Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments
How to Fix the Economy: A Lesson in One Lesson
So here is what I posted on Facebook earlier after catching up on the debt issue. I was already vaguely in touch with it before today, however, after research, there seems a pretty simple answer to me.
Below is what I posted. It's pretty simple, I think. If i'm not clear, just comment and I'll try to clear myself up
Well, it's like this. the obvious short term answer is that the debt cap must be raised in order to continue debt payment as agreed upon in the Social Security Act, as well as the subsets of Medicaid and Medicare. However, this would, long term, destroy the economy. It has been the position of the Republican party that there must be long term reductions in federal spending that would be greater than the debt extension. That is to say, if we increase the debt cap by 2 trillion, which is currently the expected necessary figure, then there must be more than 2 trillion in cuts over the next few year.
The problem is, how do we go about doing this without creating a situation where taxes are raised, which the Republican party is strongly against, (and we are already paying a substantial portion of our wages to taxation) and where government given services are not greatly reduced, (which the Democtatic party is strongly against.)
The answer, then, lies in long term debt reconstruction so as to encourage long term dollar benefits while encouraging private sector development at a stagnant taxation rate while creating long term welfare reducing need. Think of it like this, if we continue with our current level of taxation while paying out the same amount we are now, we'll go broke. We're paying more than we are taking in. So, we must either cut some of our expenditures or raise what we are taking in. So, since neither party is willing to allow one or the other, how can we get around this?
Since our debt is something traded among foreign investors, we can raise the value of our dollar if we get around this debt cap limit. Therefore, if we can set out a long term plan for paying off our debt, we will gain a slight foot hold in the dollar. Because of this, a long term plan must be outlined.
This plan should be as follows: encourage private sector growth by providing tax incentives to businesses that grow a certain percentage over a number of years. Keep it as low as a minor reduction in taxes paid in two years if the company develops 5-7%, meaning that, while the business grows and, through sales, encourages spending and therefore raises the value of the dollar, businesses will also have raised incentive to grow, leading to a reduction in the need. On a large enough scale, if we encourage private businesses to grow, employment raises, reducing the need for welfare. When welfare is reduced, money taken in from taxes can go to pay off our debt, proving to the world that America is capable of paying off its debt, and increasing the value of the dollar as investors see american debt as something that will be repaid.
In short, if we provide tax cuts to businesses that show growth and provide greater tax cuts to businesses that show greater growth, America will see a rise in production, which is the building block of value. Since the dollar is an indicator of the value of production, the more that is produced, the greater value of the dollar, and the greater the value of the dollar, the stronger the economy becomes. The stronger the economy becomes, the better able the nation is to pay off debt, and again, our currency gains respectability, and in turn it gains value.
Now, it is true that temporarily these tax cuts can't go into effect. It would have to be something promised to be revealed in a number of years, as the immediate future requires our stagnant taxation to pay off our debt. And the debt cap will have to be increased in order to not fold imminently, allowing the long term plan to become effective. And it is also true that this burdens the private sector with the development of the economy, but since money is only worth something when production occurs, and the private sector is where production occurs, the economy already relies heavily, if not entirely, on the private sector. Over time, as need is reduced through job placement, reduction of welfare need and the eventual reduction in welfare spending, the government could, COULD, pay off our entire debt, creating a situation where american could be strong again. Economically and internationally, I mean.
So there you have it. Like balancing your checkbook. Figure out what needs to be reduced, do so over time with borrowed money, establish a way to reduce your expenses while keeping your income steady, and once you get to the point where your income is covering more than your expenses, start paying off your debt.
Below is what I posted. It's pretty simple, I think. If i'm not clear, just comment and I'll try to clear myself up
Well, it's like this. the obvious short term answer is that the debt cap must be raised in order to continue debt payment as agreed upon in the Social Security Act, as well as the subsets of Medicaid and Medicare. However, this would, long term, destroy the economy. It has been the position of the Republican party that there must be long term reductions in federal spending that would be greater than the debt extension. That is to say, if we increase the debt cap by 2 trillion, which is currently the expected necessary figure, then there must be more than 2 trillion in cuts over the next few year.
The problem is, how do we go about doing this without creating a situation where taxes are raised, which the Republican party is strongly against, (and we are already paying a substantial portion of our wages to taxation) and where government given services are not greatly reduced, (which the Democtatic party is strongly against.)
The answer, then, lies in long term debt reconstruction so as to encourage long term dollar benefits while encouraging private sector development at a stagnant taxation rate while creating long term welfare reducing need. Think of it like this, if we continue with our current level of taxation while paying out the same amount we are now, we'll go broke. We're paying more than we are taking in. So, we must either cut some of our expenditures or raise what we are taking in. So, since neither party is willing to allow one or the other, how can we get around this?
Since our debt is something traded among foreign investors, we can raise the value of our dollar if we get around this debt cap limit. Therefore, if we can set out a long term plan for paying off our debt, we will gain a slight foot hold in the dollar. Because of this, a long term plan must be outlined.
This plan should be as follows: encourage private sector growth by providing tax incentives to businesses that grow a certain percentage over a number of years. Keep it as low as a minor reduction in taxes paid in two years if the company develops 5-7%, meaning that, while the business grows and, through sales, encourages spending and therefore raises the value of the dollar, businesses will also have raised incentive to grow, leading to a reduction in the need. On a large enough scale, if we encourage private businesses to grow, employment raises, reducing the need for welfare. When welfare is reduced, money taken in from taxes can go to pay off our debt, proving to the world that America is capable of paying off its debt, and increasing the value of the dollar as investors see american debt as something that will be repaid.
In short, if we provide tax cuts to businesses that show growth and provide greater tax cuts to businesses that show greater growth, America will see a rise in production, which is the building block of value. Since the dollar is an indicator of the value of production, the more that is produced, the greater value of the dollar, and the greater the value of the dollar, the stronger the economy becomes. The stronger the economy becomes, the better able the nation is to pay off debt, and again, our currency gains respectability, and in turn it gains value.
Now, it is true that temporarily these tax cuts can't go into effect. It would have to be something promised to be revealed in a number of years, as the immediate future requires our stagnant taxation to pay off our debt. And the debt cap will have to be increased in order to not fold imminently, allowing the long term plan to become effective. And it is also true that this burdens the private sector with the development of the economy, but since money is only worth something when production occurs, and the private sector is where production occurs, the economy already relies heavily, if not entirely, on the private sector. Over time, as need is reduced through job placement, reduction of welfare need and the eventual reduction in welfare spending, the government could, COULD, pay off our entire debt, creating a situation where american could be strong again. Economically and internationally, I mean.
So there you have it. Like balancing your checkbook. Figure out what needs to be reduced, do so over time with borrowed money, establish a way to reduce your expenses while keeping your income steady, and once you get to the point where your income is covering more than your expenses, start paying off your debt.
Back By Popular Demand
I know, I'm as surprised as you. I really hadn't meant to fall off of the face of the planet, but I had more or less forgotten about blogging until some friends requested that I begin again. Apparently, some people were reading, and that fills me with a tiny warmness that makes me feel important. And my world revolves around me, so the effect is compounded.
But I'm sure you're wondering, "Caleb, after all this time, what are you going to write about?" Good question. Sadly, I don't have an easy answer. But on thing has been on my mind lately in relation to my grander writings, so I'll work on that.
Human beings are in a state of constant competition. This occurs because people are not naturally masters of their environment. The most basic thing that a person can find his or herself facing is survival against the elements. This world was not designed with humans in mind (don't start creationists) and people are not naturally the dominant life forms on the planet. We are not the largest, the strongest, the fastest, nor do we have large teeth or claws. We are mostly hairless, meaning that we stand a lower chance of surviving in the cold. We have natural predators, from the larger animals to the smallest microbes, and we are mostly defenseless in the wild. However, we have something that no other identified species has, and that's a brain capable of reasoning.
Reason is the faculty through which every person improves their lives. In fact, it is the faculty through which human kind survives. From the harnessing and understanding of fire, to the creation of the wheel, to the harvesting of grain, to the establishment of physical boundaries separating people from the wild, all the way to the creation of the computer for connecting with other people, the building of skyscrapers to allow people to interact and alter their world, to the creation of antibiotics, everything that has helped man achieve success has been through the use of reason. People often simply attribute where we are to the developments of people before us. But this is part laziness and part misunderstanding of our communal history.
Reason, as stated above, is a faculty. It is an ability, and not one that is always in use. Most people can walk and run, but not everyone does those things all the time. Neither do people use reason all the time. However, the developed homo sapien mind is capable of applying reason to the world around them. This allows the creation of value judgments, which in turn effects EVERYTHING in your life. No, seriously, everything. If you're reading this now, it is because you made a judgment based upon your values and accordingly adjusted your behavior. Right now you could be surfing facebook, painting your toenails, or singing Lady Gaga in your shower. But you're spending your time reading this because you see some value in this blog that is of a higher order than those other things. Shucks, you're gonna make me blush, spending time with me and all! But everything in your life that you do is directly affected by value judgments. When you look at buying something, you analyze the value of the buying power of that dollar against the perceived value of the object you're considering buying. Does a bag of Skittles costing$20 seem worth it? Probably not, because those twenty dollars could go to other things. However, would a new car costing $20 be worth it? Probably so, because the perceived value of the car is higher than the perceived value of $20. This is why old people talk about how things used to cost less. While the number of dollars that they paid per item was greatly reduced, the value of a dollar was higher in the past, meaning that a house of a certain condition and size will always be worth about the same amount of value, even if the dollars are less valuable over time.
Values, of course, change over time. An old fashioned computer isn't worth as much now because better technology exists. However, a new computer that is capable of doing what you want or need will always be of a higher value to a person because the value remains consistent. Even if a computer now and a computer twenty years ago are completely different in terms of capabilities, both made life easier for people living in those time periods, resulting in their continued production and improvement.
I KNOW WE'VE GONE A WAYS OFF TRACK, BUT I PROMISE, I'M BRINGING IT ALL BACK TO MY ORIGINAL POINT OF COMPETITION!
Okay, so we now understand, or at least I hope you do, that values dictate our decisions, and we tend to operate towards our higher values. Family is a value to some, so some people operate towards it, others operate more independently, and ultimately, everyone operates based on values. The blue car over the red, a day spent working instead of relaxing, a dollar donated instead of a dollar spent (really the same thing in a way, but I'll save that for another time.) Okay, so I'm done making that point, but if anyone has any objections or examples that would seemingly contradict this, post them in the comments area.
Anyway, so if our values dictate our decisions, competition becomes a certainty. Because of the finite realm of existence, not everyone can't have everything at the same time in the same respect. Remember back to the playground days, when you wanted a ball and someone else wanted the same ball, and the teacher stepped in and gave it to the other kid? The idea was that you would "share" the ball? Yeah, fuck that noise. Even as a kid you thought "Now what the hell? I got the ball first, I want it, I have a right to it. Bitch teacher over there needs to mind her own business before she gets cut!" In this example, the child on the playground is located in the inner city and has an issue with his vocabulary. I'm sure his parents drink. The point remains, however, that someone stepped in and made sure that someone got what they wanted and deprived another of it. That, kiddies, is called "Government."
Government can serve all sorts of functions, and some of them are unethical and a lot of them are bureaucratic, and nearly all of them cause someone somewhere to be deprived of something. Occasionally this deprivation is just, like the deprivation of a person's ability to injure another without impunity. The government attempts to insure that such events do not occur. Other things are not just, and they include the aforementioned theft of property.
In a recent argument I had with a utilitarian, I made the argument that theft from a person is wrong, in each and every instance. They countered that the "greater good" was more important. Besides the obvious problem of determining whose good is greater, and without identifying who was authorized to make this decision, one simple problem remains: if theft is legal, who has rights to anything? If you don't have a right to your food or to medicine, or if you acquire these things by hard work and honest purchasing between yourself and the person who is willingly selling them to you, do you still have rights? The right to freedom includes the right to property, because without property a person does not have a right to those things that keeps them alive. A right to your ideas is a natural right, one you do not have to justify to a court or to anyone. And the obvious outcome of ideas are goods. If one person exchanges the creations of their mind for the creations or another's or if a person exchanges the effort of their labor in exchange for the effort of another, then nobody has been hurt and both parties have benefited, so long as nobody uses force against another.
But too often in society, the idea of "the greater good" is lauded above the heads of all the others. The individual is sacrificed to the many. Independence is crushed under the iron foot of utilitarianism. And that, friends, is where liberty dies. And it has begun in America. It began some time ago, when the welfare state was formed. Prior to this time, people were largely more on their own for survival. This was considered to be okay, because people helped each other from time to time, but this help was provided on a compulsory basis. Then the "greater good" was seen to be more important than the work and rights of individuals. Welfare was created, meaning that those who were "disadvantaged" would be given some of the progress created by others. But this welfare was not earned. Instead, those who were "disadvantaged" were given a leg up in society. Rather than have to earn something as everyone else had, the "playing field was leveled" resulting in a legal imbalance of power. No longer was every person on their own to prove themselves to the world, they merely had to prove their inability to have equal footing and they were given a leg up. Consider this exmaple:
At the beginning of a race, everyone is started at the same point. Naturally, this is where races begin. But, because someone has a difficult time running, the referee decides that that person can start a few paces ahead of everyone else. Now, sure, it seems like this is just to balance the terms of the race, but without the other racers having volunteered to let this guy start ahead, he was now being helped against their will. While it seems like it doesn't matter too much at first, it begins to become apparent that to win the race, the other competitors, the racers who are not disabled, must try harder to win. Whereas the idea is that that other person will still try their hardest, the race is now unfair.
Here we hit a point where most people claim that the inequality lies. If that person who is injured has a legitimate injury, why shouldn't he start ahead? After all, everyone will still have a fair chance to win the race. But that is not the case, as the other racers have been disadvantaged by the injured racer. One's injury has become the injury of all the racers. His disability, not his ability, has become his advantage in this competition. So would it be fair to start all of the racers on the starting mark, despite the disability of one? Yes, so long as the disability was not inflicted by any of the other racers. Why?
Because the not everyone develops equally. There are people who are smarter than others, people who are more able-bodied than others. People who are lazier than others, there are people who are at different ages than others. There is no universal person. The only thing that the law should be doing is to insure that nobody is disadvantaging another. This means fraud, this means lies, and this means, obviously, no hurting or killing another, and no stealing. Doing these things is to destroy another for your own gain, and that is unethical. However, people often times point out that in business, people step on each other constantly to get ahead. They point to capitalism as a system that creates competition, that it alienates a person from themselves and that it creates a group of people dedicated only to the seeking of things.
Firstly, people will always need things. The right to own things is natural. If a man grows his wheat and cooks his bread, is he not entitled to it? If a woman creates something beautiful, is she not entitled to the sale of her work at a value that seems acceptable to her? It is often the case that a person produces something or owns something and is pushed to sell it at a cost that seems less than acceptable to them. This is never the case. If a person willingly sells something of theirs to another, they always have the option to say no to the transaction. Again, I'm barring force here, as people will use force against others, but the law must always be designed around the elimination of such heinous activities.
The key word here is "willingly." Freedom must insure that a person is able to willingly do something. Welfare unwillingly takes from those who have and gives it those who do not have. On the surface this seems like a good thing, until one realizes that someone has been stolen from in the process. If everyone is competing for what they want and using what they have to get it, why would some who do not have be placed above those who've been competing honestly?
Is the winner of the race guilty of injuring the others if he wins it fairly? If a race is run fairly, why would the winner be blamed for the others losing? Yes, they lost, but they did not lose because of one man's malice, but they lost to one man's ability? Ought that winner be started back farther, so as to make him work harder in order to achieve the same as the others? Should the successful, the talented, the intelligent, the industrialists be sacrificed so that others might be better able to compete? No, because if that was the case, success would be penalized and failure rewarded.
There are people out there who need help. There are those out there who cannot function properly, who can't get through the day without the assistance of others. There is no denying these facts, but to sacrifice the successful to those is to destroy people who've done nothing wrong for others who have done nothing wrong. Is there a solution to this problem, where two groups, neither of whom have committed a crime, to willfully improve the conditions of all? Yes, and that solution is effort and charity.
The principle of charity is a high one. It is the voluntary giving of what one has to another. The key word in that definition is "voluntary." To take without right, as taxation does, is wrong, regardless of the reason. We live in a world, though, where we can build skyscrapers, travel to space, and eradicate diseases. The solution to the world's problems lie not in taking from one group and giving to another, but in encouraging the development of all and encouraging the successful to help those who need it.
Inequality will be a constant throughout all of human existence. However, even in those areas of America that are largely poor, that are incapable of sustaining people, many do better than in other countries, and all do better than if we were fending for ourselves. Through cooperation, people are able to do more for themselves, and even the bottom living conditions begin to rise when prices are driven down through the advancement of a culture.
Consider the following. What percentage of people in this country die from starvation? A low number, but a number nonetheless. Now, by percentage, how many people die in undeveloped countries worldwide? The percentage is greatly raised.Why? Because the industry is not there to allow for the mass production of goods. When people are able to produce as much as possible more is produced, in general, and even if the most advanced goods go to the people who have also succeeded, enough extra is produced for others to have some. It is not that everyone deserves more when more is produced, but it is true that when the wheel of progress begins turning, everyone is moved along. Even the most rudimentary medical care given in this country is better than the medical care given in much of the world. Not because prices are reduced to help the poor, but because when the newest medicine comes out, it is better, and the producers in an economy purchase the newer goods, driving down the demand for the lesser products and reducing the cost of the products. The most advanced cures for diseases are costly, but the lesser cures, despite not being as effective, are more affordable and are still better than nothing.
To blame the successful or the lucky for the hardships of others is insanity. To say that a person, who has not hurt anyone, is a villain because they have been successful where others have not, is purely ridiculous. Has the person who has succeeded hurt those who have not? No. Has the person who has succeeded allowed the world to move forward, even in some tiny way? Yes. So why, if a person has not hurt anyone and has contributed something to society, would you claim that person is evil?
It is often the case that people look at those who have and see them as being in competition with the have-nots. And in a way, they are in competition, because the finite resources are going to those who have, and the have-nots want what the haves have. But in this example, one group has earned what they have, and the others have not. Yes, there are those who have things that they have not earned, but that is because people have grown to reward personality over ability.
It is true that genius will to unnoticed, that talent will be wasted, and that people with skill will not rise to the high ranks that some will. Sadly, in this day and age, connections have become more powerful than ability. And that is why ability must always be rewarded where it is seen. I implore you, when you consider someone for a promotion, or when you are considering those around you, do not look at who you like more, but look at who has the best abilities for a given situation. When ability is rewarded, more people benefit from more work in more ways. Do not reward inability and do not encourage ineptitude. Find those that work hard and show great potential and a desire to use that potential, and you will find someone who will earn what they have.
But I'm sure you're wondering, "Caleb, after all this time, what are you going to write about?" Good question. Sadly, I don't have an easy answer. But on thing has been on my mind lately in relation to my grander writings, so I'll work on that.
Human beings are in a state of constant competition. This occurs because people are not naturally masters of their environment. The most basic thing that a person can find his or herself facing is survival against the elements. This world was not designed with humans in mind (don't start creationists) and people are not naturally the dominant life forms on the planet. We are not the largest, the strongest, the fastest, nor do we have large teeth or claws. We are mostly hairless, meaning that we stand a lower chance of surviving in the cold. We have natural predators, from the larger animals to the smallest microbes, and we are mostly defenseless in the wild. However, we have something that no other identified species has, and that's a brain capable of reasoning.
Reason is the faculty through which every person improves their lives. In fact, it is the faculty through which human kind survives. From the harnessing and understanding of fire, to the creation of the wheel, to the harvesting of grain, to the establishment of physical boundaries separating people from the wild, all the way to the creation of the computer for connecting with other people, the building of skyscrapers to allow people to interact and alter their world, to the creation of antibiotics, everything that has helped man achieve success has been through the use of reason. People often simply attribute where we are to the developments of people before us. But this is part laziness and part misunderstanding of our communal history.
Reason, as stated above, is a faculty. It is an ability, and not one that is always in use. Most people can walk and run, but not everyone does those things all the time. Neither do people use reason all the time. However, the developed homo sapien mind is capable of applying reason to the world around them. This allows the creation of value judgments, which in turn effects EVERYTHING in your life. No, seriously, everything. If you're reading this now, it is because you made a judgment based upon your values and accordingly adjusted your behavior. Right now you could be surfing facebook, painting your toenails, or singing Lady Gaga in your shower. But you're spending your time reading this because you see some value in this blog that is of a higher order than those other things. Shucks, you're gonna make me blush, spending time with me and all! But everything in your life that you do is directly affected by value judgments. When you look at buying something, you analyze the value of the buying power of that dollar against the perceived value of the object you're considering buying. Does a bag of Skittles costing$20 seem worth it? Probably not, because those twenty dollars could go to other things. However, would a new car costing $20 be worth it? Probably so, because the perceived value of the car is higher than the perceived value of $20. This is why old people talk about how things used to cost less. While the number of dollars that they paid per item was greatly reduced, the value of a dollar was higher in the past, meaning that a house of a certain condition and size will always be worth about the same amount of value, even if the dollars are less valuable over time.
Values, of course, change over time. An old fashioned computer isn't worth as much now because better technology exists. However, a new computer that is capable of doing what you want or need will always be of a higher value to a person because the value remains consistent. Even if a computer now and a computer twenty years ago are completely different in terms of capabilities, both made life easier for people living in those time periods, resulting in their continued production and improvement.
I KNOW WE'VE GONE A WAYS OFF TRACK, BUT I PROMISE, I'M BRINGING IT ALL BACK TO MY ORIGINAL POINT OF COMPETITION!
Okay, so we now understand, or at least I hope you do, that values dictate our decisions, and we tend to operate towards our higher values. Family is a value to some, so some people operate towards it, others operate more independently, and ultimately, everyone operates based on values. The blue car over the red, a day spent working instead of relaxing, a dollar donated instead of a dollar spent (really the same thing in a way, but I'll save that for another time.) Okay, so I'm done making that point, but if anyone has any objections or examples that would seemingly contradict this, post them in the comments area.
Anyway, so if our values dictate our decisions, competition becomes a certainty. Because of the finite realm of existence, not everyone can't have everything at the same time in the same respect. Remember back to the playground days, when you wanted a ball and someone else wanted the same ball, and the teacher stepped in and gave it to the other kid? The idea was that you would "share" the ball? Yeah, fuck that noise. Even as a kid you thought "Now what the hell? I got the ball first, I want it, I have a right to it. Bitch teacher over there needs to mind her own business before she gets cut!" In this example, the child on the playground is located in the inner city and has an issue with his vocabulary. I'm sure his parents drink. The point remains, however, that someone stepped in and made sure that someone got what they wanted and deprived another of it. That, kiddies, is called "Government."
Government can serve all sorts of functions, and some of them are unethical and a lot of them are bureaucratic, and nearly all of them cause someone somewhere to be deprived of something. Occasionally this deprivation is just, like the deprivation of a person's ability to injure another without impunity. The government attempts to insure that such events do not occur. Other things are not just, and they include the aforementioned theft of property.
In a recent argument I had with a utilitarian, I made the argument that theft from a person is wrong, in each and every instance. They countered that the "greater good" was more important. Besides the obvious problem of determining whose good is greater, and without identifying who was authorized to make this decision, one simple problem remains: if theft is legal, who has rights to anything? If you don't have a right to your food or to medicine, or if you acquire these things by hard work and honest purchasing between yourself and the person who is willingly selling them to you, do you still have rights? The right to freedom includes the right to property, because without property a person does not have a right to those things that keeps them alive. A right to your ideas is a natural right, one you do not have to justify to a court or to anyone. And the obvious outcome of ideas are goods. If one person exchanges the creations of their mind for the creations or another's or if a person exchanges the effort of their labor in exchange for the effort of another, then nobody has been hurt and both parties have benefited, so long as nobody uses force against another.
But too often in society, the idea of "the greater good" is lauded above the heads of all the others. The individual is sacrificed to the many. Independence is crushed under the iron foot of utilitarianism. And that, friends, is where liberty dies. And it has begun in America. It began some time ago, when the welfare state was formed. Prior to this time, people were largely more on their own for survival. This was considered to be okay, because people helped each other from time to time, but this help was provided on a compulsory basis. Then the "greater good" was seen to be more important than the work and rights of individuals. Welfare was created, meaning that those who were "disadvantaged" would be given some of the progress created by others. But this welfare was not earned. Instead, those who were "disadvantaged" were given a leg up in society. Rather than have to earn something as everyone else had, the "playing field was leveled" resulting in a legal imbalance of power. No longer was every person on their own to prove themselves to the world, they merely had to prove their inability to have equal footing and they were given a leg up. Consider this exmaple:
At the beginning of a race, everyone is started at the same point. Naturally, this is where races begin. But, because someone has a difficult time running, the referee decides that that person can start a few paces ahead of everyone else. Now, sure, it seems like this is just to balance the terms of the race, but without the other racers having volunteered to let this guy start ahead, he was now being helped against their will. While it seems like it doesn't matter too much at first, it begins to become apparent that to win the race, the other competitors, the racers who are not disabled, must try harder to win. Whereas the idea is that that other person will still try their hardest, the race is now unfair.
Here we hit a point where most people claim that the inequality lies. If that person who is injured has a legitimate injury, why shouldn't he start ahead? After all, everyone will still have a fair chance to win the race. But that is not the case, as the other racers have been disadvantaged by the injured racer. One's injury has become the injury of all the racers. His disability, not his ability, has become his advantage in this competition. So would it be fair to start all of the racers on the starting mark, despite the disability of one? Yes, so long as the disability was not inflicted by any of the other racers. Why?
Because the not everyone develops equally. There are people who are smarter than others, people who are more able-bodied than others. People who are lazier than others, there are people who are at different ages than others. There is no universal person. The only thing that the law should be doing is to insure that nobody is disadvantaging another. This means fraud, this means lies, and this means, obviously, no hurting or killing another, and no stealing. Doing these things is to destroy another for your own gain, and that is unethical. However, people often times point out that in business, people step on each other constantly to get ahead. They point to capitalism as a system that creates competition, that it alienates a person from themselves and that it creates a group of people dedicated only to the seeking of things.
Firstly, people will always need things. The right to own things is natural. If a man grows his wheat and cooks his bread, is he not entitled to it? If a woman creates something beautiful, is she not entitled to the sale of her work at a value that seems acceptable to her? It is often the case that a person produces something or owns something and is pushed to sell it at a cost that seems less than acceptable to them. This is never the case. If a person willingly sells something of theirs to another, they always have the option to say no to the transaction. Again, I'm barring force here, as people will use force against others, but the law must always be designed around the elimination of such heinous activities.
The key word here is "willingly." Freedom must insure that a person is able to willingly do something. Welfare unwillingly takes from those who have and gives it those who do not have. On the surface this seems like a good thing, until one realizes that someone has been stolen from in the process. If everyone is competing for what they want and using what they have to get it, why would some who do not have be placed above those who've been competing honestly?
Is the winner of the race guilty of injuring the others if he wins it fairly? If a race is run fairly, why would the winner be blamed for the others losing? Yes, they lost, but they did not lose because of one man's malice, but they lost to one man's ability? Ought that winner be started back farther, so as to make him work harder in order to achieve the same as the others? Should the successful, the talented, the intelligent, the industrialists be sacrificed so that others might be better able to compete? No, because if that was the case, success would be penalized and failure rewarded.
There are people out there who need help. There are those out there who cannot function properly, who can't get through the day without the assistance of others. There is no denying these facts, but to sacrifice the successful to those is to destroy people who've done nothing wrong for others who have done nothing wrong. Is there a solution to this problem, where two groups, neither of whom have committed a crime, to willfully improve the conditions of all? Yes, and that solution is effort and charity.
The principle of charity is a high one. It is the voluntary giving of what one has to another. The key word in that definition is "voluntary." To take without right, as taxation does, is wrong, regardless of the reason. We live in a world, though, where we can build skyscrapers, travel to space, and eradicate diseases. The solution to the world's problems lie not in taking from one group and giving to another, but in encouraging the development of all and encouraging the successful to help those who need it.
Inequality will be a constant throughout all of human existence. However, even in those areas of America that are largely poor, that are incapable of sustaining people, many do better than in other countries, and all do better than if we were fending for ourselves. Through cooperation, people are able to do more for themselves, and even the bottom living conditions begin to rise when prices are driven down through the advancement of a culture.
Consider the following. What percentage of people in this country die from starvation? A low number, but a number nonetheless. Now, by percentage, how many people die in undeveloped countries worldwide? The percentage is greatly raised.Why? Because the industry is not there to allow for the mass production of goods. When people are able to produce as much as possible more is produced, in general, and even if the most advanced goods go to the people who have also succeeded, enough extra is produced for others to have some. It is not that everyone deserves more when more is produced, but it is true that when the wheel of progress begins turning, everyone is moved along. Even the most rudimentary medical care given in this country is better than the medical care given in much of the world. Not because prices are reduced to help the poor, but because when the newest medicine comes out, it is better, and the producers in an economy purchase the newer goods, driving down the demand for the lesser products and reducing the cost of the products. The most advanced cures for diseases are costly, but the lesser cures, despite not being as effective, are more affordable and are still better than nothing.
To blame the successful or the lucky for the hardships of others is insanity. To say that a person, who has not hurt anyone, is a villain because they have been successful where others have not, is purely ridiculous. Has the person who has succeeded hurt those who have not? No. Has the person who has succeeded allowed the world to move forward, even in some tiny way? Yes. So why, if a person has not hurt anyone and has contributed something to society, would you claim that person is evil?
It is often the case that people look at those who have and see them as being in competition with the have-nots. And in a way, they are in competition, because the finite resources are going to those who have, and the have-nots want what the haves have. But in this example, one group has earned what they have, and the others have not. Yes, there are those who have things that they have not earned, but that is because people have grown to reward personality over ability.
It is true that genius will to unnoticed, that talent will be wasted, and that people with skill will not rise to the high ranks that some will. Sadly, in this day and age, connections have become more powerful than ability. And that is why ability must always be rewarded where it is seen. I implore you, when you consider someone for a promotion, or when you are considering those around you, do not look at who you like more, but look at who has the best abilities for a given situation. When ability is rewarded, more people benefit from more work in more ways. Do not reward inability and do not encourage ineptitude. Find those that work hard and show great potential and a desire to use that potential, and you will find someone who will earn what they have.
Support Your Freedom, Support Yourself: A Call To Action
I will endeavor to explain myself in every way possible throughout this blog. I am going to make some assertions, and I want to be as clear as possible, so if I in some way fail to be clear please let me know in the comment area. Please do not just argue with me, or bother disagreeing as I will just delete your comment.
Firstly, I want to say that most of these statements will be based around the ideas of objectivism. A quick recap, objectivism is the philosophy that asserts there is an external world that a person can be aware of through their senses. It maintains that senses lead to perceptions, which in turn can be used by the rational and conscious mind to make decisions used to improve a person's life. Now, this philosophy necessarily employs capitalism as it's economic AND political system. The idea of capitalism as a political system is foreign to most people, and that's not a surprise. It's a relatively obscure idea, but when you consider it, it appears to be the best thing out there.
Currently, this country has a mixed economy, although more of the money is controlled by the government than the people. This is against what the founding fathers were in favor of, and it is un-American for the government to play such a role in our daily lives. Again, that was what the Revolutionary War was fought for. But you might say, "Caleb, the government doesn't play a role in my every day." Untrue. The government has progressively taken more and more money from the people without representation than at any point in history. Consider this: out of every paycheck about 9% is taken out or taxes, give or take a bit. Now, on top of that, when you spend money at the store there is a sales tax between 7 and 9%, depending on the product. And if you buy something that qualifies as owned, then you must pay taxes on it every year. That is property tax. So they tax what money you make, then they tax you when you spend it, and if you have bought something large, or if you own property then the government taxes you for owning it. Whew, the government taxes you for everything!
Imagine a system where you were free. The only role the government played in your daily life was to provide a police system in case your rights were violated, a court system in case you had an issue with the law or another person, and a military system, in case the nation you lived in came under attack. Under this system, you would be free to buy what you wanted, make all the money you could rightfully earn, and do what you wanted with who you wanted. Marijuana wouldn't be illegal because it is a victimless crime. Speeding would be illegal because people are put at risk by reckless action. Drunk driving would also be illegal, but drinking would be legal for all citizens because it is a personal choice. Owning a gun would be legal because people have a right to hunt and defend themselves, but shooting a person or damaging another's property would be illegal because it infringes the rights of another. There is an old saying, "Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins." This would be the case of this government. If you go about your day without hurting others you could whatever you wanted. Want to stay out all night drinking? Okay. Want to travel somewhere? Go do it. Anything you want to do you can do as long as it does not infringe on the rights of another. Sleep with who you want when you want as long as both are consenting. Rape is obviously infringement on another's rights, but if both people are willing, then both are able to enjoy what they want to do.
And here I will fight the first argument against this pure form of Capitalism. In our current society, the one where the government owns most of the money and you only have a right to property if the government decides it does not need it, we have come to rely on the government to fix everything. They provide roads, but they take your money to pay for it. They provide schools that people complain about sucking, but they take all of our money to pay for it. If you never have kids then you are still paying. Socialism is what we are getting close to. The government says that they want something and we all have to do it. The government, it its current form, produces nothing. I know how that sounds, and it seems illogical. "Caleb, you just said they make all these things! How can you say they produce nothing?" Simple; money is only worth something when it can be exchanged for something else. A dollar is worth nothing if there is nothing to buy with it. Imagine if you had all the money in the world, but people traded with one another instead of using money. All those pieces of paper in your wallet would be worthless! And the government does not produce anything that your money can buy. Consider a road, and the workers needed to create it, and the hard materials needed to actually rest on the ground, and on the equipment needed to flatten the ground first. All of those things must be created and used and paid for. But the government did not earn the money to pay for those things. The government took that money from citizens and then the government decided how to use it. I will give you a personal example.
I work at Hastings in Warrensburg, and I like my job. Every hour I stand there and ring up customers who pay their rightfully earned dollars in exchange for product created in the private market that they decide they want to use. And every hour I stand there I get paid a little over 7 dollars by my private employer in exchange for my effort. I wish I got paid more, but I am not doing a task that nobody else could do, so I suppose my wage is fair. But for each hour I stand there earning my money, the government takes 8% and decides how to use it. This money is used to pay for roads, and much more, but more on that later. One road they pay for is 13 highway. Every time it rains, potholes over a food long and two or more inches deep appear. They have appeared every rain since I moved to Warrensburg. That is 3 years of driving through or around potholes since I moved here. They are taking my money and not even supplying a product I can really use. I avoid that highway until I have seen work crews out there. Now consider, they are taking the money from every person working in Warrensburg, every person buying products in Warrensburg, and yet every driver of that road is suffering the same conditions.
A private contractor understands the need to produce in order to survive as a businessman. If a private contractor created a road like 13 highway and kept it in the condition that 13 hwy is in, then that contractor would not get a job after doing such a poor job. If another, rival contractor, came into Warrensburg and said they could do the same road in a better condition, they would make more money and be worth more because their effort would be worth it. Why would you buy a weaker product for the same money that a better product can be bought? No reasonable person would do that. But the government does not trust people to be able to maintain their own lives. The government expects people to need them and in the last 5 or so decades, the government has become larger and larger, and it no longer expects people to be able to support themselves. The government does not trust you, so it takes your money and uses it how they think it needs to be used. Do you agree?
Your money went to support "Piss Christ" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ and it went to support this ant covered visage of Jesus http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/11/30/ant-covered-jesus-exhibition-sparks-call-congressional-probe/. Here are some more wastes of tax money taken from Americans and used for, well, just about anything the government decides it wants. http://www.billshrink.com/blog/5626/government-wastes/ http://articles.cnn.com/2007-07-26/living/mf.gov.projects_1_canal-great-pyramid-cheops?_s=PM:LIVING http://coburn.senate.gov/public//index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&File_id=774a6cca-18fa-4619-987b-a15eb44e7f18
That last one may be the worst waste of your money. And I think it is important to not call it "government money" because it is not earned by the government. It was taken from taxpayers, from me, from you, from your mother and father and grandmother and grandfather, and your children and your boss, and your coworkers and your husband or wife. The government instituted policies but did not pay for it itself. It paid by appropriating money and charging taxes.
And this brings me to a hot button topic. Planned Parenthood. And I now face the toughest group of people to talk to, those that see how something benefits them and accepts that if it is good for them then it is good. They ignore that something is unethical because they in some way are better off for it. Just like the Nazis were better off with less people to fight when they killed saboteurs and dissidents, these people view the government in terms of benefiting them. They rarely consider how the government pays for something and even more rarely care. I had an argument with a friend who argued on behalf of planned parenthood because she got her birth control from there. Now, birth control is a remarkable invention, but I shouldn't have to pay for it. If you have been in a long term relationship for years, you are still paying for her to be able to sleep around. If you have been married, or if you abstain, you are still paying for her to get birth control and for her to get checked. The only people benefiting from her use of planned parenthood are her and the people she lets into her vagina. Regardless of your opinion of birth control, you are paying for it. Further, planned parenthood assists in abortions, either by referral or procedure. I am in favor of a person having a right to an abortion if they want one, remember, I believe in freedom. But many disagree. True, abortions must be paid for by the abortee in the event of an abortion, but in some cases the taxpayers do pay. Events of rape or if the birth could be harmful to the mother are situations under which a woman may receive an abortion paid for by you. You've paid for abortion and condoms and the pill and std testing regardless of if you have a uterus or if you have ever had sex! That is why I am against funding planned parenthood. Think about it logically: if you are mature enough to have sex, aren't you mature enough to take precautions? If you want to have sex, you must be prepared for the possible outcomes: pregnancy and stds and emotional baggage. These things can all occur, and they are your responsibility. What's next, are we going to pay for people who have their hearts broken by someone they sleep with who never calls them the next day to go to counseling? Ridiculous.
And people argue that theses institutions are good because they help children of the poor. But ask, why is someone poor? What is that they did that put them in that position? I am poor, but I get by by working and reducing my expenses to a level that is affordable. But there will undoubtedly be people who argue that if someone is poor and they have children then they must be taken care of. I agree, those children are a moral duty of the parents. Every parent must be prepared to take care of any children they choose to bring into the world. But THEY must be responsible for THEIR children. I am not responsible for the children that I have not chosen to bring into the world. That's why I keep my reproductive equipment out of situations I am not prepared to personally support. You and I are paying for children we did not chose to bring into this world. Consider a family, lets say they make $15,000 a year. One father, one mother, one child. Money will invariably be tight. But it is possible for a family to get by in that situation if both parents work and if both try to improve their situation. But if a family in that condition chooses to have 3 more children, can those people really be said to be considering what is best for them? Why then, if they are not willing to prevent the pregnancies, should I be required to pay for the outcome of such pregnancies? Why, if a person makes a bad decision, do I have a duty to support them? I do not. But charity is a personal choice. If I should choose to let one of their children stay with me, or if someone should choose to adopt one of those children then that person has a right to do so, if the parents are willing to allow it. No person has a right to my labor and effort but me, and since it is my money and effort, I can apply it where I choose. That means I can buy birthday presents for those people I care about, I can give rides to people who I want to help, and I can donate money if I feel like it is something I want to do. But the government disagrees. It thinks that we have a right to some of our labor, but that they know how to spend our money better than we do. They think that we have to support those people who have not demonstrated capability ineptitude. They support those who have not succeeded by fining those who have. Taxes on the wealthy to support the poor? That is robbery. If a person succeeds in this nation then they become a target for the leeches. If you manage to make good decisions in life, if you become productive, if you rise up and make more money then you are rewarded by money in the private marked, but are given a bullseye to wear on your back by the government. Their edict; "You have succeeded, so you must support those who have not." Capitalism's edict; "You have succeeded, do what you will and know that you will live or die by your own hand."
Friends, this is a call to action. Support capitalism and you support your self, you support your freedom. Do not encourage those who ask you to surrender your money to their causes. Do not allow yourself to be guilted into supporting the weak. If you are a producer, produce. If you are a survivor, survive. If you choose to live, live.
"We (the first Americans) hold these truths to be self-evident (so obvious that nobody could contend them because of their fact-based nature) that all men are created equal (nobody is born destroyed, but they manage that by their own hands) that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable (cannot be taken by anyone) rights (which are yours without you having to work for them) that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." Constitution of the United States of America
It is a shame that our modern government and worse still, our people, are working to destroy what this country used to represent. My call is this:
Believe in freedom, work for your own happiness, enjoy and live your life, and support yourself. Nobody has a right to you but you.
And people argue that theses institutions are good because they help children of the poor. But ask, why is someone poor? What is that they did that put them in that position? I am poor, but I get by by working and reducing my expenses to a level that is affordable. But there will undoubtedly be people who argue that if someone is poor and they have children then they must be taken care of. I agree, those children are a moral duty of the parents. Every parent must be prepared to take care of any children they choose to bring into the world. But THEY must be responsible for THEIR children. I am not responsible for the children that I have not chosen to bring into the world. That's why I keep my reproductive equipment out of situations I am not prepared to personally support. You and I are paying for children we did not chose to bring into this world. Consider a family, lets say they make $15,000 a year. One father, one mother, one child. Money will invariably be tight. But it is possible for a family to get by in that situation if both parents work and if both try to improve their situation. But if a family in that condition chooses to have 3 more children, can those people really be said to be considering what is best for them? Why then, if they are not willing to prevent the pregnancies, should I be required to pay for the outcome of such pregnancies? Why, if a person makes a bad decision, do I have a duty to support them? I do not. But charity is a personal choice. If I should choose to let one of their children stay with me, or if someone should choose to adopt one of those children then that person has a right to do so, if the parents are willing to allow it. No person has a right to my labor and effort but me, and since it is my money and effort, I can apply it where I choose. That means I can buy birthday presents for those people I care about, I can give rides to people who I want to help, and I can donate money if I feel like it is something I want to do. But the government disagrees. It thinks that we have a right to some of our labor, but that they know how to spend our money better than we do. They think that we have to support those people who have not demonstrated capability ineptitude. They support those who have not succeeded by fining those who have. Taxes on the wealthy to support the poor? That is robbery. If a person succeeds in this nation then they become a target for the leeches. If you manage to make good decisions in life, if you become productive, if you rise up and make more money then you are rewarded by money in the private marked, but are given a bullseye to wear on your back by the government. Their edict; "You have succeeded, so you must support those who have not." Capitalism's edict; "You have succeeded, do what you will and know that you will live or die by your own hand."
Friends, this is a call to action. Support capitalism and you support your self, you support your freedom. Do not encourage those who ask you to surrender your money to their causes. Do not allow yourself to be guilted into supporting the weak. If you are a producer, produce. If you are a survivor, survive. If you choose to live, live.
"We (the first Americans) hold these truths to be self-evident (so obvious that nobody could contend them because of their fact-based nature) that all men are created equal (nobody is born destroyed, but they manage that by their own hands) that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable (cannot be taken by anyone) rights (which are yours without you having to work for them) that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." Constitution of the United States of America
It is a shame that our modern government and worse still, our people, are working to destroy what this country used to represent. My call is this:
Believe in freedom, work for your own happiness, enjoy and live your life, and support yourself. Nobody has a right to you but you.
Masturbation Is Sex With The Person You Love The Most
Okay, the topic for today's blog is dreams, and a subset of dreams, love. So, to clarify my points, I am talking about dreams in the sense of those experiences when you are asleep. Not aspirations, those things should make sense. I'm talking about the nights where you wake up and you say to yourself "But I've never even met Michael Keaton." And love needs to be defined here also, so lets get on that. Love is an emotion, and also a condition, and, in a way, a place. So that is pretty broad, I understand, but roll with me here.
Lately, my dreams have pushed towards the exceptionally unusual. I have always had dreams about crocodilians, because they terrify me. And I have daddy issues, so there is that also. And I think that if you hit 15 years old and haven't had a sex dream, something in your life needs to be evaluated, so naturally I have those. Not saying my life doesn't need to be evaluated, because that's kind of what I am doing here, but I'll be explicit for the sake of clarification: I have sex dreams occasionally. But lately they have been more vivid and varied, and frankly, they have been a little weird. Interestingly enough to me, lately my dreams have included things that I could not have come up consciously. In one dream, a person had been choked to death and the blood vessels in their eyes were ruptured, which would not have occurred to me even if I was awake. And a couple of nights ago, I dreamed that a new street was being put through my house. When I argued that the road was unnecessary, I was shown a street map, which my unconscious had obviously generated, and a man explained the plan to me and refuted my arguments validly. I lost an argument to my unconscious. How does that possibly work?
As a good segway to discussing love, I recently had a dream with the most beautiful girl I have ever seen. Sadly, I forgot her face shortly after I woke up, but these things happen. She was gorgeous, and I remember thinking her nose was something special. I looked at her and I felt love. (segway accomplished) But in the dream it was just a feeling. An emotion was generated based on my brain chemistry and whatever. I felt love, but I was not in love, because she did not really exist. Existence is a necessary condition of love. I exist, so what I love must also exist. More specifically, who I love must exist, or else it's all just nonsense.
So, I am going to share my opinion of love. Of the condition of being in love, of which the brain chemistry and the feeling are a portion. To say you are in love is to say that you are meeting all of the conditions under which a person can be said to be loving something. And I hope everyone feels that at least once in their life. And I'll tell you something, nobody is in love all of the time. I have loved a ton of things in my life. I have loved a few people. I love my mother, my little brother and sister. That is familial love, and I love them, and all conditions are met to make me have affection for them. I love technology. I love that it works sometimes, I love that it is so remarkable and that it is greater than what used to be imagined to be possible. The internet is one of the top 10 greatest inventions ever. I can get information about the other side of the world from space delivered to a piece of metal and plastic in my pocket with the touch of a finger. Think about that for a moment, and if you don't understand how that is important, go outside and stand in traffic until something man-made hits you at high speeds.
Romantic love is more elusive. I loved a girl once, with everything I had. We were very happy for a time. I loved her, was in love with her, and she returned to me the same. It was wonderful. But as they say, all good things must come to an end, and we weren't long for this world. I could go on about afternoons spent in bed looking at each other and talking, and about whole days worth of time spent on the phone talking about life, and the world. But we weren't compatible as time went on, and we separated, and after a time we broke up. And that was tough. No, doubt, that was the start of so many moments to come right there, breaking up with Sarah. That was something that I wouldn't wish on anyone, that feeling of having a person you care so much about taken from you by your hand, but it is also something everyone needs to feel because it is an eye-opener. You really feel when you go from love to pain in moment. But the conditions for being in love with her were not withstanding the reality that we were headed different places in life. I'm a graduate student now and she can't finish her Associate of Arts degree. I love ideas, she loved feeling, I felt only a minimal obligation to my family, she was obedient to them in so many ways. We split apart in that way. I suppose, looking back on it, and even then I knew it, we were perfect in all the small ways, but on the big issues we were leagues apart.
And there was another a few months after that that I thought I loved at the time. She was a fireball, that was a true flash-in-the-pan relationship. Beth and I cared for each other for a while, and then the inverse of that came about. Affection turned to a desire to see each other ended in a matter of 2 weeks or so. Funny how a friend sleeping with your ex you cared about can turn you against both of those people. But that relationship too was an eye-opener. I learned that a nice body and a an enjoyable conversationalist can be a nightmare if that person might someday show up at your doorstep with a bloody knife. I'm dramatizing this of course, but not by much.
But I have always been attracted to the crazy. First few girls I ever had a thing for were all kinda crazy, at least to some degree. Theatre chicks, I've always been attracted to them. Those tend to be people who already have a few characters in their heads before they start standing on stage yelling to the rafters in front of crowds. And that brings me to Clementine. Real name Megan, you are beginning, I hope to see what is going on here. She was just not a good fit for me. We agreed on the major issues. We could talk for hours about complex issues, we agreed a lot, and we could have fun together. But over time, roughly about the time we moved in together, we started to see the worse in each other. We had no space anymore, and we were getting annoyed with each other hour by hour. I hated how she would never do what she said she would, she hated that I was always at the house and wanted to know what she was up to. Undoubtedly, we were a terrible match. And that ended before she even moved out. And she moved out as soon as we could get her gone. Actually, moving her out was the most productive we were towards each other over a period of 2 months.
But, on the upside, I've learned something from each girl I have dated. I've learned that you have to be honest with yourself, that you have to put your feelings after your thoughts, because if you know something in your head, it is probably true, but your emotions just want to be fueled. Your mind wants you to be in a better place, and your emotions just want to be felt. And if things are going south, get out before they go supernova. And if you doubt something, explore it, don't just hope that it goes away.
Romantic love is elusive, as I said before. For me especially I suppose. Someone that agrees with me on the big issues? Where am I going to find a good Capitalist in this region? Where am I going to find someone who prefers reason to emotion? Someone who understands physical intimacy like I do? Okay, that last one isn't difficult at college, but still. Someone who makes me feel better and think better that I can do the same for? It's practically impossible. Even if I had the whole world open to me I would face difficulty there. Plus, I'm moving in a year or so, meaning if I began something now the only way that relationship would end would be in pain, either by leaving or a fight.
So I stick to myself. I don't keep any close friends, partially because most people don't care for my opinions, but also because I like doing what I want when I want. I outlined once what my perfect woman would be. She'd be: part Italian, art Russian, theatre person who likes art but prefers discussions on architecture and other usefulforms of art to art that does nothing, a musician, violin and piano, who composes her own concertos in her spare time, a princess of a small island nation where she has a mostly ceremonial position but that still garners her some serious respect. When it comes to looks, there is a lot of leeway there, as I like women of all shapes and sizes, but the personality is what I think is impossible. So if you find a single girl meeting these qualifications, give her my number.
Tomorrow's post will be whatever the hell I want it to be. I'm thinking about breaching the sex issue tomorrow, or perhaps whatever strikes my fancy. It'll be a surprise. And if you really read this whole thing, kudos to you. Now go play outside.
I Don't Play Guitar
Today I woke up early, about a quarter past noon. I laid in bed until around one thirty, when my friend Rachel told me to get out of bed because she had come over to my place and wanted me to get some sunlight. Honestly, she made a pretty good call. We went to a park and swung some on the swing set. My oldest memory is of swinging. My grandfather used to push me for hours, or what seemed like hours, when I was a little kid living with him and my grandmother. On my mom's side. That is specificity that is required I suppose. The sun did me good.
But now there is a choice. What do I do with my afternoon? I am blogging now. But I have options for the day. I am going to move Angel's electric piano into my living room, and plug that in. Do I read Atlas Shrugged and annotate the sections I wanted to while listening to it on audio book? Do I do the dishes that so desperately need to be done? Do I practice piano? Do, dare I say it, study for class? Now I need to make a decision, and I can feel myself falling towards the path of least resistance. That is always what I take. The path that allows me to do the least. That is why I am where I am. My ideas are such that, with a lot of effort and some flashes of brilliance, I could be a successful writer by now. I go maybe three or four days between writing down general story ideas. I have the beginnings to a huge number of either novels or short stories. But the endings are so rarely varied that I feel no compulsion to write them.
I imagine myself differently than I am. I know that to be true. I visualize myself as a decent human being with great capacity for thought and intelligence, while the reality is that I am a decent human being with a great capacity for creativity and an average capacity for thought and intelligence that never uses either. That's not entirely true. I am not a complete dunce, and I make good decisions, when one is obviously possible without much effort. That's my problem, effort. I need a live in assistant to get me up and writing and going to class. I want to skip class tonight. I wouldn't pay attention if I went, and then I would try to bullshit my way through. And I would do fine, because I am a master bullshitter. But I also want to just do my own thing. I don't care about my education right now. I can't get much out of the English field right now. It's all postmodernism. And postmodernism is bullshit. Maybe that's why I was able to slide through classes for so long without studying. But postmodernism, all of it, is useless. Contributing to the fall of our civilization. Or something like that.
This web-log is masturbatory. The word "I" has been overused in it. But then again, I own it, so I get to use "I" as much as I want. 4 times in that last sentence. There's something for you, numbers versus #s. If you are using a number less than, what is it, twelve, you're supposed to type it out. At 13 you use the number. But I have a whole keypad for #s, so I am going to use #s as much as possible. I hope you're understanding what I mean.
I don't play guitar. I wish I did. I need someone to teach me, just me, for an hour or so a day. I could probably learn it relatively quickly. But then what? I doubt I would use it. I have no illusions of being a rockstar, no real illusions. I would love to stand in front of thousands of people and have them all worship me and what I created, but rock and roll just isn't something I'm cut out for. Too many other people are involved in the creative process.
Lets find out this one, I'm not here to please you, but if I gave you 3 options on what you people wanted to hear my thoughts on tomorrow, what would it be? Love, Post-Modernism, Physics. Take your pick, and tomorrow, you'll see what you get.
But now there is a choice. What do I do with my afternoon? I am blogging now. But I have options for the day. I am going to move Angel's electric piano into my living room, and plug that in. Do I read Atlas Shrugged and annotate the sections I wanted to while listening to it on audio book? Do I do the dishes that so desperately need to be done? Do I practice piano? Do, dare I say it, study for class? Now I need to make a decision, and I can feel myself falling towards the path of least resistance. That is always what I take. The path that allows me to do the least. That is why I am where I am. My ideas are such that, with a lot of effort and some flashes of brilliance, I could be a successful writer by now. I go maybe three or four days between writing down general story ideas. I have the beginnings to a huge number of either novels or short stories. But the endings are so rarely varied that I feel no compulsion to write them.
I imagine myself differently than I am. I know that to be true. I visualize myself as a decent human being with great capacity for thought and intelligence, while the reality is that I am a decent human being with a great capacity for creativity and an average capacity for thought and intelligence that never uses either. That's not entirely true. I am not a complete dunce, and I make good decisions, when one is obviously possible without much effort. That's my problem, effort. I need a live in assistant to get me up and writing and going to class. I want to skip class tonight. I wouldn't pay attention if I went, and then I would try to bullshit my way through. And I would do fine, because I am a master bullshitter. But I also want to just do my own thing. I don't care about my education right now. I can't get much out of the English field right now. It's all postmodernism. And postmodernism is bullshit. Maybe that's why I was able to slide through classes for so long without studying. But postmodernism, all of it, is useless. Contributing to the fall of our civilization. Or something like that.
This web-log is masturbatory. The word "I" has been overused in it. But then again, I own it, so I get to use "I" as much as I want. 4 times in that last sentence. There's something for you, numbers versus #s. If you are using a number less than, what is it, twelve, you're supposed to type it out. At 13 you use the number. But I have a whole keypad for #s, so I am going to use #s as much as possible. I hope you're understanding what I mean.
I don't play guitar. I wish I did. I need someone to teach me, just me, for an hour or so a day. I could probably learn it relatively quickly. But then what? I doubt I would use it. I have no illusions of being a rockstar, no real illusions. I would love to stand in front of thousands of people and have them all worship me and what I created, but rock and roll just isn't something I'm cut out for. Too many other people are involved in the creative process.
Lets find out this one, I'm not here to please you, but if I gave you 3 options on what you people wanted to hear my thoughts on tomorrow, what would it be? Love, Post-Modernism, Physics. Take your pick, and tomorrow, you'll see what you get.
Prologue: Where It All Begins
Beginning at the beginning. Seems like a reasonable enough place to start right? Well, if you are reading this, which I doubt you are, then there are obviously a few implicit premises in me writing this. The premise that is most relevant is that I have a reason for this blog. The reality is actually pretty masturbatory: I am having a hard time finding people around me that I want and can spend time with, and am therefore reaching out the the net to commiserate. Not with anyone else really, but just myself. I've become completely disenchanted with the notion of people having good ideas or common sense, and am more or less using my little corner of the net to bitch. So let's get right to is, shall we? WARNING: THIS BLOG WILL NOT BE EDITED TO APPEASE ANYONE. SINCE THIS IS MY PERSONAL CREATION, IT WILL BE COMPLETELY TRUE TO ME AND THEREFORE WILL ALMOST CERTAINLY CONTAIN STATEMENTS YOU DO NOT AGREE WITH.
1. I've been wanting to write a book for some time now. I have 36 pages of it done, but that was over 6 months ago that I last finished a chapter. I have a desire to have the book done, but not a desire to sit in front of my television and work on it. I think this is a many-fold problem. I'm very revitalized by the sun. But I sleep through most of my days and am up for a good many of the nights. This is obviously a schedule not conducive to a productive working environment. Moreover, I always want to be doing something more passive than I am at any given moment. I understand just how lazy that sounds, but it is the truth. My life is one large negative-stress relief model. That is really not how a person thrives. Hopefully this blog will encourage me to write more and strive to be at least marginally more productive.
2. I am very disappointed in the way people think these days. Or rather, I am disappointed that they so rarely do think these days. My friends are traditionally more liberal, as that is the crowd that I am used to being with. However, I am not liberal, as I used to be. I am more of an objectivist than anything. To summarize what that means briefly, it means that I know there is an objective reality, and I understand that the truth is that which corresponds with that reality. I am alive, meaning I must place values where they belong in order to continue my existence. That means needing to be selfish in order to thrive. This is not selfishness as most people understand it, but rather, it is the dedication to the self above all other things. This means doing what one must to be productive and to thrive. I have not been doing that lately. I have not carried a healthy diet, I have spent too much money, and I do not produce as I would like to. All in all, that's why I am disappointed in myself. But I am looking forward to changing that. It is healthier and cheaper to eat in, so that is what I am trying to do more. And I'm writing, obviously, so that will make me see a greater value in myself.
But, getting back to people. Many people are under the influence of religion, of which all are a form of mysticism. I do not understand how Christians and Jews and Muslims and Buddhists and Hindus do not see themselves as worshiping a form of mysticism, but they so rarely do. There is ultimately no way to view these people as anything but ridiculous. They do not understand certain aspects of the universe and then attribute those things they do not understand to mystical forces. The Greeks did this in what is now considered to be a laughable manner. Thunder would split the sky and people would attribute it to Zeus. The sun rose and set and people attributed that to Apollo. That was not the case then, and it is no more the case now that a mystical God controls all of these natural phenomenon today. That just isn't the case. Science every day explains how our world works in ways we previously did not understand. Ghosts are constantly being shown to be hoaxes or fakes. The world exists, and some of the things in it are beyond the realm of what human beings can initially understand. But that does not mean that it is supernatural. In fact, the supernatural is a misnomer. There is no supernatural, only the natural. If it appears in our universe then there is a cause and explanation for it. Religions seek to answer the questions that previously were unanswerable by resorting to hocus pocus, but science grants enlightenment and knowledge.
Reason is the only way that a person can improve. I am typing this on a wireless keyboard. I am using reason to understand how the language I am using can be applied to provide meaning to what I am wanting to express. Religion defies reason. Reason created the airplane, the wheel, allowed us to understand fire and the natural world, and then use that information to cure diseases, communicate, travel to space, and even understand how the universe works down to the atomic level. Religion would dismiss the natural world as a spectacular creation by a magical being that nobody can see or understand but that nevertheless controls everything. Nope, not true, the universe works in a very defined and understandable way. I drop something, it hits the ground, not because of an unknowable entity mysteriously made it fly that direction, but because gravity acted upon it.
3. I love Netflix. I have watched all of Arrested Development and several movies and am currently loving Californication all thanks to the beauty of Netflix and the internet.
4. The title of this entry, and I'm sure others like it, is Solarium for the Soul. I created this title because it describes what it is that I am wanting this blog to be. I am a very sun-oriented person, and my mood increases dramatically in the sunlight. A solarium is a pretty radical place for me to be because it lifts my mood so much. I am wanting a place that can do that for my soul. Not a mystical soul, but a soul in the literary sense. I don't believe in a mystical soul, but I do feel a yearning for something more to help me feel complete as a person.
5. I'll come right out and say that I feel lonely sometimes. I have been single for a long while now and definitely prefer it that way. I don't like feeling as though I have someone to report to, I like only having to deal with my own problems, and I like the pure freedom you can only get when you are single. But there is a trade off for these freedoms. Physical intimacy drops way down, and I find myself lacking a person I feel as though I really connect with. There is nobody I know that I can discuss anything with and feel both like a peer and a person while doing it. I have a few friends who are smarter than I, and I have many that are idiots on at least a few levels. This leaves me feeling as though I am in a vacuum. I have no peer that I can be around all the time and feel like myself.
Okay, enough wining for now. I'll be back with more later, but that ought to get this blog started.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)