E-mail:
Password:
Oct 29, 2008 at 06:25pm
You heard me. Socialists, not laissez-faire capitalists, are the cynics. Socialists are the ones that think the absolute worst of humanity.
Why? First lets start with what exactly "socialism" is. It is an economic system with which the means of production are owned and controlled collectively- by a Government. The goal of socialism is to obtain equal distribution of wealth. This implies the abolition of a class hierarchy, and the abolition of the individual.
When I say that most Americans are in fact "socialists", I do not mean that they are conspiring to overthrow class hierarchy, and actively seek to abolish the concept of self. When I say that most Americans, including contemporary Republicans, are socialists, I mean to say that they wholeheartedly support the equal redistribution of wealth. Abolishing class hierarchy and the individual is simply a logical progression from this.
Socialism does not mean violence. It does not mean dictatorship. It quite simply is adequately explained by "equal distribution of wealth." Marxism, Communism, Nazism, and Fascism are all socialists movements- but to be a socialist does not imply you are a marxist, communist, nazi, or fascist.
The easiest way to prove that most Americans are in fact socialists is to cite one example that is unequivocally socialist: welfare. Most Americans today would be hard-pressed to say that they would want to completely ban welfare, and thus, this is why they are socialist. Welfare, in its most reduced definition, is when the Government uses taxpayer money to give to people with little money. This is redistribution of wealth- or in other words, forced charity. You, as an American citizen, have no choice but to give money to the impoverished.
Perhaps you think this is a good thing- and that would make you a socialist.
At first, this sounds a bit cold. But lets think about it in another way that brings the issue closer to home. Lets imagine that I break into your home with a loaded pistol. I point it to your head and demand $1000. I tell you that I will use this $1000 to feed hungry children, but if you do not give me the $1000, you will cease to exist.
Think this is over the top? It isn't. Your taxes go to the Government, and the Government pays people who are on welfare. If you do not pay your taxes, you are thrown in jail. In other words: you cease to exist. You have no choice.
Maybe you are thinking it should be mandatory to help your fellow human. If you are, then I would say that this is what makes you a cynic: you could not have any lower opinion of humanity than this. Believing that people can only be helped through the forced charity of others, that is, people must be forced to help others at gunpoint, is the single worst thing that could be said about humanity. Why? Because as a consequence of this belief, it would also be true that if people weren't forced to help others, than people who need help would not get it.
Oddly enough, the people who believe that people will help others on their own free will are the ones cast as "selfish," while people who believe that we must be forced to help others are the ones who are deemed "compassionate."
Capitalism, it seems, has received a bad reputation over the years. It's individualist nature has led people to brand it as "selfish"- but yet, the whole point of Capitalism is that through individualism, society as a whole, and people in general, will benefit the most than under any other economic system. Don't forget one of the core teachings of capitalism: businesses exist to provide the consumer with what they want.
There is nothing more degrading than believing we must be forced to help others. There no worse opinion of humankind than the one that socialism implies.
Comments (9) | Post Comment
Oct 27, 2008 at 12:36am
(This is in reference to the Ballot Initiatives for the State of Massachusetts.)
How can you want to take power away from the Government, then give it right back to them by consenting to laws that infringe on personal liberties?
How can you want to take power away from the Government, then give it right back to them by consenting to laws that protect animals? The Constitution says nothing about making laws to protect animals.
If we are against using and torturing dogs for entertainment, must we also be against hunting for sport?
Lets start with our premise: Voting Yes on Question 1. (If you're voting No, then you are not a conservative, and support redistribution of wealth and big government spending.)
So there are a few reasons why you might be voting Yes on Question 1:
1) You are against all income tax on principle (or all direct or all forced taxes).
2) You believe that private companies can operate more cheaply and more efficiently than government.
3) You believe that government spending should not be so high.
These are wholly conservative views, as they represent the Constitutional principles of Government: that it be small and "out of the way". Quite simply, that Government exists to protect the people from dangers foreign and domestic- not to "take care" of the people.
Following this line of logic, conservatism favors the status quo- that is, little change. In other words, breaking it down to its very core, conservatives should be interpreting the Constitution as a dead document- one that does not change, and a document that means exactly what it says it means at the time of writing.
Continuing this line of logic, it is easy to see what the Constitution is: a document, agreed to by the people, that creates, establishes, and restricts government. Contrary to what most people think, the Constitution doesn't grant us any rights. No, not at all. The Constitution assumes we have rights, because we are human. It then goes on to say how the Government cannot interfere with those assumed rights. The Constitution never grants authority for Government to regulate what I may or may not put in my body on my own free will. Thus any laws that try to establish such a law are unconstitutional. Being a conservative means sticking with the status quo, and for the history of the United States, all the way up till the 1930s, drugs were perfectly legal. Marijuana (or hemp) was even a major cash crop, and was once used as a form of currency!
A similar line of reasoning exists for Question 3. Where does the Constitution grant Government authority to regulate how its citizens treat animals? Nevertheless, if you feel your sense of higher morality kicking in overdrive for animals, then you must relinquish the next point: hunting for sport. You cannot possibly vote Yes on Question 3 while still supporting hunting for sport. Both torture and kill animals for entertainment. If you dissent from hunting for sport, then I would say you are not a conservative: hunting has been a human tradition throughout all of our history. It's one of the more status quo things that makes up being a conservative.
Being a "conservative" these days (ie: the self-proclaimed Fox News Republicans) amounts to being a neo-conservative. Similarly, being a "liberal" these days amounts to being a "socialist". I always like to compare the two this way: liberals and conservatives today both like Big Government- the only difference is that one has twisted social policies.
Lets try an applied example, shall we? A true conservative wants to make immigration laws more relaxed. Yet, all we see from today's conservatives is something about beefing up border security and deportation. We must look at why we have an illegal immigration problem: that is, what specifically attracts people by the droves to cross our borders illegally? Not only are we offering them jobs (illegally), but we have something far better: you don't have to work, and you'll be paid! This means that the elimination of the welfare state is required to curb our illegal immigration problem.
After that, more immigrants will be welcome as they will need to work. More workers means more labor, which increases production and thus helps make our economy grow.
The problem never was illegal immigration. It never will be. It will always be the welfare state and the incentives we provide. Stomping around and complaining about illegal immigrants sucking the system dry and how we should deport them is completely futile and naive. It doesn't address the problem at all. These people are not conservatives.
Not to mention the litany of other anti-conservative things: a privately controlled monetary system (aka The Federal Reserve- the Constitution never granted Congress the authority to delegate currency management to a collection of private banks); medicare (more redistribution of wealth); unapportioned taxes (which is the current state of the Federal Income Tax); social security (why should I be forced by the government to delegate X amount of dollars to my retirement? where is my liberty to design my own retirement fund?); compulsory education (where is my right to educate myself? or where is my right to educate my children in my own way?).
Being a conservative isn't limited to thumping on about overturning Roe v. Wade, lowering taxes, and retaining the right to bear arms. There's a lot more to it than that, and what's even better, we have a document written a while ago that tells us exactly how to be a conservative!
I'll say it once more: Democrats and Republicans only differ on social policy now. Both are for big government, and neither are for the free market.
Comments (1) | Post Comment
Aug 25, 2008 at 11:07pm
As the Atheist Blogger says, "When I die, I won't know that I'd been correct all these years."
Hehehe :D
Aug 23, 2008 at 12:44pm
This is a really great introduction on the concept of Peak Oil- the model that says oil production must eventually decline. I highly recommend watching it!
Chris Martenson on Peak Oil
Aug 21, 2008 at 10:51pm
According to Pat Carnahan, nobody should make the mistake of voting for a president that doesn't have any faith. Apparently, if our next president doesn't have "Christian values" we are doomed. So what exactly are Christian values?
I think that a lot of atheists would take this opportunity to brand "Christian values" as that which is found in the Bible. Once the Bible is defined as a source for values, nearly anyone can present an argument that it isn't even close to a good guide on morals. There are a lot of nice tidbits in the Bible, for sure, like "thou shalt not steal"- but there are conversely a remarkable number of horrific tidbits as well:
If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself. And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free: Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.
Leviticus 21:2-6
Or:
If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.
Deuteronomy 22:28-29
One could go on and on and list dozens of horrific passages from the Bible, but that is not the purpose of my entry here. What I want to show, is that arguably, any book that can be proclaimed as a book with great moral teaching should definitely not have anything close to the aforementioned passages. I think that much is clear.
I could stop here and say that the Bible reflects what "Christian values" are- but I don't think it does. Realistically, when you think of Christian values, you aren't going to think of raping women, forced labor, pillaging towns, and stoning people for working on the Sabbath. Although those things are part of the Bible, and thusly, part of the Christian religion (and perhaps on another day I'll argue that those who aren't engaging in such things aren't really Christians at all), I don't think they are part of what most people consider are "Christian values". Actually, I don't think Christian values come from the Bible at all.
Even as an atheist, when I think of Christian values, I imagine a high moral code and a high standard of ethics. Someone who is caring, kind, thoughtful, and follows the golden rule- do unto others as they would have done unto you. Surely, Christian values are to be desired.
However, I think Christianity has unabashedly taken credit for these so-called "Christian values". Rape is allowed in the traditional Christian religion- how could a good moral code come from such allowances? I don't think it can. The Ten Commandments aren't enough- four of them talk about which gods you can and can't worship and how you should worship the one true god. And one tells you not to be jealous- something that no human can avoid. The other five seem like a nice code to live by: honor your parents, do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, and don't lie. Something's missing... Actually, a lot is missing.
Wouldn't you expect a world class code of ethics to say something about respecting the wishes of a woman? (Read: don't rape people.) Or perhaps it might say something about being kind to others, or to invest time in the pursuit of knowledge and to better your person so that you may help others. Or... Well you get the picture.
Are The Ten Commandments awful? No, not really. We can just do a lot better. And I do mean, a lot better.
So the next question is... If part of what makes up "Christian values" involves things like not raping people, and that isn't a clear message in the Bible, where did that value come from if not from The Ten Commandments? This question is not easy to answer, but first, the misconception that The Ten Commandments is where we get all our morals from must be broken.
In comes the Code of Hammurabi; he was an ancient Babylonian King. The set of laws it describes is extensive, and there is nothing in The Ten Commandments that cannot be found in the Code of Hammurabi. This early set of Babylonian laws is just one example of several different moral/law codes that existed before the Bible was ever conceived.
To answer the question: "Where do we get our morals?" I ask you to imagine a world where we didn't live by the set of values you envision when you think of "Christian values". What would it be like if everyone thought it okay to rape other people? Or kill people? Or steal other's property? Could the human race exist? I say absolutely not. Our moral code exists today in the fashion it does because we otherwise could not co-exist: our morals have simply been passed through the natural selection filter. People who are genetically more like to rape and kill others are (or were) at a severe selective disadvantage- whereas the people who are more likely to get along with the rest of the species, are going to have a selective advantage over those that don't.
Can it really be that simple? Maybe my answer isn't the answer- in fact, it probably isn't the entire picture. But I do know one thing; we do not get our morals from Christianity; we simply have far more sophisticated morals than that which is brutally described in the Bible. Even if one could somehow show that we did get our morals from the Bible, then we must regress back to earlier codes of law that are vastly similar- very little of Christianity is original.
I then ask- if our morals are formed separate from a 2,000 year old piece of allegorical literature, is it not possible for an atheist to have so-called "Christian values"? In fact, I would far rather our elected representatives have no faith at all; as it is an extremely strong indicator of sufficient critical thinking skills. Now that is a desirable trait in a leader. To say that someone who has no faith also does not have "Christian values" is a blatant lie, and a dangerous exercise in mendacity. It carries with it the supposition that all good morals come from Christianity, and as I have shown, that is a fallacy.
And of course, for the proverbial nail in the cofin:
The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.
That's from the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli, signed into law by John Adams and approved unanimously by Congress.
Comments (8) | Post Comment
Older »
