Was John Brown crazy?
First, there are claims that John Brown was told by god to save the slaves. He made no such claim. He organized a raid on Harper's Ferry, despite knowing full well that it would fail. He claimed that he did it because the slaves were no different than himself. He was brought to trial and subsequently hung. He refused to be rescued from prison - his trial brought abolitionist discussions forward. Since he was willing to die for the cause of the slave, talking about freeing slaves became much less dramatic. As far as I can tell, John Brown is a hero.
Was Abraham Lincoln racist?
Abraham Lincoln's motives are unclear. Many claim that he was racist - two quotes come to mind. One quote - "..if I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slave, I would do it."- was published in the New York Tribune. It was intended for the audience that was most pro-slavery in the North. The other quote, "There is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races from living together on terms of social and political equality." is a harder to justify. I believe Lincoln was just pandering to the audience. On a separate occasion, he stated, "This old Declaration of Independence... declares that all men are equal upon principle.... If one man says it does not mean a Negro, why does not another say it does not mean some other man?" which gives the opposite point of view. Lincoln supported a proposed Amendment in 1861 that the federal government had no authority to abolish slavery. It appears that he wanted blacks to be free, but he did not think it was possible that they could coexist with our society, and so he was an ardent supporter of deportation, never voting for any further freedom of blacks (other than the Emancipation Proclamation).
Right to secession?
The Confederate President argued that the right to secession came from the 10th Amendment. When Virginia, New York, and Rhode Island joined the Union they did so on the premise that they had the right to withdraw - if those states have that right, then other states have the same rights. The New England states threatened to secede numerous times in the early 1800s. Even Abraham Lincoln said, "Any people anywhere.. have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much territory as they inhabit." And John Adams said, "...Far better will it be for the people of the disunited states to part in friendship from each other, than to be held together by constraint."
Who was the aggressor?
This is clear. South Carolina had adaquate belief that it could secede. Even Abraham Lincoln had said, a decade earlier, "Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a a new one that suits them better." And so they seceded. The North continued to send supplies to the Fort Sumter - a Fort in the midst of a new country. The North refused to leave South Carolina alone. And so the South Carolinian's attacked Fort Sumter - it was their land after all. Because the North showed aggression, other states quickly left the Union.
What about Native Americans?
Native Americans had actually applied for statehood in places like Ohio before the Civil War. The United States had refused them statehood, despite them having fulfilled all the legal requirements. The Confederates had promised them statehood, so many natives fought for the Confederates.
Why was the war lost?
The war started and ended for many different reasons. It had started really over nationalist intentions - keeping the Union together. Soldiers on both sides wrote home that they were fighting for freedom. However as the war progressed, it was clear that the South's motives were paradoxical and unclear.
Why should a black continue to fight for the south as they had at the beginning of the war? If the slaves had made such good fighters, then weren't they equal to those that they fought with? If slavery is never to be abolished, yet those who fight are promised their freedom, what will happen? Southern whites and blacks could not continue fighting side by side, without being befuddled. Most Southerners did not own any slaves.
But slavery was just one question. The Confederate President wanted more political power than the North, and disallowed the states in his country rights. The states had just seceded from the North due because they wanted more individual rights, yet their new country would be even more restrictive. Some states had even considered seceding from their new country.
As Sherman marched through the South, many southerner's continued to join his army because they began to believe in the North's cause more than the South's. Eventually, he had to start turning people away.
The war could have turned out much differently, since these would be only a few causes.
Was the war over slavery?
The war was because of slavery, but it was not fought to free the slaves - an important distinction. If slavery had never existed, there would never have been a war. The war was fought over political power, plain and simple.
If two countries were established and slavery was abolished in the North, it would be a haven for runaway slaves - most importantly with no obligation to return them - and slavery would eventually collapse. Eventually slavery would have collapsed without the war or secession, like it had in every other country, probably with less blood and ill feelings.
Wednesday, June 10
Friday, May 29
Classic Arguments of Economics
(You'll have to excuse me as some parts of this are terribly long-winded and convoluted.)
Deflation versus Inflation
Many people will decry deflation as a bad thing. Explaining what will happen to the economy when the dollar deflates is relatively simple.
Deflation means that the dollar will be worth more. It is caused typically after a period of overinflation then collapse of credit. The reason deflation is decried is because credit has collapsed, because the system can't support the credit level that it reached. So the credit that was in the economy causing an increase in the money supply disappears, causing a decrease in the overall money supply, causing deflation.
The thing about deflation is that it will end some time. People will start hoarding money because they know that prices will drop, but people will also be antsy to invest before prices go up again and will still invest quite readily. There is only so much the dollar can deflate. The people who have saved or invested wisely will become the winners and will benefit from deflation. Those who have invested poorly or have survived only on credit will perish economically. This includes poorly managed big businesses and poorer people who have relied on credit. Deflation cleans out the economy and establishes those who have managed their money better. Granted it's painful - the lost businesses may never recover and the poorer people may be without jobs until the economy recovers - but it will recover and be restructured to be more profitable.
Now, onto inflation. Since credit was the cause of the boom period - and ultimately the cause of the bust period - one would argue that these big businesses and jobs should be saved with more credit. But that's where things actually get hairy, complicated, and almost impossible to keep track of what's going on.
First, how would this credit be given? A bank that's about to fall doesn't want to lend out to the same people that caused it to almost fall, so the government must intervene and give the bank either credit or money. Perhaps the bank will then lend out, but if it does, it's unlikely to make the same mistake so it will choose a probably unintended target to lend to or it will horde its cash.
Suppose it does get the money out to the people that were intended to have it - this would cause an inflation of prices. Now prices are a funny thing. I would suspect that when deflation happens, it takes time for prices to go down because it takes time for the manufacturers to benefit from falling prices. However when inflation happens, prices would jump more rapidly since the manufacturer would plan on recouping future costs and they lost much less from raising prices then they do from lowering them. (In that respect, deflation is a much more stable system.)
Now imagine a market that normally would want to deflate. The general prices of goods and services are going down, everyone with new lower salaries with respect to each other. (Perhaps another reason why people don't like deflation: a lower salary in a deflated market would be worth more but look terrible. It doesn't make sense to people that overall wealth could be greater with lower numbers on a payroll.) Money is pumped into the economy so that the dollar should inflate. But when money is pumped into the economy it is generally lopsided - certain groups, banks, or government authorities will benefit more from the pumped money than others. The money will mostly have to come through upper class channels (other than a few tax breaks for the lower class). Some banks and manufacturers will now have an edge on other banks and manufacturers so they will thrive. Those who have received the money will still be doing business and deflated prices despite having inflated credit, because the credit hasn't worked its way through the system yet, and so those companies may be willing to have risky behavior - the same type of behavior that caused the credit bubble in the first place. For those reasons, the companies that may have had good practices may be put out of business because they can't keep up with those who have received credit (causing more deflation). And those who had received money and continued risky behavior will benefit, although not for long, because eventually their policies will catch up to them, and they will fail.
It's a very bleak scenario. The point of that long, convoluted tirade is that more credit won't necessarily increase jobs. Inflation during a deflationary period is essentially a way to either ensure that bad business continues and will confuse almost anyone who tries to analyze it.
Employment versus Production
Which brings me to another point - there is an argument that employment is more important than production. One of the key points of Keynesian economics is that very thing - employment is the most important thing for the economy. Sarah Palin in an interview said, "It's all about job creation." Any respected Keynesian would agree. I would argue otherwise. (Unions are mostly concerned for employment over production.)
For example, a Keynesian would say, "Build ships, even if we aren't at war, then just throw them into the ocean or a pit. That will create jobs and get credit flowing through the economy." Why not take it one step further and just give everyone a million dollars. That would get credit flowing, wouldn't it? Actually, the most likely scenario would be that it would completely halt the economy and people would have to either begin bartering or not have any goods at all. Anyone would agree that that would destroy the economy because the scale is too large. So we'll tone down the scale a little bit - pay people for playing video games twenty dollars an hour. Since building a ship that no one will ever use is practically pointless, you might as well pay people for doing something pointless that they might enjoy. (Unless it's a point to actually make people miserable at work!) Perhaps it would be argued that everyone would want to do that job and just stop working, so we'd have to pay people less and make them do something that not everyone would do.
So here's an idea - pay people minimum wage to throw rocks through windows. This will stimulate the economy in two ways. First, the guy who has the rock thrown through his window will have to buy a new window, and the window maker will then have money to spend elsewhere, and on. Second, the guy who threw the rock now has extra money to spend for a minimal amount of effort. But there's two problems with this theory! The guy who had a rock thrown through his window may now be put out of business because his costs exceed his income. Or on the other hand, he may still be in business but now he has to spend that money on a window instead of something new that could have created other jobs. This improper policy will have to be continued if the window makers are to stay in business. The problem is that the money had to be taken or displaced from some place else - the guys who threw the rocks through the windows have to be paid from somewhere. The guy who had a rock thrown through his window was probably taxed in the first place to have rocks thrown through his window! And so he pays twice! He may have been a manufacturer, that had he had more money, could have employed the very people that threw rocks through his window. It's a very complicated process.
In all of this, something is lost. The economy stagnates real production, at the price of the people who should be benefiting from the economy. This is not a treatise on the benefits of anarchism - we gladly pay people for science, roads, firefighters, EMTs, etc. - but that's only because they offer something that we may not otherwise have. But quite often, people are paid for throwing rocks through windows (or doing nothing, the principle is almost the same) by taking from those that could have employed them otherwise. It's difficult to see that everyone would be better off if no one had starting throwing rocks in the first place.
Instead of having something that could have been created, instead something is destroyed or not created. And no one notices. The benefits of increased production are ignored at the cries of unemployment. If employment were the end goal, we should do everything as inefficiently as possible. We should have a line of people who pass food along the roads instead of hiring truckers. We should all work in our yards raising our own food and be paid by the government for it. Employment isn't the goal - if we were all constantly employed, great thinkers would never have the time to think, we would never have the time to rest, because for focusing on all of us to be employed requires that we be as inefficient as possible. There are many countries that have almost full employment - almost every farmer works in Mexico - but employment does not mean that their quality of life gets better.
You see, concern for increased production would decrease unemployment, but more importantly, increase overall wealth. (Don't people have fewer babies when they are richer?) Employment is not the goal - wealth is. Not money, but actual goods. An economist may show me a graph of employment, GDP or market fluctuations and argue that the economic policies of a certain time were good or bad - but none of that measures lasting wealth. Everyone was employed during World War II, but no one was allowed to buy anything substantial. Actual wealth was ignored.
No one would have thought of buying a supercomputer fifty years ago because they were not practical and cost too much. Because production was increased, people actually could buy a personal computer, and because the price continually dropped, many more jobs came into existence because production increased. Increased production increased jobs.
Of course, do we really want more work? It is in our blood to work - relatively few of us could do nothing all day everyday. But it is in our blood to relax, and spend time doing other things. The whole of human endeavor is to improve everything we do. Fire led to a hammer which led to bronze making which led to industries which led to computers which led to robotics (well, not precisely) - one tool leads to another. When production is increased in a more base area, more topics are opened up for exploration and invention. When the necessities are taken care of, other work will have no limit on how much needs to get done or can be done.
The source of America's power
Tariffs could be discussed here. Tariffs attempt to protect those in a particular country. However, an increased tariff will raise prices on the people in that country (thereby displacing money) and will decrease the goods bought from that country - the only way another country can redeem American dollars is really to buy American products. Because America no longer has certain cheap goods from whatever tariff was placed (like on sugar, alas...), and the other country no longer has to redeem American dollars, American tariffs would hurt America.
The whole of the American empire is basically an enforcement that other countries buy our goods through this means. That is, other countries are practically forced to use American dollars to buy American products. "How?" you may ask. America enforces the Middle East to sell its oil in American dollars. The whole reason for invading Iraq was because Saddam threatened to sell his oil in other currencies. Why do these countries keep selling their oil in American dollars? Because they don't want to be invaded by America. As a result, all the countries who want oil from these countries (and these countries themselves) are forced to use the American dollar. That's huge. America controls the world's money supply through this one technique. When America falters, other countries falter. The reason that America has done so well is because we have a fairly large industry, because other countries are forced to buy goods from us if they want to redeem their dollars. (Despite people complaining about how everything is made in China, we get half of our imports from them, and they get 40% of our exports. --doublecheck) Essentially, America's military power has created its economic power.
Deflation versus Inflation
Many people will decry deflation as a bad thing. Explaining what will happen to the economy when the dollar deflates is relatively simple.
Deflation means that the dollar will be worth more. It is caused typically after a period of overinflation then collapse of credit. The reason deflation is decried is because credit has collapsed, because the system can't support the credit level that it reached. So the credit that was in the economy causing an increase in the money supply disappears, causing a decrease in the overall money supply, causing deflation.
The thing about deflation is that it will end some time. People will start hoarding money because they know that prices will drop, but people will also be antsy to invest before prices go up again and will still invest quite readily. There is only so much the dollar can deflate. The people who have saved or invested wisely will become the winners and will benefit from deflation. Those who have invested poorly or have survived only on credit will perish economically. This includes poorly managed big businesses and poorer people who have relied on credit. Deflation cleans out the economy and establishes those who have managed their money better. Granted it's painful - the lost businesses may never recover and the poorer people may be without jobs until the economy recovers - but it will recover and be restructured to be more profitable.
Now, onto inflation. Since credit was the cause of the boom period - and ultimately the cause of the bust period - one would argue that these big businesses and jobs should be saved with more credit. But that's where things actually get hairy, complicated, and almost impossible to keep track of what's going on.
First, how would this credit be given? A bank that's about to fall doesn't want to lend out to the same people that caused it to almost fall, so the government must intervene and give the bank either credit or money. Perhaps the bank will then lend out, but if it does, it's unlikely to make the same mistake so it will choose a probably unintended target to lend to or it will horde its cash.
Suppose it does get the money out to the people that were intended to have it - this would cause an inflation of prices. Now prices are a funny thing. I would suspect that when deflation happens, it takes time for prices to go down because it takes time for the manufacturers to benefit from falling prices. However when inflation happens, prices would jump more rapidly since the manufacturer would plan on recouping future costs and they lost much less from raising prices then they do from lowering them. (In that respect, deflation is a much more stable system.)
Now imagine a market that normally would want to deflate. The general prices of goods and services are going down, everyone with new lower salaries with respect to each other. (Perhaps another reason why people don't like deflation: a lower salary in a deflated market would be worth more but look terrible. It doesn't make sense to people that overall wealth could be greater with lower numbers on a payroll.) Money is pumped into the economy so that the dollar should inflate. But when money is pumped into the economy it is generally lopsided - certain groups, banks, or government authorities will benefit more from the pumped money than others. The money will mostly have to come through upper class channels (other than a few tax breaks for the lower class). Some banks and manufacturers will now have an edge on other banks and manufacturers so they will thrive. Those who have received the money will still be doing business and deflated prices despite having inflated credit, because the credit hasn't worked its way through the system yet, and so those companies may be willing to have risky behavior - the same type of behavior that caused the credit bubble in the first place. For those reasons, the companies that may have had good practices may be put out of business because they can't keep up with those who have received credit (causing more deflation). And those who had received money and continued risky behavior will benefit, although not for long, because eventually their policies will catch up to them, and they will fail.
It's a very bleak scenario. The point of that long, convoluted tirade is that more credit won't necessarily increase jobs. Inflation during a deflationary period is essentially a way to either ensure that bad business continues and will confuse almost anyone who tries to analyze it.
Employment versus Production
Which brings me to another point - there is an argument that employment is more important than production. One of the key points of Keynesian economics is that very thing - employment is the most important thing for the economy. Sarah Palin in an interview said, "It's all about job creation." Any respected Keynesian would agree. I would argue otherwise. (Unions are mostly concerned for employment over production.)
For example, a Keynesian would say, "Build ships, even if we aren't at war, then just throw them into the ocean or a pit. That will create jobs and get credit flowing through the economy." Why not take it one step further and just give everyone a million dollars. That would get credit flowing, wouldn't it? Actually, the most likely scenario would be that it would completely halt the economy and people would have to either begin bartering or not have any goods at all. Anyone would agree that that would destroy the economy because the scale is too large. So we'll tone down the scale a little bit - pay people for playing video games twenty dollars an hour. Since building a ship that no one will ever use is practically pointless, you might as well pay people for doing something pointless that they might enjoy. (Unless it's a point to actually make people miserable at work!) Perhaps it would be argued that everyone would want to do that job and just stop working, so we'd have to pay people less and make them do something that not everyone would do.
So here's an idea - pay people minimum wage to throw rocks through windows. This will stimulate the economy in two ways. First, the guy who has the rock thrown through his window will have to buy a new window, and the window maker will then have money to spend elsewhere, and on. Second, the guy who threw the rock now has extra money to spend for a minimal amount of effort. But there's two problems with this theory! The guy who had a rock thrown through his window may now be put out of business because his costs exceed his income. Or on the other hand, he may still be in business but now he has to spend that money on a window instead of something new that could have created other jobs. This improper policy will have to be continued if the window makers are to stay in business. The problem is that the money had to be taken or displaced from some place else - the guys who threw the rocks through the windows have to be paid from somewhere. The guy who had a rock thrown through his window was probably taxed in the first place to have rocks thrown through his window! And so he pays twice! He may have been a manufacturer, that had he had more money, could have employed the very people that threw rocks through his window. It's a very complicated process.
In all of this, something is lost. The economy stagnates real production, at the price of the people who should be benefiting from the economy. This is not a treatise on the benefits of anarchism - we gladly pay people for science, roads, firefighters, EMTs, etc. - but that's only because they offer something that we may not otherwise have. But quite often, people are paid for throwing rocks through windows (or doing nothing, the principle is almost the same) by taking from those that could have employed them otherwise. It's difficult to see that everyone would be better off if no one had starting throwing rocks in the first place.
Instead of having something that could have been created, instead something is destroyed or not created. And no one notices. The benefits of increased production are ignored at the cries of unemployment. If employment were the end goal, we should do everything as inefficiently as possible. We should have a line of people who pass food along the roads instead of hiring truckers. We should all work in our yards raising our own food and be paid by the government for it. Employment isn't the goal - if we were all constantly employed, great thinkers would never have the time to think, we would never have the time to rest, because for focusing on all of us to be employed requires that we be as inefficient as possible. There are many countries that have almost full employment - almost every farmer works in Mexico - but employment does not mean that their quality of life gets better.
You see, concern for increased production would decrease unemployment, but more importantly, increase overall wealth. (Don't people have fewer babies when they are richer?) Employment is not the goal - wealth is. Not money, but actual goods. An economist may show me a graph of employment, GDP or market fluctuations and argue that the economic policies of a certain time were good or bad - but none of that measures lasting wealth. Everyone was employed during World War II, but no one was allowed to buy anything substantial. Actual wealth was ignored.
No one would have thought of buying a supercomputer fifty years ago because they were not practical and cost too much. Because production was increased, people actually could buy a personal computer, and because the price continually dropped, many more jobs came into existence because production increased. Increased production increased jobs.
Of course, do we really want more work? It is in our blood to work - relatively few of us could do nothing all day everyday. But it is in our blood to relax, and spend time doing other things. The whole of human endeavor is to improve everything we do. Fire led to a hammer which led to bronze making which led to industries which led to computers which led to robotics (well, not precisely) - one tool leads to another. When production is increased in a more base area, more topics are opened up for exploration and invention. When the necessities are taken care of, other work will have no limit on how much needs to get done or can be done.
The source of America's power
Tariffs could be discussed here. Tariffs attempt to protect those in a particular country. However, an increased tariff will raise prices on the people in that country (thereby displacing money) and will decrease the goods bought from that country - the only way another country can redeem American dollars is really to buy American products. Because America no longer has certain cheap goods from whatever tariff was placed (like on sugar, alas...), and the other country no longer has to redeem American dollars, American tariffs would hurt America.
The whole of the American empire is basically an enforcement that other countries buy our goods through this means. That is, other countries are practically forced to use American dollars to buy American products. "How?" you may ask. America enforces the Middle East to sell its oil in American dollars. The whole reason for invading Iraq was because Saddam threatened to sell his oil in other currencies. Why do these countries keep selling their oil in American dollars? Because they don't want to be invaded by America. As a result, all the countries who want oil from these countries (and these countries themselves) are forced to use the American dollar. That's huge. America controls the world's money supply through this one technique. When America falters, other countries falter. The reason that America has done so well is because we have a fairly large industry, because other countries are forced to buy goods from us if they want to redeem their dollars. (Despite people complaining about how everything is made in China, we get half of our imports from them, and they get 40% of our exports. --doublecheck) Essentially, America's military power has created its economic power.
Wednesday, May 13
Why I'm against torture
- I've met plenty of people from the Middle East who were tortured by their own regimes. If we torture, then how are we any different then those regimes? If we torture people from other countries, then can't we almost expect our soldiers to be tortured when caught? (Of course it doesn't mean they won't be tortured, but it makes it slightly less likely.)
- We make more enemies when we torture. We capture a lot of people and not all of them have any real connections to terrorist leaders. If we capture and torture someone (who has no real connections), then not only will we then make a persistant enemy with that person, but also their family and friends. (Take for example the 16 year old (when caught) who threw a bomb at American soldiers, was caught and was in Gitmo for 3 years.)
- We don't get as much information from torture. Nazi Germany's top interrogator never used torture techniques and gleaned more information than any other interrogator that way. He took his prisoners for walks in the woods and sympathised with them, and because of that, they would sometimes share pertinent information in casual conversations. In contrast, when you torture someone to get information they are more likely to go into defense mode. In defense mode, the tortured may consider themselves like a martyr and consider those who torture him as monsters. His actions in denying information, to him, is justified.
- The information we get is likely to be inaccurate. If you were less likely to be tortured because you gave those who tortured you information, what prevents you from making information up or agreeing with your torturers, regardless if you actually know anything? Torture is likely to produce false leads.
- It's hard to enforce or know when to stop. I consider this the biggest problem of torture. First off, those who are considered "enemy combatants", regardless of their citizenship, are denied the right of habeus corpus - the right to trial. Some have died because of these "enhanced interrogation techniques". The CIA tortured beyond what the memos told them that they were allowed to do. Because of the secretiveness of the torture methods, oversight is nigh impossible.
Of course torture doesn't refer to simple stuff like having crappy meals and living conditions. That's perfectly fine to an extent.
In all honesty, I'm more afraid of the hatred of humanity of those who torture then I am of the hatred of those who are tortured. I guess that's the crux of my complaint. It's fine to kill someone if your own life is endangered, but if you are in the position to torture someone then it's unlikely that your life in endangered.
I'm really glad that Obama closed the prison at Guantanomo Bay, yet I hope that he will close other prisons that makes America complicit in torture. I think the CIA employees should be prosecuted - the reason being is that prosecution does not mean guilt. Prosecution could determine how guilty they were and whether they should punished. There are fears that transparency could lead to an al-Qaida terrorist manual against torture - I say, if we didn't use torture, no manual would ever help them.
Saturday, April 18
Tea Party Goals
Tea parties were staged across the nation this week. Some people have asked me what they were about and so here is my answer. It is about change in government. The major things that I want changed are:
-Congress not reading the bills they vote for (or even knowing what they vote for). One example would be that they didn't know what a Sunni or Shiite was before they voted for Iraq funding. As for the bail outs, the most recent bill was 1000 pages long with its final version released the morning that they were going to vote on it. The first bail out had major loop holes which is why they can't track much of the money.
-The Federal Reserve having no checks or balances. I want it audited. We're in the biggest economic downturn for a century, and this is the institution that controls the supply of money. It may make sense for Congress to not have access to the immediate day to day records, but that information should be released eventually, not never like it currently is.
-Out of control spending. I am opposed to the past and possible future bail outs. I am against spending a trillion dollars on defense, when only 1/10th of that goes to our actual armed forces (and 1/100th of it goes to academic research). (I have forgotten the actual fractions but it is something like that.)
-Taxes. The biggest tax that I would oppose would be the inflation tax. (As more money is printed, people's savings and investments are worth less and less.)
One of the big problems that I see with tea parties is that they lack direction. And because of that, they may alienate the people that they are trying to convince. : /
-Congress not reading the bills they vote for (or even knowing what they vote for). One example would be that they didn't know what a Sunni or Shiite was before they voted for Iraq funding. As for the bail outs, the most recent bill was 1000 pages long with its final version released the morning that they were going to vote on it. The first bail out had major loop holes which is why they can't track much of the money.
-The Federal Reserve having no checks or balances. I want it audited. We're in the biggest economic downturn for a century, and this is the institution that controls the supply of money. It may make sense for Congress to not have access to the immediate day to day records, but that information should be released eventually, not never like it currently is.
-Out of control spending. I am opposed to the past and possible future bail outs. I am against spending a trillion dollars on defense, when only 1/10th of that goes to our actual armed forces (and 1/100th of it goes to academic research). (I have forgotten the actual fractions but it is something like that.)
-Taxes. The biggest tax that I would oppose would be the inflation tax. (As more money is printed, people's savings and investments are worth less and less.)
One of the big problems that I see with tea parties is that they lack direction. And because of that, they may alienate the people that they are trying to convince. : /
Tuesday, March 24
To serve = Fewer rights, under this Bill
This ominous bill passed the House just yesterday - the GIVE act.
Full text: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h1388pcs.txt.pdf
The purpose of this bill is to fund service. (Wait, what? Isn't service supposed to be free?)
Here's the problems that I have with the bill:
Anyone who "serves" under this bill may not:
"Attempt to influence legislation" - they may not contact their senators and congressman about complaints.
"Engage in protests" - they have their right to peaceably assemble removed. A protest, such as a peaceful march, is illegal for them.
"Engage in partisan political activities" - they may not attend any political rally, hold any signs, or give any fliers to their neighbors about any political candidate.
"Advocate political platforms, proposed legislation, or elected officials" - they may not put a sign in their front yard saying who they'd like to run for mayor; they may not say they are for or against abortion, civil unions, or bail outs.
"Engage in religious instruction" - They can't attend church? Can Congress really prohibit the free exercise of religion?
An early version of this Bill included a task force to "to investigate, 'Whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed'". Mandatory service is an oxymoron.
Here's the Bill's offending text:
1 ‘‘SEC. 125. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES AND INELIGIBLE ORGANIZATIONS.
3 ‘‘(a) PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES.—A participant in an approved national service position under this subtitle may not engage in the following activities:
6 ‘‘(1) Attempting to influence legislation.
7 ‘‘(2) Organizing or engaging in protests, petitions, boycotts, or strikes.
9 ‘‘(3) Assisting, promoting, or deterring union organizing.
13 ‘‘(5) Engaging in partisan political activities, or other activities designed to influence the outcome of an election to any public office.
16 ‘‘(6) Participating in, or endorsing, events or activities that are likely to include advocacy for or against political parties, political platforms, political candidates, proposed legislation, or elected officials.
20 ‘‘(7) Engaging in religious instruction, conducting worship services, providing instruction as part of a program that includes mandatory religious instruction or worship, constructing or operating fa
24 cilities devoted to religious instruction or worship,maintaining facilities primarily or inherently devoted to religious instruction or worship, or engaging in any form of religious proselytization.
Corporations who use these funds may not:
18 ‘‘(9) Conducting a voter registration drive or using Corporation funds to conduct a voter registration drive.
Full text: http://frwebgate.access.gp
The purpose of this bill is to fund service. (Wait, what? Isn't service supposed to be free?)
Here's the problems that I have with the bill:
Anyone who "serves" under this bill may not:
"Attempt to influence legislation" - they may not contact their senators and congressman about complaints.
"Engage in protests" - they have their right to peaceably assemble removed. A protest, such as a peaceful march, is illegal for them.
"Engage in partisan political activities" - they may not attend any political rally, hold any signs, or give any fliers to their neighbors about any political candidate.
"Advocate political platforms, proposed legislation, or elected officials" - they may not put a sign in their front yard saying who they'd like to run for mayor; they may not say they are for or against abortion, civil unions, or bail outs.
"Engage in religious instruction" - They can't attend church? Can Congress really prohibit the free exercise of religion?
An early version of this Bill included a task force to "to investigate, 'Whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed'". Mandatory service is an oxymoron.
Here's the Bill's offending text:
1 ‘‘SEC. 125. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES AND INELIGIBLE ORGANIZATIONS.
3 ‘‘(a) PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES.—A participant in an approved national service position under this subtitle may not engage in the following activities:
6 ‘‘(1) Attempting to influence legislation.
7 ‘‘(2) Organizing or engaging in protests, petitions, boycotts, or strikes.
9 ‘‘(3) Assisting, promoting, or deterring union organizing.
13 ‘‘(5) Engaging in partisan political activities, or other activities designed to influence the outcome of an election to any public office.
16 ‘‘(6) Participating in, or endorsing, events or activities that are likely to include advocacy for or against political parties, political platforms, political candidates, proposed legislation, or elected officials.
20 ‘‘(7) Engaging in religious instruction, conducting worship services, providing instruction as part of a program that includes mandatory religious instruction or worship, constructing or operating fa
24 cilities devoted to religious instruction or worship,maintaining facilities primarily or inherently devoted to religious instruction or worship, or engaging in any form of religious proselytization.
Corporations who use these funds may not:
18 ‘‘(9) Conducting a voter registration drive or using Corporation funds to conduct a voter registration drive.
Wednesday, March 11
Basic Principles
Physics may seem complicated, yet I can name only about 10 main equations that would define all the laws of physics. Gravity, Maxwell's equations (4 equations), Hamiltonian's (define both macro physics and quantum mechanics), and a couple for relativity. It's not much. But these few equations can create incredibly complex relationships and equations. Being able to use the equations is really where it takes skill.
I like to think of politics and philosophy in the same way. If you can come up with a few fundamentals, then it theoretically should be easier to define complex policies and views. And so, here is my attempt to define the most fundamental standards for any policy. I have only been able to come up with two fundamental standards with their implications being more complex than I can describe.
Conflict brings out the best
Conflict, competition, adversity -whatever you wish to call it- is necessary. The best way to explain it is with an allegory: Gravity constantly tries to pull us down, a negative influence if you will, but it is only because of gravity that we can stand, develop muscle, move around, and overcome it. If there was no gravity, we'd be stagnant if not lose abilities. Similarly, it is only due to conflict that we can improve ourself and our world.
The best ideas, theories, and people don't always win. It isn't obvious but this is the reason we must preserve competition. Even though they may not win out immediately, if we preserve the right of competition, they will win out eventually. (If we try to rid ourselves of competition in order to maintain the best, we endanger ourselves of not having the best.)
One reason why this is important is because luck and disaster will eventually strike, people are both good and evil, power can both help and corrupt, there are few true heroes and villains in the world. (Could Hitler have been a good person if Germany wasn't subject to abject poverty?) It seems silly, but many people seem to forget this. Too many people see only one or the other. Many Bills have passed through Congress only on trust. (For example, most of Congress didn't even know what a Sunni or Shiite was when they voted for Iraq war funding.) How many people thought that the stock market or various banks would be around forever? How many people only criticize or worship some famous people? When the Black Death struck Europe, many people stopped planting crops because they thought it was the end of the world and, as a result, many of them died without contracting the plague. They forgot that life consists of both ups and downs and that one must always consider both.
There are other reasons why conflict must be preserved. The phrases "common sense", "it's a fact", and "the world is going to end anyway" annoy me. "Common sense" is rarely common sense because if it was then everyone would believe it. Besides, many things in life aren't obvious and common sense can be misleading - who would've thought that two tiny atoms could create more devastation than TNT? The phrase "the world is going to end anyway" always seems like a reason to be lazy and hypocritical. The world will end one day but if someone really wishes that it ends in their lifetime must not want a better world. (Do they really wish to go through more suffering than they've ever endured before they die?) I will always fight the good fight for a better world.
What this really means is to preserve being able to think differently, or try different things, as long as it doesn't infringe on other people's rights. (I'll skip the discussion on what rights are for now...) I discuss philosophy and politics in the hopes of learning from others. (I like criticism so I can correct my views if wrong. In the process, I organize my thoughts better.) I will defend a person's right to think whatever they want about me or whatever else, however much I may disagree with them.
The largest and biggest reason to preserve conflict, adversity, and competition is really because of the golden rule. Because if we don't defend them, we risk the abuse of power, of propping up one group of people over another, of being hypocritical.
(As a note: Much of life's unhappiness comes from a lack of freedom. Loss of freedom comes in many ways: you must obey many societal rules; you usually have to do what your boss wants; you are rarely free to do what you want due to a lack of money; you do what your friends or family want you to do. Losing freedom sometimes will make us happier and at other times make us more miserable. )
The Golden Rule: Don't be a hypocrite
The golden rule is probably the single most important thing in the world. If you don't believe in the golden rule, then by what standard can anything be judged? You don't kill others because you don't want to be killed. It's very beneficial to follow the golden rule. If you don't believe that I should have what you have (based on similar circumstances) or vice versa, then what's the point? I think the whole point of life is to live for others - and you can't do that without the golden rule.
The golden rule can be defined in a variety of ways: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you; treat others how you would like to be treated; treat everyone who has similar circumstances the same; don't be a hypocrite.
Stated another way: If you were in the same circumstance, would you react the same way? All views must be considered, both prisoner and judge alike. I don't know if I would have acted the same as some people in prison if I had grown up in similar circumstances, so I feel empathy for them. Likewise, if I had something stolen from me, I would be want justice.
I don't think there's much difference between any two people from different parts of the world. Who knows how they both would have turned out if they were born in the other's shoes? Blatant contempt for a race or group of people is hypocritical.
I don't think there is anything more important than the golden rule. This is the thing that keeps the principle (conflict) listed above in check. I prefer to not be criticized every moment of every day, so I don't criticize others. I try to criticize only when I think I myself would want it.
It is actually almost impossible to completely follow. As humans, we are very short-sighted. We often don't see our own hypocrisies nor can we completely understand another individual. Just because we can't be perfect at it, doesn't mean we shouldn't try. If we all tried a little harder at this one principle, the world would be a much better place.
My Main Point
There's actually a subtle irony to all of this. Even though we may want to help people, what we think may help can often be counterproductive. The easiest example would be a spoiled kid, whose parents give him everything he wants because they think it's good for him, only for him to become socially awkward because of it. More subtle examples include people from Africa who claim that foreign aide stagnates their economy. Or that while handicapped employment was on the rise before the Americans with Disabilites Act, after ADA it hasn't increased at all. Before Medicaid, high-income individuals averaged 5.1 doctor visits a year, and low-income individuals 4.3, which is a lot smaller difference than now.
The obvious isn't always obvious.
I like to think of politics and philosophy in the same way. If you can come up with a few fundamentals, then it theoretically should be easier to define complex policies and views. And so, here is my attempt to define the most fundamental standards for any policy. I have only been able to come up with two fundamental standards with their implications being more complex than I can describe.
Conflict brings out the best
Conflict, competition, adversity -whatever you wish to call it- is necessary. The best way to explain it is with an allegory: Gravity constantly tries to pull us down, a negative influence if you will, but it is only because of gravity that we can stand, develop muscle, move around, and overcome it. If there was no gravity, we'd be stagnant if not lose abilities. Similarly, it is only due to conflict that we can improve ourself and our world.
The best ideas, theories, and people don't always win. It isn't obvious but this is the reason we must preserve competition. Even though they may not win out immediately, if we preserve the right of competition, they will win out eventually. (If we try to rid ourselves of competition in order to maintain the best, we endanger ourselves of not having the best.)
One reason why this is important is because luck and disaster will eventually strike, people are both good and evil, power can both help and corrupt, there are few true heroes and villains in the world. (Could Hitler have been a good person if Germany wasn't subject to abject poverty?) It seems silly, but many people seem to forget this. Too many people see only one or the other. Many Bills have passed through Congress only on trust. (For example, most of Congress didn't even know what a Sunni or Shiite was when they voted for Iraq war funding.) How many people thought that the stock market or various banks would be around forever? How many people only criticize or worship some famous people? When the Black Death struck Europe, many people stopped planting crops because they thought it was the end of the world and, as a result, many of them died without contracting the plague. They forgot that life consists of both ups and downs and that one must always consider both.
There are other reasons why conflict must be preserved. The phrases "common sense", "it's a fact", and "the world is going to end anyway" annoy me. "Common sense" is rarely common sense because if it was then everyone would believe it. Besides, many things in life aren't obvious and common sense can be misleading - who would've thought that two tiny atoms could create more devastation than TNT? The phrase "the world is going to end anyway" always seems like a reason to be lazy and hypocritical. The world will end one day but if someone really wishes that it ends in their lifetime must not want a better world. (Do they really wish to go through more suffering than they've ever endured before they die?) I will always fight the good fight for a better world.
What this really means is to preserve being able to think differently, or try different things, as long as it doesn't infringe on other people's rights. (I'll skip the discussion on what rights are for now...) I discuss philosophy and politics in the hopes of learning from others. (I like criticism so I can correct my views if wrong. In the process, I organize my thoughts better.) I will defend a person's right to think whatever they want about me or whatever else, however much I may disagree with them.
The largest and biggest reason to preserve conflict, adversity, and competition is really because of the golden rule. Because if we don't defend them, we risk the abuse of power, of propping up one group of people over another, of being hypocritical.
(As a note: Much of life's unhappiness comes from a lack of freedom. Loss of freedom comes in many ways: you must obey many societal rules; you usually have to do what your boss wants; you are rarely free to do what you want due to a lack of money; you do what your friends or family want you to do. Losing freedom sometimes will make us happier and at other times make us more miserable. )
The Golden Rule: Don't be a hypocrite
The golden rule is probably the single most important thing in the world. If you don't believe in the golden rule, then by what standard can anything be judged? You don't kill others because you don't want to be killed. It's very beneficial to follow the golden rule. If you don't believe that I should have what you have (based on similar circumstances) or vice versa, then what's the point? I think the whole point of life is to live for others - and you can't do that without the golden rule.
The golden rule can be defined in a variety of ways: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you; treat others how you would like to be treated; treat everyone who has similar circumstances the same; don't be a hypocrite.
Stated another way: If you were in the same circumstance, would you react the same way? All views must be considered, both prisoner and judge alike. I don't know if I would have acted the same as some people in prison if I had grown up in similar circumstances, so I feel empathy for them. Likewise, if I had something stolen from me, I would be want justice.
I don't think there's much difference between any two people from different parts of the world. Who knows how they both would have turned out if they were born in the other's shoes? Blatant contempt for a race or group of people is hypocritical.
I don't think there is anything more important than the golden rule. This is the thing that keeps the principle (conflict) listed above in check. I prefer to not be criticized every moment of every day, so I don't criticize others. I try to criticize only when I think I myself would want it.
It is actually almost impossible to completely follow. As humans, we are very short-sighted. We often don't see our own hypocrisies nor can we completely understand another individual. Just because we can't be perfect at it, doesn't mean we shouldn't try. If we all tried a little harder at this one principle, the world would be a much better place.
My Main Point
There's actually a subtle irony to all of this. Even though we may want to help people, what we think may help can often be counterproductive. The easiest example would be a spoiled kid, whose parents give him everything he wants because they think it's good for him, only for him to become socially awkward because of it. More subtle examples include people from Africa who claim that foreign aide stagnates their economy. Or that while handicapped employment was on the rise before the Americans with Disabilites Act, after ADA it hasn't increased at all. Before Medicaid, high-income individuals averaged 5.1 doctor visits a year, and low-income individuals 4.3, which is a lot smaller difference than now.
The obvious isn't always obvious.
Tuesday, March 3
What if... ?
It's been a couple weeks so here is a little gem that I transcribed:
What if our foreign policy of the last century is deeply flawed and has not served our National Security interests?
What if we wake up one day and realize that the terrorist threat is a predictable consequence of our meddling in the affairs of others and has nothing to do with us being free and prosperous?
What if propping up repressive regimes in the middle east endangers the United States and Israel?
What if occupying countries like Iraq and Afghanistan and bombing Pakistan is directly related to hatred directed toward us ?
What if someday it dawns on us that losing over 5000 military personnel in the Middle East since 9/11 is not a a fair trade off for the loss of nearly 3000 American citizens no matter how many Iraqi, Pakistani, and Afghan people are killed or displaced?
What if we finally decide that torture, even if called "Enhanced Interrogation Technique", is self-destructive and produces no useful information and that contracting it out to a Third World nation is just as evil?
What if it is finally realized that war and military spending always is destructive to the economy?
What if all war time spending is paid for by the deceitful and evil process of inflating and borrowing?
What if we finally see that wartime conditions always undermine personal liberty?
What if conservatives who preach small government wake up and realize that our interventionist foreign policy the greatest incentive to expand the government?
What if conservatives understood once again that their only logical position is to reject military intervention and managing an empire throughout the world?
What if the American people woke up and understood that the official reasons for goig to war are almost always based on lies and promoted by war propaganda in order to serve special interests?
What if we as a nation came to realize that the quest for empire eventually destroys all great nations?
What if Obama has no intention of leaving Iraq ?
What if a military draft is being planned for, for the wars that will spread, if our foreign policy is not changed?
What if the American people learned the truth that our foreign policy has nothing to do with national security and it never changes from one administration to the next?
What if war and the preparation for war is a racket serving the special interest?
What if President Obama is completely wrong about Afghanistan and it turns out worse than Iraq and Vietnam put together?
What if Christianity actually teaches peace and not preventive wars of aggression?
What if diplomacy is found to be better than bombs and bribes in protecting America?
What happens if my concerns are completely unfounded? Nothing.
But what happens if my concerns are justified and ignored? Nothing good.
- Ron Paul
What if our foreign policy of the last century is deeply flawed and has not served our National Security interests?
What if we wake up one day and realize that the terrorist threat is a predictable consequence of our meddling in the affairs of others and has nothing to do with us being free and prosperous?
What if propping up repressive regimes in the middle east endangers the United States and Israel?
What if occupying countries like Iraq and Afghanistan and bombing Pakistan is directly related to hatred directed toward us ?
What if someday it dawns on us that losing over 5000 military personnel in the Middle East since 9/11 is not a a fair trade off for the loss of nearly 3000 American citizens no matter how many Iraqi, Pakistani, and Afghan people are killed or displaced?
What if we finally decide that torture, even if called "Enhanced Interrogation Technique", is self-destructive and produces no useful information and that contracting it out to a Third World nation is just as evil?
What if it is finally realized that war and military spending always is destructive to the economy?
What if all war time spending is paid for by the deceitful and evil process of inflating and borrowing?
What if we finally see that wartime conditions always undermine personal liberty?
What if conservatives who preach small government wake up and realize that our interventionist foreign policy the greatest incentive to expand the government?
What if conservatives understood once again that their only logical position is to reject military intervention and managing an empire throughout the world?
What if the American people woke up and understood that the official reasons for goig to war are almost always based on lies and promoted by war propaganda in order to serve special interests?
What if we as a nation came to realize that the quest for empire eventually destroys all great nations?
What if Obama has no intention of leaving Iraq ?
What if a military draft is being planned for, for the wars that will spread, if our foreign policy is not changed?
What if the American people learned the truth that our foreign policy has nothing to do with national security and it never changes from one administration to the next?
What if war and the preparation for war is a racket serving the special interest?
What if President Obama is completely wrong about Afghanistan and it turns out worse than Iraq and Vietnam put together?
What if Christianity actually teaches peace and not preventive wars of aggression?
What if diplomacy is found to be better than bombs and bribes in protecting America?
What happens if my concerns are completely unfounded? Nothing.
But what happens if my concerns are justified and ignored? Nothing good.
- Ron Paul
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
