Wednesday, October 29, 2008

"The Welfare Queens of Wall Street"

A good article By Michael Shermer: The Welfare Queens of Wall Street.

Candidates Exposing Themselves to Libertarians

I have noticed a humorous thing about political ads. Whenever Candidate A tries to show how evil Candidate B is, he always inadvertently exposes his own evil. "Candidate B has tried to destroy the sanctity of marriage" is code speech for "I, Candidate A, don't believe that all people have the same rights."

When they say "Candidate B advocates the redistribution of wealth", what that tells us is that Candidate A also advocates the same thing, just in a different way, and he hopes you won't realize that fact. Otherwise he would call for an end to all taxation and welfare, and he isn't doing that, is he?

When Candidate A announces that Candidate B doesn't support "reasonable regulation" of guns, I would love to see the definition of "reasonable". I would also love to see, in writing, where Candidate B recognizes the absolute right of everyone to own and to carry any type of weapon they see fit, everywhere they go, in any way they desire, without asking permission from anyone, ever. Anything other is a restriction, and is way beyond "reasonable".

Most things should not be up for debate, from either side. "Hands off my rights, you meddling parasites!"

For every political ad, there is a clear exposure of both candidates and their absolutely evil opinions about key issues.

See how being libertarian frees you up to see the truth?


Why Is It Wrong To Harm the Innocent?

It just is, but why? Is there a logical reason? Does there need to be a logical reason? I suppose I'll examine the issue in my own warped way. I'm sure others have better reasons based upon ... who-knows-what.

"Wrong" in this case means something that is undesirable for moral reasons; in other words, something that is "bad". Bad actions damage those they are directed against. Bad food does not nourish the body properly. Bad car parts don't function correctly and are replaced with good ones. Bad plans result in failure. Bad people can be killed in self-defense without guilt (though not always without "legal" consequences). "Bad" is to be avoided and can result in the elimination of its source. Once again, some would say this is too "utilitarian". Yet, you may as well make your plans according to the existence of gravity if you are in our universe. Ignoring the truth or complaining that you don't understand exactly why it is as it is doesn't get you anywhere. That doesn't mean you shouldn't keep trying to get to the foundation. There may be a "Moral Grand Unified Theory" out there somewhere.

So, moving along- "Innocent" means someone who does not deserve harm, at least in the immediate instant or situation. So, it is bad to harm someone who doesn't deserve to be harmed.

If it is not wrong to harm the innocent, I would say there is NO such thing as "wrong" at all. I know that is not a good reason. Everyone understands at an instinctive level that it IS wrong to harm the innocent.

Or, sort of. People who are not mentally ill know it is wrong to harm innocent people that they know, or who live around them, but they often think it is OK to harm innocent people that they don't know, like strangers in Iraq or Pakistan. That is just part of the human tendency toward tribalism. It is OK to want to protect your own, but it is not OK to think of others as "less than human". Remember the term "collateral damage" if you want a name for this evil way of refusing to think.