The Greedy Capitalist

When arguing against interventionism, I often say sarcastically “imagine the state of computers if the government made operating systems.” Apparently, several asian governments didn’t find the notion as ludicrous as I.

Cox and Forkum interview

Check out the interview of the Cox and Forkum pair at CapMag. If you haven't seen their comics yet, do so. Now.

More on the Patriot Act

Many people sent me links to various critiques of the Patriot Act. For the reasons I mentioned in my original post, it’s very difficult to find objective evaluations of the law. Two stand out: this one by Reason magazine and this editorial on Capitalism magazine.
After doing some reading, I’ve been convinced that the Act has major flaws, of which the primary one is not that it gives too much power to the government, but that it is too vague about which powers it actually provides for. The great danger of a tyranny is not that it has too much power, but that its power is expressed by the arbitrary and unpredictable whims of some bureaucrat or dictator. I stand by my original claim however: unrestricted liberty requires a system of objective laws, under which the government has all and only the power it needs to find and punish criminals.

Two news stories that provide some interesting insight into the human mind and its potential: a 12-year-old begins medical school at the University of Chicago and a man's visision is restored after 43 years of blindness.

Greenspan's "bubbles"

Economists at the BIS (The Bank for International Settlements is a central-bank for the world) have issued an inane ruling that shows just how clueless they are. They told a Fed conference that "Central banks should tackle emerging asset bubbles head-on rather than wait till they burst and then clean up afterward."
The only point in question with these statists seems to be how much state intervention is necessary to “soften the blow” of these mysterious and seemingly natural and unpreventable “bubbles.” Not much though is given anymore as to whether these bubbles actually exist, and what, if any, is their cause.

Any economist worth a damn would start by asking what traits of the market could cause such “bubbles” to occur. The answer is simple: none. The self-correcting nature of a free market prevents any such “bubbles” from occurring by setting interest rates that accurately reflect the public's ever-changing time preference for future growth versus current spending. It is only manipulation by the only entity that has the power of a gun – the government – that can create changes large and lasting enough to create the “artificial” changes that cause economic depressions. The government cannot even create the so-called “booms” in the economy – it can only create destabilizing shifts to or from investment and consumer spending that disrupt the normal flow of goods and investment capital. It can also destroy very real economic growth – such as that during the 1920’s and 1990’s -- by practicing monetary and regulatory interventionism. I don't want to launch into a polemic on economics, so if you want to learn more about actual economics rather than pure interventionist propaganda, I recommend Mises.org, or Capitalism.net

Here is a damsel in distress the world has forgotten about. Help her out by spreading the word.

Where were you on 9/11?

I’ve been wondering what possible motivation even an Islamic nut would have to bomb an irrelevant and pacifist group like the UN. According to one UK-based fundamentalist group, the UN is just as “quango organisation doing the bidding of the US.”
In related news, neither New York City nor the major media networks plan any special events to mark the upcoming second-year anniversary of September 11th. Not everyone has forgotten the occasion however, as the nuts mentioned above have planned a celebration of the “Magnificent 19” for the occasion.
What kind of society would not only forget about the murder of so many innocents but allow the same groups that created these terrorists to celebrate their atrocities? Britain is significantly more guilty of being a terrorist breeding ground than the U.S., but both are infested with the same plague: the terrorist-loving, America-hating trend of multiculturalism.

(Thanks to LGF for the links.

I got the job!

Yes, it's the one I really wanted. My busy life will suddenly get a lot busier…

Take four officers of the objectivist club, mix in one philosopher, decant a bottle of Bacardi rum and VanillaTwist Smirnoff vodka, and combine with “The Two Towers” and “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” DVD’s, and you get a great evening, served for five. I was so sick of the all the pathetically idiotic movies I had been seeing, that not even the Two Towers’ rabid earth-worship or the constant stream of Russian jokes could spoil my good mood. But this morning, I woke up to a killer hangover and a surprisingly large quantity of missing alcohol. Note to self: let the good times roll, but don’t forget to drink plenty of water before you hit the sack. And be sure to offer a tribute to the Gods to thank them for modern medicine.

I've added more great artists to my art gallery. Most of my new stuff comes from ArtRenewal, but they have many thousands of artists, so it can be hard to find the best artists if you don’t know what to look for. I’m going to look for some Victorian, Impressionist, and Renaissance pieces next, so it doesn’t look like I’m just mirroring their collection (which I’m tempted to do!) My logs show that my collection has been very popular with a certain gay bodybuilding forum – so check out my art gallery– four out of five gay bodybuilders like it!

STRONGER, YOU FOOL!

(Thanks, DailyPundit)

A tally of US taxpayers' tab for Iraq

Tim insists that I link to this article about the cost of the US involvement in Iraq. Surprise, surprise, "reconstruction" is costing a fortune. Probably the biggest cost of the war is the cost in increased oil prices (no “blood for oil,” eh?) Since there has been some misunderstanding about my stance on Iraq, let me clear things up.
ATTN: World
Re: “Iraqi Reconstruction”
I adamantly oppose the reconstruction of any oil refinery, factory, or even one golf shack with money taken from me without my consent. Furthermore, I oppose any “peacekeeping” or policing efforts in any foreign country, including Iraq, Afghanistan, and Kosovo. What I oppose even more than the above however, is die-happy fundamentalist terrorists blowing up my countrymen and putting my life in danger. This is why I support the US military taking whatever steps to kill those bastards as fast and as efficiently as possible, while risking the lives of American soldiers as little as possible. The best way to do this would have been to take out the two governments that are the most active in supporting terrorism around the world: Iran and North Korea. Having failed to do that, Iraq is better than nothing. This involves taking out the Iraqi government by whatever means necessary. What the Iraqis decide to replace Saddam with is not my concern, though I doubt that any semblance of a democracy is possible.

Have the WMD's finally been found? Let's hope Bush has the guts to follow up...
(Thanks, RE)

China's Mix of Freedom and Blood

A successful Chinese businessman was jailed earlier this year for his anti-communist statements as well as for “illegal” competition with state banks. This case is typical of the resistance state-run industries in China put up to better and more efficient private companies. The spread of private enterprises in China is creating a new class of entrepreneurs who challenge the state monopolies both economically and ideologically. The military-run state industries often respond by having the businessman sufficiently harassed or quietly disappear. While the situation is depressing in the short run, this mix of freedom and force is unstable – sooner or later, China will have an intellectual revolt and will be forced to choose capitalism or tyranny. If it chooses tyranny, it will surely look for an outside scapegoat to blame for the economic collapse that follows. This turn of events is probably the greatest threat from China to America’s security in the long run.
(Thanks, Keenan )

CD-Recordable discs unreadable in less than two years

Long before I got my first CD-RW drive, I had friends make CD’s for me and stayed up late in the school’s computer lab to transfer my files by ftp and back up my stuff on the ancient 2X burners. Because CDR’s store data digitally and CDROM drives do not touch the surface when reading them, I always assumed that my CD’s would last forever – just like the manufacturer promised. You can imagine my shock when I read that many CDR discs become unreadable after just two years! A little research confirms that CD’s are not nearly as long-lasting as their manufacturers claim. This makes me very concerned about the dozens of CDR’s I’ve accumulated over the years. While I usually use name-brands like Memorex and Imation, I’ll be testing my old cd’s to see how they held up. When I scanned my family’s old black and white photographs to preserve them, I was sure the cd’s would outlast the photos!

Sun Microsystems is a Hypocrite

I've spent the last two days installing and playing with Windows Server 2003. It ads some much-needed features and improvements to IIS that make it a much better server OS than the Windows 2000 line. Aside from some unnecessary hardware and software compatibility issues, I have one complaint: it’s missing Microsoft’s own optimized version of Java. Is this a case of Microsoft trying to "bully" Sun? No, the missing Java is a result of a Sun lawsuit intended to force Microsoft to scuttle its superior version of Java in lieu of Sun's because Microsoft’s implementation is "incompatible" and “obsolete.” My own experience with both versions indicates that Microsoft’s Java is better, faster, and just as compatible as Sun’s.

In the latest decision, the judge ruled that by producing a better version of Sun’s “open” standard, Microsoft was using its monopoly power to help its .Net platform. Apparently, making your competitor's product (which MS had a license to) work better is "anti-competitive." To his credit, he ruled that (for now) Microsoft does not have to include Sun’s inferior Java in Microsoft’s own operating systems.

Why is a company supposedly dedicated to innovation and open standards preventing others from making their own improved versions? How can Sun criticize Microsoft for being “monopolistic” while trying to force its Java into Windows and engaging in the same deals with computer manufacturers as Microsoft to bundle Java onto desktops? There are many complex licensing and technical issues here, but it is clear to me that Sun has realized that its client and server-side Java products are inferior to .Net and (like SCO) is trying to win in the courts where it has failed in innovation.

Mural Of Nude Eve Covered With Mock Crime Scene Tape

Mural Of Nude Eve Covered With Mock Crime Scene Tape

"Anatoly Chubais, chief executive of Russia's national power monopoly Unified Energy System, called the [NYC] blackout "the biggest accident in the history of world energy systems."
From personal experience, I can assure you that he's wrong. (Thanks, Jaboobie )

The Patriot Act and the Politics of Liberty, Part Two

To determine whether the Patriot Act infringes on our liberty, we must first determine what “liberty” is. Two political theorists stand out as defining the meaning of liberty: John Locke, and John Stuart Mill.

John Locke essentially invented the notion of liberty. According to Locke, the essence of liberty is the absence of coercion. Locke believed in political liberty, under which “coercion” means the initiation of force against an individual by physical force, the threat of force, or fraud. Furthermore, Locke held that liberty can only be justified on a particular ethical and epistemological basis, rather than an absolute independent of any particular ethical or philosophical basis.

According to John Stuart Mill, the meaning of “liberty” is very different. Mill was a utilitarian – he saw the happiness of society as his ultimate goal. He rejected the idea that humans had a common nature or a single path to their happiness – which means that each individual must find his own path to self-actualization in order to maximize his happiness. For Mill, liberty lies in the ability of the individual to choose the way in which he wishes to express himself, and to share his ideas with others in order to teach and learn the successful means by which to achieve happiness. In this view, limitations on liberty come from anything that limits one’s means of “self expression,” whether that means singing in the streets, having your art shown in museums, or bashing people’s heads in.

The primary difference John Locke and John Stuart Mill is that according to Locke, full and unlimited liberty is possible as long as men do not initiate force against each other, while for Mill, liberty must always be limited and contradictory because force is often needed to allow individual self-expression. So, if one was unable to convince the media to present his views, or to have museums display his art, or to convince men to follow his vision of society, the state’s role is to regulate the media, support the arts, and enforce “community standards.” Locke on the other hand, argued that the function of government is to protect individuals from the initiation of force, and as long as men respect each other’s rights, and the State prevents the initiation of force, full and unlimited freedom is possible.

When Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, it was John Locke’s definition of liberty that he had in mind. Since that time however, Mill’s view has come to dominate society, in liberal, conservative, and libertarian circles. Some argue that if any restriction of “self-expression” limits liberty, then no objective basis for government limitation of “liberty” is possible, and anarchy is the ultimate form of freedom. Most people amend this view with the position that government coercion is the only “practical” means to compromise between conflicting views of liberty. Leftists and libertarians are the most common supporters of this utilitarian and subjective definition of liberty.

According to Locke however, totalitarianism and anarchy are essentially the same condition of freedom being displaced by a rule of the biggest thug. Full and unlimited liberty is possible to man – but only in a society where the initiation of force is removed from human relationships – and that can only be done in a system of objective laws. In a free society, the role of the government is to negotiate peaceful solutions to disputes and punish criminals and foreign invaders who initiate force against its citizens. The government must be restricted from becoming yet another aggressor by being limited to stopping criminals and carrying out justice.

Liberty is only possible in a society where men are free to do as they please as long as they respect that same right in others, and the government fulfills its role of carrying out justice based on objective laws. There are only two ways the government can fail to respect the liberty of its citizens: by initiating force, and by failing to adequately protect its citizens from the initiation of force. The former happened with the success of the terrorists in the 9/11 attacks, precipitated by many years of flawed domestic and foreign policy. The proper response of the government should be both to exact justice on anyone responsible for the attacks and to change its domestic and foreign policies to prevent such attacks in the future. The Patriot Acts are just one of necessary steps needed to correct decades of flawed policies that emboldened terrorists, and crippled the security agencies by preventing them from properly carrying out their function. These powers are not a limitation on the liberty of the people, but a necessary condition in order that the primary requirement of liberty: life, be preserved. This is not a blank check for whatever policies the government thinks are necessary – the police must be supervised by the courts to ensure that they abide by the laws, and the laws must be written so that proper precautions are taken to avoid harassment or wrongful convictions of innocents. (See my post The Fallacy of “Liberty vs. Security” for more.)

The latest Patriot Act is not perfect in this respect – but it goes a long way to giving the security agencies the powers they need to carry out justice. It is much better to have a sharp offensive security policy where the FBI actively goes out after individual terrorists than a dull defensive policy where airline passengers cannot take nail clippers in a carry-on and children and grandmothers are subjected to intrusive random searches. Yet both the liberals and libertarians would rather have us treat everyone like children than go after the actual terrorists with no holds barred. Of course, neither group will admit that the inevitable outcome of the policies they are advocating is just that.

NEWCARD

The following article on the upcoming NEWCARD standard to replace the old PC Cards is an interesting look at the issues that must be considered when impementing a hardware standard.

The Patriot Act and the Politics of Liberty, Part One

Leftists (including the neo-commie Howard Dean) would love to have you believe that the Patriot Act is some sort of Nazi anti-subversion law that blows away the Bill of Rights. I will bet you good money that none of the protesters you hear about have ever read the Patriot Act, nor do they have even a remote clue what it is actually about. Even if they did know what they Patriot Act is about, they have absolutely no conception of individual rights, preventing them from making any kind of informed judgment about whether the Act will take them away. Given that a leftist’s idea of “freedom” is imprisoning gun owners and smokers while letting killers and rapists loose, promoting government-enforced racism, ignoring eco-terrorists, and stealing my money to support lazy-ass moochers, bad art, and "free" speech, I would love to see a law that wipes out the leftist notion of “civil liberties.”

No, the leftists definitely cannot be trusted to understand, much less argue whether the Patriot Act infringes on our “civil liberties.” To understand what infringes on liberty, one must first know what liberty is. Explaining this however, is something that will have to wait till after lunch. Meanwhile, check out the “Preserving Life and Liberty” site the government set up in support of the Act.

Take out Pyongyang!

MSNBC has an interesting account of a North Korea missile factory shipment to Libya. North Korea’s major sources of income consist of foreign aid (from western nations as well as loyalist Koreans in Japan), slave labor exports to China (and often to U.S. with a “Made in China” label) – and military hardware and technology sales to dictatorships around the world. Although I am skeptical about its chances for success, North Korea’s latest quest to develop nuclear weapons is a clincher in the case to take it out. No need to send in a large US force – drop a few nukes to take out Pyongyang, and the enslaved North Koreans will take care of the rest (and be eternally grateful to us for it!)

More Islamic madness…

Why in the world would anyone go after the UN?
I can think of two reasons. The obvious explanation is that the Iraqi terrorists are stupid and cannot distinguish between the different foreign agencies in town -- so they targeted the least-defended one. The less likely reason is that they want more UN involvement and aid to Iraq – precisely what is likely to be the outcome of the bombing. With all due respect for the dead, the bombing is the best thing that could have happened to the UN from the perspective of its supporters – it has given the UN a relevance they have been desperate for since the war started.

In other news, how many innocent civilians have to die before the “cease-fire” is officially over?

Commanding Heights on PBS

I hear that the Commanding Heights miniseries is pretty good -- and now it's all online. The book has been gathering dust on my shelves for a while, so I think I've give the video version a try. Stay tuned for a review..

Update: I saw the miniseries, and I have two words for you: SEE IT. The series is a must-see for anyone who shares an interest in economics or want to learn about the economic history of the 20th century and the issues surrounding “globalization.”

The first section is an account of the economic development of the 20th century, and the second goes over some of the issues surrounding privatization and globalization. The third section is rather muddled and aimless so skip it if you are pressed for time. The many multimedia presentations and additional readings that accompany the videos are also very informative, and I spent a significant amount of time pausing the videos to browse them.

Although the overwhelming message is pro-market, I have some major issues with the economic theory presented in the series. The “free-market” is defined as a mixed economy that is far from being a welfare state, yet not nowhere near a truly capitalist society. Organizations and treaties with dubious merit like the WTO and NAFTA are endlessly glorified. The Austrians are given minor lip service, while the Chicago/monetarist school is put center stage. Clinton is given something like a dozen clips, and portrayed almost as a champion of free trade. Most disturbingly, the Marxist take on the Great Depression is accepted wholesale, along with a rejection of “raw greed” in favor of “controlled” capitalism. While the series definitely leans towards free markets, Thatcher and Reagan are glorified as the ultimate capitalists. Commentary on monetary policies is flawed somewhat by the monetarist perspective. In short, you will find a great deal of historical context, but be careful about accepting the economic theory the series presents at face value.

MSNBC provides some "tips" for fixing the power grid. Their "fix"? Nationalization, regulation, and environmentalism -- the very causes of the blackouts.
Ah well, another great Cox and Forkum. Also: FCC head warns of more regulations.

Why Objectivists Shouldn’t Be “Atheists”

Relax, I still think that Jesus is nothing but a dressed-up Santa for adults. What I realized after debating with Christians during the last few days however, is that presenting yourself as an “atheist” or making atheism the focus in a debate is not a good idea. The obvious reason is that I am not primarily an advocate of atheism, but of reason and individual rights. However, this fact alone does not explain how one should present these issues to theists, who happen to be the great majority of the students at my school. As I found out, there are three good reasons to avoid making God the focus or even a starting point of your arguments.

First, by necessity, “God” is a floating concept for theists. For obvious reasons, it is impossible to tie down one’s theology to reality. While this may seem helpful in disproving theism from a rational perspective, it allows a much greater degree of evasion in the form of a large base of floating abstractions that the theist uses to “deflect” the atheists arguments. A well-learned Christian has stock replies to all the usual arguments against theism and can continue arguing them in intricate loops that are completely detached from reality or any real-life parallels you might try to provide. For example, when picking a group to try my arguments on, I first decided to approach the “active” Christians because they seemed to already have a philosophical base to work with. But as I learned, that base was just one huge floating abstraction -- they knew it solely in relation to their religion, and were helpless in applying it to reality. I found that I had to resort to simple non-philosophical examples (an invisible pink elephant, the oncoming semi) just to get them to relate to reality.

A more important reason to avoid focusing on theism is that the primary difference between theists and Objectivists is their epistemology, not a belief in God per se. This is not immediately evident because many atheists adopt or retain the same intrinsic/subjective epistemology as their theist counterparts. To invalidate all mysticism – both the secular and religious kind, one first has to convince the theist to use the same epistemological standards for what constitutes true knowledge. In other words, the theist must reject faith and adopt reason as his means of knowledge. But once this happens, the argument is essentially won, because no conception of God can stand up to the scrutiny of reason for very long.

Finally, since the issue of faith vs. reason is not nearly as loaded with religious dogma, emotional attachments, and peer pressure as the existence of God, it can be much easier to break through to an honest person. Of course, it goes without saying that rational arguments only work on someone who is essentially honest, and no proof will ever convince someone who chooses to actively evade reality.

Et tu, Arnold?

Druge reports that Schwarzenegger's top economic adviser Warren Buffett wants to raise taxes. Buffet is a democrat and a vocal critic of Bush's tax cut. This is the man Arnold picked for his economic advisor? I know he wants some credibility, but this is not the way to get it. Does anyone remember seeing Arnold with Milton Friedman on the "Free to Choose" videos praising free-market policies?

NY Blackout Special Edition

Quick Quiz: What is the media’s most likely take on the blackout:

1. The “complexity” and “chaos” of the market is unsuitable for an “essential” need like electricity.
   
2. The blackout was caused by America’s over-reliance on fossil fuels – we need to reduce our electricity use and move to renewable energy sources.
   
3. The minor looting and small number of deaths caused by the blackout is a sure sign that we can trust the government to protect our lives.
   
4. The Democrats haven’t found a way to blame the Bush administration for it, but they’re going to have something soon.
   
5. The blackout is an inevitable consequence of a heavily regulated, price-controlled, forcibly monopolized, and eco-crazed power industry.

If you know what the SCO scam is, you might find this humorous. If you don't know what I'm talking about, move on, nothing interesting here.

All hail the magical, invisible pink elephant!

Whenever I get frustrated with Christians, it's time to pull out the invisible pink elephant. It's almost as effective as the "step out in front of an oncoming semi and pray/wish/pretend that it goes away" line.

There is an invisible pink elephant floating in my room. You can't see, hear, feel, smell, or touch it, but I can. I know he is real because I found this old book the other day that talks about him, and last night I had a dream where he spoke to me!

All hail the magical, invisible pink elephant!

What?? You don’t believe me!? Well, you just try and prove that he doesn't exist!

P.S.: The elephant is finicky and gets very mad at non-believers. He likes to hide their keys, socks and loose change. But you'll never know that it was him who did it until you start believing in him.

P.P.S: Actually, you believe in the elephant already – everybody does. But there’s a wicked little invisible purple unicorn that puts mean thoughts into your head that the magical invisible pink elephant doesn’t exist. If you ever have any doubts about existence of the pink elephant, it’s the invisible purple unicorn that’s putting them into your head.

P.P.P.S. Did I say the pink elephant likes to hide your loose change? Sorry – it’s actually the mean purple unicorn that made me think that – he’s the one responsible for all the bad things I do.

Down with the mean, invisible purple unicorn!

I have a feeling the terrorist to blame here is called "incompetence."
Bill O'Reilly: "..it's a natural occurence..a shame this stuff has to happen..."
Has to happen? Just like terrorism, huh?

Damn, I look good!

Prostitution vs. Organized Religion

My Heinlein quote did not go unnoticed. I was challenged on Hobbes, a local forum, to defend the charge that religion is the “oldest, largest, and least productive industry in all history.” As if I didn’t have better things to do, I stayed up half the night writing a 3000 word response on the topic of “Prostitution vs. Organized Religion: Which is more productive?” Enjoy – if you dare.

Before evaluating the virtues of religion and prostitution, I have qualify the original quote in my profile. The definition of “industry” is vague because if "industries" such as being a hit man or a crook counted as an “industry,” then proving that religion is the least productive industry in history might be very difficult. But religion and prostitution are two well-known institutions, and evaluating their relative productivity is straightforward. There are three things we need to determine: One: What is productivity? Two: How productive is prostitution? Three: How productive is religion?

First, what is productivity? Most dictionaries define “productive” as “Producing or capable of producing.” (American Heritage Dictionary) This is a circular definition, since it begs the question of what is being produced. A bum produces a lot of nothing, a crook produces a lot of loss, but no one would say that they are productive people. Webster’s defines “productive” as “Having the quality or power of producing; yielding or furnishing results; as, productive soil; productive enterprises; productive labor, that which increases the number or amount of products.” This is a bit more useful. According to Webster, a productive individual is one who creates some sort of a product of other value. The definition is still circular however, because it does not answer – a value to whom? Were Attilla and Hitler “productive” because they achieved their value of killing so many of their enemy? Some people would argue so, but if productivity is subjective to the individual or society, comparison is impossible, and both of our arguments fall apart.

So, some objective standard is needed of what “value” must be produced to make one productive.
In the Aristotelian tradition, we can start by looking at some individuals who are generally described a being productive:
Engineers, architects, mechanics, scientists, entrepreneurs, CEO’s.
What individuals are commonly described as being unproductive?
Crooks, lazy slobs on welfare, adults who live in their parent’s basement, beggars, rich playboys, unemployed men who don’t even try to get a job.
What traits do the productive people have in common that the unproductive ones do not? The answer is obvious – the most productive men spend their lives creating things that are necessary and beneficial to human life, while the lazy ones are moochers who live on the productivity of others without contributing anything in return. Thus, the value that must be judged when evaluating the productivity of someone is the benefit their actions provide to human life, and the consistency with which their lives are dedicated to creating those values. A productive mechanic is one who is good at his job and consistently performs it with expertise and dedication. A productive artist is one who creates great art that inspires other men to achieve things themselves. An unproductive mechanic is one who is poor at his job, lax at performing, or inconsistent in doing it well. An unproductive artist is one who has no skills in creating art, or who creates degrading art that makes men depressed and un-inspired to achieve anything. Thus, when evaluating the productivity of prostitution vs. religion, we have to evaluate which one provides a greater value to man’s life.

First, prostitution. What benefits does it provide to man’s life? Obviously, it fulfills one of his man’s strongest urges as a human being – sex. It’s easy to observe that men go to prostitutes to have a good time, and enjoy the experience. On the other side, the prostitutes provide their services voluntarily and make a decent living in the process. Both sides benefit, and the fact that hookers work in nearly every country in the world suggest that there is a great demand (and proportionally a great perceived benefit) for their service. The picture is not all rosy, of course. In America, where prostitution is illegal in most places and no government oversight of abuses exists, prostitutes face serious physical, financial, health, and legal challenges in the process of providing their services. However, is this an necessary aspect of prostitution?

If we look at states and countries where prostitution is legal or at least social accepted – such as Nevada, Japan, China, and parts of Germany, the situation is very different. Prostitutes have the same legal protections as all other workers, and can settle disputes in courts rather than on the street. They regularly undergo testing for STD’s, take the appropriate precautions, and are even rated on the quality of their services. To the extent that their business is legal, there is little connection with organized crime, at least any more than there is in any other business. In the most socially liberal countries, sex is viewed as entertainment, and wives will pay for their husband’s visit to the brothel as a gift to be enjoyed. While I personally disapprove of prostitution, it remains a fact that all involved parties enjoy the experience or a least benefit from the experience sufficiently to repeatedly engage in it. If you want to see the high-class, professional, and safe services legalized prostitution can provide, check out the Bunny Ranch in Nevada.

Now on to organized religion. Religion is probably as old a profession as prostitution – it is possible that when the first woman realized that she could get big chunks of meat from Thug and Ug in exchange for showing her privates, some witch doctor in her tribe found out that he could also get meat for preventing volcanoes, bringing rain, and scaring off the spirits of the dead.

What benefits does religion provide? Zathras listed a few alleged benefits of religion: new technology and military tactics, colonization of the new world, and the invention of the printing press. Let’s not forget great works of art such as Michelangelo’s David and the Sistine Chapel, monasteries that preserved and carried on knowledge during the Middle Ages, social institutions such as charities, schools, and universities. It’s undeniable that all these things have benefited mankind.

Speaking from personal experience, I have benefited greatly from the Jewish religion. A Jewish organization helped my parents come to America, placed me in private school so I could learn English, sent me to summer camp for many years, paid for my trip to Israel (which was an awesome experience that I thoroughly enjoyed), and even funded my tuition at Texas A&M for a number of years. In addition to these material benefits, I learned a lot about history, philosophy, ethics, the Hebrew language, and social interaction while attending Sunday school and then helping to teach it for three years. Many of my religious teachers were very intelligent and inspirational individuals who taught me many things both in the classroom and by example.

So, it’s indisputable that religion has done many good things for man. Is this sufficient to evaluate the productivity of religion? Consider some industries that are not considered productive despite doing some good things, such as the mafia or quackery. The Godfather did many favors for his friends, such as breaking the kneecaps of people that got in the way of his friends, but he also ran a violent crime ring that caused much more suffering than good. A quack, who sells a fake remedy for all ailments, also provides some benefit to people: the placebo effect often makes people feel better, and the alcohol, cocaine, and other drugs contained in remedies were often effective and making their users feel better. However, despite the benefit he provides, the quack also defrauds people, does not fix their underlying health problems, and often addicts them to his “medicine.” Both the mafia don and the quack provide a benefit, but a wholly benevolent person and a real doctor could provide a much greater benefit to people without the accompanying harms. Thus, when evaluating religion, we must consider the total effect, not just isolated benefits, and evaluate whether the benefits religion provides are essential to its nature, or side effects that are not necessary tied to religion.

To make such an evaluation, we have to determine the essence of organized religion -- what is its basic characteristic? The Heritage dictionary defines religion as "Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe; A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.”
So, the essential trait of religion is not that it commissions works of art, funds charities, builds universities, invests war machines, or sponsors scientific achievement – all these things are done by other individuals as effectively, or even more effectively (especially when it comes to science) by other institutions and individuals. The essence of organized religion is that it is an institution dedicated to the belief in and worship of the supernatural. What is the supernatural? Heritage dictionary: “Of or relating to existence outside the natural world; Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces; Of or relating to a deity.” Thus, religion is the worship of that which is outside of the natural world. Because the supernatural cannot be directly perceived by the senses or understood by reason, the theist claims that it can only be revealed, (or is best revealed) by divine revelation, emotional conviction, faith, and other non-rational and indeed anti-rational means. The essence of religion is not a rational, systematic, empirical, causal exploration of our world, but faith in the non-rational, the arbitrary, the supernatural, the uncaused, and the unseen. In short, the mystic says: “Believe it because I say so.” Or, “Believe it because this book says so.” Or, “Believe it because it feels right” Or, “Believe it, or you’ll be burned at the stake.” This is the essence of religion: faith. How does one have faith in the unseen? By suspending reason. Mysticism only survives to the degree than man is able to suspend his reason and “just believe”, ignoring all facts to the contrary, ignoring reason itself. In short, religion can only survive to the degree that it can surprise reason in man. As Arthur C. Clarke said, “Faith is believing in what you know isn't true.”

How does religion force men to abandon reason, and what is the result? Since the time the witch doctor first discovered that he could gain power and wealth by promising to bring rain and scare away ghosts, mystics of one sort of another have been propping up the supernatural and trying to silence the advocates of reason.

The Greeks discovered reason 3000 years ago when the philosopher Thales proposed that nature should be understood by replacing myth with logic. They founded mathematics, optics, the theory of the atom, logic, geometry, and a system of ethics based on man’s happiness as its goal. When religion took over the Western world, the Greek’s ideas were lost, and the known world plunged into 1500 years of darkness. During the Dark Ages, life was a short, brutal, primitive, and thoroughly religious experience. The government was dominated by tyrannical thugs who forced their enslaved populace to fight bloody wars. The church dominated all levels of society, from the local parish to the highest advisors of the king. Monks did carry on all the intellectual work of the medieval society – but only because anyone no one dared to study anything but the teaching the church after a sufficient numbers of purges, stakes, hangings, and stonings to demonstrate the dedication of the Church to stamping out reason. In 1349, over a third of Europe died because men believed that the plague was a sign from God and did not attempt to find out its source by any means other than fair. When great men like Copernicus and Galileo tried to discover the workings on the solar system, they were denounced and persecuted by the Church. Can you name all the great inventors, scientists, and writers who were burned at the stake or had their tongues torn out because they chose to believe what they saw with their eyes rather than what some raving mystic told them to “just believe”? What about the millions of Jews, Muslims, Witches, and Gypsies killed by a bloody power-grab justified by religion during the Crusades? As Johannes Cardinal Wildebrands said, “when religion sanctifies hatred, it lends to that hatred a special ferocity. Normal moral inhibitors are erased." But forget the Dark Ages. In today’s America, The Kansas (and Texas!) Board of Education is a perfect example of religious mysticism at work, with its violent opposition to the separation of church and state and the teaching of science in the classroom. In science as in life, faith and reason are diametrically opposed. The scientist says “Here are the facts. What conclusions can we draw from them?” The theist says “Here is the conclusion. What facts can we find to support it?”

The rediscovery of Aristotle by St. Thomas Aquinas, who tentatively wrote than reason is not always incompatible with faith, reason was rediscovered, and the Renaissance of the western world began. To quote myself, “The foundation of Western culture is the reliance of reason rather than faith to find out the basic facts of reality. By the use of reason, great thinkers like Thomas Aquinas, Francois Voltaire, John Locke, Adam Smith, and Thomas Jefferson, discovered that man had certain unalienable rights, among them the rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. While the Islamic world plunged ever deeper into the stagnation of religious fundamentalism, the great minds of Europe and America woke up and asserted the right of every man to live for his own sake, and the proper function of government as an obedient servant, not master of the people. They recognized that voluntary trade to mutual benefit was superior to slavery and servitude, whether to a king or to a mob. When the Founders established the United States of America, they set up the greatest experiment in history to test their newly-found values. The experiment, for a while at least, was a great success. The civilized world experienced never-before seen prosperity, economic growth, and increases in the longevity and quality of life. Religion did not die out in the West, but the Founders recognized that the role of government was to protect men’s rights, not to enforce morality, and allowed men to their own meaning in the universe. Western civilization was far from perfect: slavery, war, and suffering persisted -- but to the extent that men recognized the right of every person to his own life, their societies flourished.”
In short, the rise out of the misery of the Dark Ages was a factory of reason over faith. “For the first time in modern history,” wrote one Enlightenment writer “an authentic respect for reason became the mark of an entire culture.”

America, the child of the Enlightenment, was founded by men who realized that religion everywhere tries to tangle itself into the government and puts itself in conflict with reason. This is why the First Amendment states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...” This is why John Adams said “The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion, ” Thomas Jefferson said “Our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, more than on our opinions in physics and geometry. . . .”, James Madison said “Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together”, Benjamin Franklin said “But scarcely was I arrived at fifteen years of age, when, after having doubted in turn of different tenets, according as I found them combated in the different books that I read, I began to doubt of Revelation itself”, Thomas Paine said “I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of....Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and of my own part, I disbelieve them all”, and Ethan Ellen said “Denominated a Deist, the reality of which I have never disputed, being conscious that I am no Christian.” The Founders realized that if organized religion were tied to the government, it would forever more try to use the state to prevent men from using their minds, just as it had been doing for centuries in their former home, England.

Thus, whenever man has improved his condition, reason dominated. Whenever faith took center stage, men blindly followed the mystics into poverty and slavery. The history of the twentieth century is no exception. In one country after another, men worshiped not God, but the State, as a living, breathing mystical entity that had all the attributes of a god. Blinded by collectivism, the follow Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Kim, Pol Pot into suicidal policies and atrocities against their own neighbors.

In conclusion, the “productivity” of religion has consisted chiefly in destroying man’s reason – his basic means of survival. Certainly, as a primitive form of philosophy, religion served a useful purpose. All men need philosophy, but religion has rarely, if ever been an adequate substitute for man’s reason. As an institution that dominated society for millennia, the Church got a thing right every century or two– just as a mafia boss takes pity on a victim every now and then, and does “favors” for his friends. However, even when compared to a prostitute, to the extent that it has suppressed reason, religion has been a great destructive force. In our primitive tribe, the prostitute was a capitalist – exchanging value for value with satisfied customers. The witch doctor however, was a destroyer of values, with his hostility to reason and false promises of a supernatural repayment for the very real suffering he inflicted on earth.

"Missile-smuggling plot"? What plot?

God knows, I'm all for blowing to hell any terrorist fuckers than want to mess with the U.S. of A. However I suspect that this latest "missile-smuggling plot" is basically a PR stunt by the FBI, perhaps motivated by the upcoming elections. I was watching an interview with a former FBI chief investigator, and listened to him answer questions for several minutes about the "foiled plan." Guess what he said? NOTHING. He went on and on about how terrorists were bad (um, DUH!), how terrorism is a global problem, blah, blah, but nothing whatsoever about what this "plot" was about. Methinks, some undercover FBI agents promised this Indian guy a ton of money in exchange for smuggling a "package" into America. Meanwhile, the Russian security agents working with the FBI conveniently sold it to him. That's all that ever happened -- no plot to shoot down any airliners ever existed, and no sale would have happened if some poor sucker hadn't been convinced to smuggle a package accross the 'lake'. Meanwhile, while the FBI is pulling publicity stunts, Congress is restricting the military's abilities to take out the real terrorists. Good planning, guys.

Men everywhere should mark this day. Women...well, they have one less excuse.

Three Proofs Against the Existence of God

I was feeling argumentative tonight, so I started a debate on God at the TexAgs forum. This post is mostly for my use in some future debate, but check out my arguments if you care to.

Edit: I realized that my arguments have some major flaws. While true, the background knowledge required to understand the concepts involved requires that the reader be an atheist/Objectivist before he reads them. So, I appreciate the compliments, but stand by for a rewritten version designed to respect the silly theist's hierarchy of knowledge.

(1) God is arbitrary.
There is no evidence for a supernatural being with the properties generally ascribed to God. If someone makes an assertion for which there is no evidence either way, the logical thing to do is simply dismiss it, just as I would dismiss the assertion that there is an invisible pink elephant floating over me. If this were the only argument against God, I would not be able to prove that God did not exist -- but you would not be able to prove that he does exist either. Hence the claim must be thrown own as arbitrary.

Comment: The reason there I say that is no evidence for God is NOT that I cannot see him. I have never seen Australia either, or my mind, or anger, or Neptune. The reason there is no evidence for God is that the characteristics ascribed to God contradict the rest of my knowledge about the world, and cannot be integrated with it (for example, I know of no intelligence that has no physical basis, or entity that spans the whole universe)

(2) God has no identity.
Everything that exists in the universe has a particular nature, and only that nature. Things are what they are – with certain properties that have certain characteristics. Every existing thing behaves in a certain way according to its nature. (Law of causality) More fundamentally, the whole notion of something existing means having a certain nature – a particular, limited nature that is one thing and not another. Everything that exists, exists as such. In other words, non-contradiction. Something cannot be two conflicting things at the same time, in the same place, and in the same respect. God is a contradictory concept – he has no nature, no (finite) identity, and no particular causal connection to the rest of the universe. Thus, God is not only an arbitrary, but also a contradictory concept, and thus impossible. You cannot argue for a contradictory concept since the notions of proof, reason, or evidence rest on the validity of logic. (Because just like everything else in the universe, logic also has a particular nature. A is A.)
If God has a particular identity, then at most, he must be an ancient, very powerful robot playing tricks with our fate. I don’t know any theists who would argue that God is a robot. Besides, if RoboGod has to play by the rules as we do, we can beat him.

(3) God is contradictory.
Many of the traits attributed to God are self-contradictory. For example, God is omnipotent, all good, and all knowing, yet evil exists. Also: God is everywhere and nowhere. Also: God loves us and sends us to hell. Also: We have free will, yet we are pre-destined. Also: immortal soul, yet we seem to be created from scratch at birth with no memories (making re-birth pointless) Also: God defines right and wrong, yet is able to change it (same as the making a stone to big to lift thing) Also: God is actually three gods, yet he is one. Also: Man is evil, yet he was saved, yet he really isn’t saved, yet God will probably forgive us anyway. Also: God act by miracles, yet he creates physical laws, so he needs none. Also: God is concerned about our fate, yet he already knows exactly what will happen. Also: Man is in God’s image, yet he is sinful. Also: Religion is supposed to make one happy on earth, yet earthy life is about suffering and sin. Also: God wrote the sole, absolute, and unchanging source of morality, yet his Book is full of contradictions, and things you’d probably say he’d oppose today (such as stoning for adultery). Also: Pride is evil for man in heaven, yet good for man on earth. I could probably think of a few dozen more contradictions, but you get the idea. God isn’t even consistent with himself. Let’s not forget: One should have blind faith in God, yet you are about to attempt to use reason to prove me wrong.

The first GI action figure of a U.S. president?

The George W. Bush Elite Force Aviator Action Figure, coming to a toy store near you!

(Thanks, Tim)

Speaking of mystics...

I've been reading a lot of Robert Heinlein lately. He really is an amazing science fiction writer, and his independent, productive, rational, and optimistic protagonists share many traits with the heroes of Ayn Rand. The only flaw I see in his writing is a pervading skepticism of all absolutes and ideals as such. His characters express their philosophy in specific (and usually true) “practical” principles like “Get the facts!” but never in terms of the broad abstract ideas needed to derive them. As such, they’re not the kind of individuals that could dedicate their lives to any idea (although a few do) or even one mate (Heinlen was a big fan of “free love” towards the end of his life). I think some of that came from his strong animosity towards any form of dogmatism, especially organized religion. His novels are full of lines like:

The most preposterous notion that H. sapiens has ever dreamed up is that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of all the Universes, wants the saccharine adoration of His creatures, can be swayed by their prayers, and becomes petulant if He does not receive this flattery. Yet this absurd fantasy, without a shred of evidence to bolster it, pays all the expenses of the oldest, largest, and least productive industry in all history.

While you wouldn't guess it on campus, Texas A&M really does have an active fundamentalist population. Depending on how you look at it, it’s either scary, silly, or plain stupid how seriously these guys take their fantasies. Some of them are quite intelligent, but debating Objectivism with them, I’ve realized that they’re quite hopeless.

In other news, portable tele-presence for doctors, another great Cox and Forkum, and Hong Kong Nazi Chic?

Black church will pay whites to attend.

Wow.

What Is Good For Iraq Is Good For Iran?

FOX:

The grandson of Ayatollah Khomeini…the late Iranian cleric who hated America and founded the Islamic state that rules Iran…is now blasting his own country's clerical regime, calling it, ‘the worst dictatorship in the world’ and suggesting that U.S. military force might be needed to remove the regime. Hossein Khomeini, a Muslim cleric himself, says of U.S. military intervention, ‘I think the [Iranian] people would accept that. I would accept it, too, because it's in accord with my faith.’ Hossein, now visiting Iraq, told the Scotsman newspaper, 'I see that there's security, that the people are happy, that they've been released from suffering.'

Damn Fundamentalists

The first horse has been cloned. One would think that most people would be impressed by this amazing scientific achievement that will allow us to clone winning geldings like Funny Cide, but check out the results of this MSNBC survey:
What do you think of the prospects of cloning horses?
It should be forbidden. : 38%
It's OK, but there should be restrictions on cloned racehorses. : 27%
There should be no restrictions. : 22%
Don't care or don't know.: 13%

Someone please tell me, what the hell is wrong with cloning horses?? In the immortal words of Cornelius Vanderbilt, the public be damned!
Anyway, I thought this part of the article was interesting for more than one reason:

THE SMALL, sturdy work horse is now 2 months old, weighs about 220 pounds and is in excellent health, said its creators. Their announcement beats a Texas A&M team awaiting the birth of its own horse clone.
The cloned Haflinger horse is named Prometea after Prometheus, the character in Greek mythology who stole fire from the gods and gave it to humans.

Some random sites:

An account of a vacation to the other "socialist paradise."

Man loses papers, stuck in French airport since 1988.

How do courts swear in atheists?

Child actor Gary Coleman competes with Arnold for govenor of the People State of CA

And to stir up some debate, my post Objectivists Need A Church, Too

Paper: N.Korea Plans to Export Missiles to Iran

Word on the street is that North Korea is selling long-range ballistic missiles to Iran. I’m not sure why a totalitarian slave-state like North Korea would be able to create both nukes and ICBM’s while a marginally less-totalitarian but much larger slave-state like Iran is not. Gee, maybe it has something to do with Israel having the balls to take out the nuke-factories while our dear old President Clinton decided to “negotiate” with that epitome of honesty, beloved dictator Kim Il-jong. I doubt that N. Korea has the capablity to develop working nukes in the near future, though Iran certainly will if Bush decides to echo Clinton and "negotiate" with the death-happy Islamic fundamentalists.

Of course North Korea and Iran claim that their nuke plants are (mostly)intended for the peaceful purpose of "providing electricity to the People". If the satellite photo below is any indication, they definately need it.

Victory is Sweet

Finally! After years of fruitless effort and endless search engine submissions, I have beaten Olga and won the # 1 result for my last name on Google.

LAWRENCE, Massachusetts (AP) -- This city's superintendent of schools, who recently put two dozen teachers on unpaid leave for failing a basic English proficiency test, has himself flunked a required literacy test three times.
The story concludes:

Financial irresponsibility

Even if you aren't an Aggie, the latest zinger by Matthew Maddox is brilliant.

Also: For the first time in many months, 100% of my website is working (as far as I know.) Enjoy it while it lasts and be sure to let me know if you find any bugs/missing pages/errors.

Whos the worst dictator of all time?

Today's blog is a reply to the following question I saw on a local forum: Who is the worst dictator of all time?
My post:
How can you answer this kind of question without first determining what makes someone evil in the first place?
And how can you possibly make such a comparison without some standard by which to judge the moral worth of a person?
So, to determine just how evil a man is, you must first find out what standard of morality one should be judged by in the first place.
Here is what I think:

A good man is one who lives his own life to the fullest and respects the right of others to the same. Conversely, an evil man is one who lives as a parasite on the blood of others by destroying their ability to live as productive individuals, either by stealing the product of their labor, by using violence on them, or by spreading the ideas that lead to their death.

Thus, how evil a man is depends not on how many people he has a chance to kill, but on how consistent he is in making the destruction of others the sole purpose of his life. By this standard, the most evil man is one who is the most consistent and uncompromising in advocating and acting towards the death of others as the primary activity of his life.

Now, a dictator can only be a whim-worshipping and power-mad thug, who is incapable of conceiving his own philosophy, but must borrow and feed off the intellectual climate that previous intellectuals have created in his country for him. Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, and all the other brutes in history didn’t create the philosophic view that man has no right to his own life but must live and die for the state -- they merely took advantage of the views already dominant in their societies to grab power and carry out the philosophy of some long-dead academic.

Thus, the most evil men in history are those who created and perfected the view that the purpose of man's life is to blindly follow the commands of the State, as represented by its dictator -- rather than to live for his own life and happiness as the proper moral purpose of his life.

Which fallacy?

I found these gems on some fundie site and just couldn't keep them to myself:

I've added over 140 paintings to my art gallery and fixed all the bugs that were plaguing it. Take a look!
Note: I'm looking for someone knowlegeable to add brief descriptions to the main categories (sorted by period) and for more good Art-Deco or stylistic artists.