When I took up my summer job at the Oklahoma State Department of Health I took an oath to the constitution. Anyone who works for a federal agency does. As we sat there, repeating after the lady from personnel, I couldn’t help but snort audibly and let the beginnings of an ironic chuckle leave my lips. Everyone staring at me, I realized how futile it would be to explain that by working for the department, most of us would be violating our oath every minute we were on the clock.
It occurred to me that if everyone realized the hollow nature of that oath, knew the constitution enough to understand the contradictory nature of their position, the world might be a better place. And it occurred to me that if one day everyone bound by that oath were to live up to it, America might be returned to her former glory.
It’s really starting to bother me when I hear about people ‘being victimized’ just because they ended up on the wrong side of a deal they freely went into. If you make a poor choice, and someone profits off of that, you weren’t victimized…you were stupid. Payday loan services? They don’t ‘take advantage’ of you. Being victimized is when they coerce you . You might be in a situation where you need the money fast, and so you partake of their services. But you didn’t go there because of them, you went because you decided your circumstances warranted it.
Life is a series of games, sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. Winners aren’t criminals, and losers aren’t victims. They are free individuals engaging in socioeconomic interaction. The winners might be douchebags, and it might not be the loser’s fault that he had to go that route. But neither one of those have anything to do with whether or not a crime was committed.
This idea–that somehow making bad decisions means you’ve been taken advantage of–is a dangerous one. In a world like that can you imagine how we’d have to tip toe through life? Afraid that at any time we might be declared felons for daring to commit the dastardly deed of coming out ahead of the game?
You’ve probably noticed that I’m involving more and more general behavioral ecological theory in my discussion of political topics. I started moving that direction with Evolution, Economics, and Political Philosophy but really ramped it up during the whole minarchy-anarchy debate. Well as the title makes apparent, I’ve finally figured out what to call this kind of thinking. Considering I started thinking (but not blogging) about this kind of thing way back in 2003, it’s pretty sad that it took me this long to figure out what to call political philosophy from a behavioral ecologist’s perspective.
To leave you with something a bit more substantive, I threw up a little in my mouth when I read this:
After compiling the evidence of liberal catechism, Coulter finally turns her bazooka on the foundation of liberalism itself: Darwinism.
OK, seriously, why don’t you just throw down your pen and start waving a white flag? If you’re going to concede that nonsensical idea to them, you might as well start declaring that socialism is a good idea in theory and that the UN is a noble organization.
This isn’t hard, people. It really isn’t. Leftism is about the collective, about the group, about the state, about the people as a different entity from all the persons who comprise it. Evolution is about the individual, about self-interest, about competition, about survival of the fittest.
Even if you don’t agree with evolution, at least use it as a tool to expose their hypocrisy.
Was talking to intellectimpure last night, and it occurred to me that the problem wasn’t finding a decent woman…
The problem was finding a decent woman who isn’t that way for simple reasons.
What I mean by that is that I’m looking for a girl who (among other things) has developed a strong moral and personal code based on something more than “[insert religious or authority figure here] said I shouldn’t.” It’s just fine to be inspired by religious and other authority figures; My code of behavior is built upon a core of eastern values. But it shouldn’t end there.I’m not a big fan of doing things ‘just because’. I believe that the only way to remain true to ourselves is if we understand the why of what we do.
It’s easy enough to find a pretty and intelligent girl. Relatively easy to find one of those with a strong sense of morality. But one who’s really thought it out? That’s a lot harder.
This one ain’t mine, but damn is it good:
Socialized medicine…all the speed and efficiency of the government with all the compassion of the IRS
Sounds a lot like Canada and the UK, come to think of it…
The thing about socialized medicine is that it ultimately becomes a rationing system with the federal government holding the purse strings. The worst, and most destructive part, is that it rations on both the supply and demand ends. Government wouldn’t have to compete–as employer of workers and doctors, consumer of pharmaceuticals, and provider of both–since it’d be the only source either way. The only thing it would be concerned with is the bottom line; it’d spend as little as it could all around with little regard for quality or efficiency (those being primary products of competition). People, both healthcare workers and patients, would thus lack incentive for prudential use of resources and maintaining a high quality of care. It basically turns healthcare into a commons. And like all such situations, the end result is erosion and destruction. Fewer new drugs, lower quality doctors, and worse availability of both.
I wrote earlier about the doctor-income problem here.
Who is actually responsible for your protection from violent crime? Not the police. The Supreme Court has ruled several times that law enforcement agencies’ duties lie in defense of the public which paradoxically isn’t the same thing as the individual. In other words, they are responsible for statistics. For making sure that the incidence of violent crime remains low. In other words, if you are raped, mugged, or killed, the police have no responsibility toward your protection so long as the number of people in your situation remain low.
So it’s not the government. Then it must be you. Yet here again, federal, state, and local law restrict your abilities to defend yourself. The recent proliferation of the so-called ‘make my day’, ‘castle’, and ‘no duty to retreat’ laws are proof that in most jurisdictions you were only allowed to defend yourself from violent threats under certain circumstances. And the laws on self-defense go on to delimit the ways in which you can defend yourself. From what kind of implements you can use, to the amount of force you can bring to bear, to the amount of training necessary to do so. In several countries, the very act of self defense is prosecuted as if it were on par with the assault or attempted assault itself.
The vigorous opposition to recent self-defense laws is strange indeed when looked at in this light. The government doesn’t have to protect you, and you aren’t allowed to protect yourself. If so, are we to treat violent crime as if it were a stochastic effect? Like lightning striking or a bear attack? And what does it say about the largely leftist people who hold such positions? How committed can they be to the individual (as they claim) if they would leave him at the mercy of the wolves?
Today’s thought isn’t mine. It’s Terry Pratchett’s. For those of you who don’t read the Discworld series, start. It’s set in a fantasy world, just because it makes the absurd easier to write about. (Kinda like the social commentary in Futurama. The setting made it funny while still poignant. Same deal here) Anyway, Ankh-Morpork, the city where a lot of his stories are set, could best be described as an almost anarchic benevolent dictatorship. The dictator, or Patrician, is a man named Lord Vetinari. Known for what he doesn’t do, which is cause harm. Without further ado:
‘I’m sure we can all pull together, sir.’
Lord Vetinari raised his eyebrows. ‘Oh I do hope not, I really do hope not. Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny. Free men pull in all kinds of directions.’ He smiled. ‘It’s the only way to make progress…’
Any commentary would be superfluous. And now it’s time to turn a 20,000 word master’s thesis into a 4,000 word paper. Only to be rejected because I don’t have a PhD. Fun times will be had by all.
Whenever I assert that socialist systems are doomed to failure and will inevitably oppress all that live under it, a leftie (and occasionally an ideologically-weak rightie) will counter with “Well, Scandinavia seems to be doing pretty well with it.” Leave out for a second the fact that Norway is a resource-rich nation (an open system with an external energy source to use a thermodynamics/entropy analogy). And that the Scandinavian Model isn’t all it’s cracked up to be (see here and here. We must turn back to the the latter half of my assertion: that socialist systems are ultimately tools of oppression.
Those that argue in favor of a Scandinavian model seem to imply that if you’re comfortable you must be free. My golden retriever was 15.5 before she was diagnosed with her first major health problem. Have you ever heard of a golden retriever live to be that old? The dog is still having the time of her life. She even has her own vegetable patch, for crying out loud. This is a comfortable, long-lived animal who hasn’t walked more than a quarter mile from our house in the past year. But do you think a night goes by that she doesn’t dream of being a wolf? Running across the Minessota plain in deep winter, tracking moose and elk. Revelling in the big sky and the virgin forest. I don’t.
And that is what this is fundamentally about. A cage can be as comfortable as you like. Freedom a terrible spectre to behold. But the fact remains that there are those of us who would nevertheless trade comfort for freedom no matter the cost.
As Patrick Henry memorably said:
Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!
Probably the most fascinating thing that monkeys have taught me is the evolutionary and historical origin of ‘magic’. They’re pretty smart cookies, and they have a sense of what’s called object permanence. This means that if you drop something like a fruit or berry down a raingutter, they’ll expect it to come out down below. They know there was food up top, they know it fell, so it should come out right below. Nevertheless, you can trick them, because their sense isn’t necessarily perfect, just like a baby playing peekaboo. The look on a monkey’s face when your baseball cap suddenly ‘appears out of nowhere’ is an amazing thing. A veritable caricature of a surprised human. And in that look you know the monkey’s thinking “That wasn’t what I expected. Must be magic.” Of course, you know that the monkey simply didn’t understand what was going on…
In the most fluffy class of my entire academic career (intro to cultural anth), I learned about the relationship between religion, magic, and science. The interesting thing about ‘magic’ is that no matter what the society or who the person is, ‘magic’ starts where ’science’ ends. We all have our ‘magic’ point. More often than not, it’s limited by our education. The point is that just because we don’t understand it doesn’t mean it’s not understandable. Religion, which can influence the thoughts we’re allowed to have, may prevent us from even trying to comprehend that which at first we don’t. So when I hear that apparently some biochemist can’t figure out how something could have evolved through natural selection and we therefore must’ve been designed, I have to wonder if he isn’t a bit like one of those monkeys full of round-eyed open-mouthed wonder, the theoretical problem much like my baseball cap.
You know what pisses me off? When the theocrats pretend that our founding fathers created a Christian government. They do make use of a vague and indeterminate ‘God’ at times in their writings, but it’s a virtual fact that Thomas Jefferson et al. were Deists not necessarily Christians. Believing that god created the world, man, and a natural law, but none of the other stuff. Furthermore, one only has to glance at the Constitution to understand that it was a very carefully crafted document. Every word, every phrase carefully vetted. So the fact that no specific references to Christianity occur in it, and the fact that the establishment clause of the 1st amendment uses the word ‘religion’ in a general sense, can only said to have been deliberate. Especially considering the founding fathers by and large weren’t Christian themselves.
“Oh ho ho, but freedom of religion doesn’t imply freedom from religion.” Actually, it kinda does. Religious freedom was one of the primary motivators of the colonization of North America. And part of that freedom is the freedom to choose which religion one will belong to. The choice not to belong to any religion is part of that freedom. Besides, as Pharyngula et al. prove every day, Atheism really is just another religion.
Besides, how would that actually work? “We’re one nation under a Christian God which nevertheless doesn’t discriminate against those of a different religion?” By the very fact that you call yourselves a Christian nation you have labeled me an outsider. “But what if we went just went by a generic God.” I’m an agnostic Hindu. A religious tradition that is almost as old as Judaism if not older. Still making me an outsider.
The idea that we can have freedom of without freedom from religion is a bigoted one; it’s an idea that everyone is happy to live under a Christian state so long as they’re allowed to go be idolaters and heathens in their own home. It’s the idea that only religions which follow the god of Abraham and Jesus are really religions, and what I practice is in fact loin-cloth-wearing hooting unsophisticated savagery.
October 11 shall henceforth be known as Sons Day. I’m thinking March 13 sounds good for Daughters’ Day. That provides peaks in two different fiscal quarters. What’s that you say? Parents show their appreciation for their children every day? Huh, well, if we were good kids, we’d be doing the same, right? Personally I think a single day to appreciate my mother, grandmother, and aunt is a bit patronizing. They’ve been instrumental in my life and not a day goes by that I don’t realize that. And they don’t do it out of a desire for compliments or gratitude but because they love me. Nothing more. Nothing less. I’m not the most perfect son in the world, but I do try to help out when I’m not being lazy, call when I remember, and in general, make it known that my successes are really their successes, and my failures are my own. So tommorrow I’m going to do what I always do. I’m goign to wrap my grandma up in a great big rib-breaking hug, and I’m going to tell her I love her, and I’m going to tell her that she was, is, and will always be the anchor of our family. My mom’s a foot shorter than me, and I’ve got a bad back, so I don’t hug her. But I’ll tell her I love her just like I always do. Since Auntie’s not in the area, I’ll make a special exception to call her, but that’s it. Just a call.
Anything else would diminish the women in my life and the gifts they’ve given me.
In about a week I’ll be taking my concealed carry class and applying for my permit. A lot of people like to ask why I A. need a gun. And B. why I need to carry. In response to question A, the answer is simple, because it upsets the kind of person that would ask such a stupid thing. Also, do you really want to start legislating us down to only having things we need? Goodbye black plastic frame ‘wannabe-Rivers-Cuomo-who-wants-to-be-Buddy-Holly’ glasses and ‘vintage’ t-shirts you poseur twit. In response to question B, something much simpler. How much did you spend on insurance last year? Car, home, health, life, etc? Probably several thousand dollars. My concealed carry permit, class, and gun together cost 300 dollars. Over the 60 years give or take I have remaining on this earth, we’re talking about a 5 dollar a year ‘premium’. When was the last time you got in a wreck, actually had more in health bills than insurance costs, or ever had anything happen to your house? So why do you need any of those things? This is just another form of the stuff. One that’s not only cheaper, but could very well prevent you needing to actually use that precious health or property insurance.
Karl Marx had a different definition of ‘capitalist’ than the one used in common speech. I’m not sure if leftists are aware of this. Which is kind of sad considering they venerate the man. But what Marx meant was a political system in which the rich have the power. Not free markets (although he hated those too). Plutocracy. Looking over the ranks of our Federal representatives, from Kerry to Kennedy to Boxer to Feinstein to the Clintons, I see a whole lot of people not only richer than probably everyone who reads this, but richer than any of us could ever hope or want to be. Yet these pieces of filth in human clothing are championed by leftists almost without thought. This makes them not only hypocrites, but active participants and tacit supporters of the political concept most hated by their ideological father.
News of American incompetence when it comes to geography is all over the place. I’ve seen it mentioned on TV, in the newsrags, and all sorts of blogs. The funny thing is, a lot of these sources are the same ones that oppose merit pay for teachers and standardized achievement assessments.
So, quality of education is poor, we all agree. Kids currently get over 7,000 dollars in government money a piece SOLELY for education. And in some areas that’s as high as 12,000. That’s private school territory. Money ain’t the issue.
Kids aren’t achieving; they’re graduating 12th grade with 8th and 9th grade levels of competency, if that. But standardized tests aren’t the answer either because they ‘negatively impact certain areas and students.’
And merit pay for teachers isn’t a good idea either. Because. Well, I haven’t heard a good ‘because’ yet.
I already know what happens when you bring up vouchers; you get vilified. Dunno about that, they seem like a good deal to me. Ensure that douchebag parents don’t completely neglect their kids’ education, while allowing competition to produce better schools.
No proper benchmarks, no incentive for teachers to work harder, no competition to improve efficiency of the monstrous amount of money already being spent. Yeah, I can see why the guys who agree with that situation should have the gall to whine about geography aptitude.
I tend to see a whole lot of hot nursing students. But not a whole lot of hot nurses. Do they get hit with the ugly stick when they’re handed their diplomas?
I’ve been noticing that cops keep referring to the public at large as ‘civilians’. Last time I checked they aren’t governed by the UCMJ. Which would make them civilians, just like us. Now police work can be a noble profession, but officers are not superior to us and should be no more privileged. But the way they use the word is the way I use the world ‘livestock’. And it occurs to me that out of such attitudes are jack booted thuggery and tyrannical governments made.
Creationists and leftists argue the same way. Which is funny because leftists love to poopoo creationist logic. Straw men are favorite among both groups; take the real position, strip it down to an oversimplification or misstatement, refute it, and then claim they’ve refuted the whole deal. Both groups love to be intentionally obtuse and both love the phrase ‘Well I just don’t see it that way.’ One says that about fossils, the other says that about, you know, basic economics and history. I’m rapidly losing patience for both.
