who says he can assassinate American citizens if he is suspicious of them, the U.S. being defined as a battleground, and indefinite detainment without due process whatsoever) that more people will start to think about these matters.
If you can speak, you know enough to reject an institution claiming a monopoly on coercion as being an institution of justice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)