Social Moralism

What is just? How is an action determined to be just or unjust? Do the ends justify the means? Do the means justify the ends? Is it a balance between the two? Is the evil result of good intentions ever bad within its self. Is anything good within its self. Ultimately, who are we to determine right from wrong for anyone other than ourselves.

It’s hard to say what is just. It’s much less hard to come up with examples of what is unjust. It’s much easier to agree with others on certain actions which none of us want to suffer under or from. It’s easy, in these cases to make law on the topic.

But ‘economic’ law seems far more difficult. Instead of focusing on what actions are truly ‘crimes’ which harm society, we focus on how it ought to be. We focus on how to manipulate the markets and adjust so as the arrive at the outcome we’ve deemed just. And yet we haven’t even reached a conclusion about what IS moral?

In truth, we will never agree on a concept of complete morality. Since the dawn of religion, we’ve sought it, and never has it been found except perhaps in Buddhist Supra-Morality, because by definition morality attempts to impose a concept of justice upon others. It dictates how they should act, and in short attempts to oppress people into a particular way of life.

This nation has been founded on a denial of such moralism. We separated religion, and morality, from the state leaving only those laws which dictate fundamental codes necessary for social interaction. How you act, what you do, and what you believe are all beyond the scope of government. Merely a few ways of interacting with others are prohibited, you cannot kill, steal, defraud, injure, rape, etc.

Regrettably, this has not also been true in matters of economic affairs. Where Socialist agenda attempts to guide the nation, and impose its sense of economic morality, it oppresses the people. But Capitalism does not push such an agenda. Capitalism is simply economic freedom. It has no moral agenda, or prospected outcome. The magic hand does not necessarily give the “best” distribution of wealth, it does not necessarily provide to people that which they “earn”. For both of these words are subjective. No matter what system processes the economy, the concepts of optimal and equitable distribution are independent of it’s operation and thus should not dictate it.

You do what you do and you get what you get. If you work efficiently, then by definition you receive a good return. If you work extremely hard pushing your broken back against a brick wall… what did you earn with your strenuous labor? What distribution would be equitable? IMO not the same as he who quite lazily came up with a multi-million dollar cost-cutting measure. But what I say doesn’t matter. If someone’s willing to pay for you to push against a brick wall, if you’re able to find another to agree with on your sense of equitable wealth distribution, then for you two, that is just. For others, with different interpretations of justice, the market determines that too, where the hand does not mold or slam people into its own conception of morality, it simply lets one connect to another, and allows individuals to act on their own with others of similar moral disposition.

Capitalism is truely Supra-Moral.

Letter to Times Union(Albany NY)

So the Sun Times Union printed my very brief response to Mr. Fred Lebrun’s plea for firearm registration. If you have a minute take a look!

Lock, load and try taking aim at the illegal handguns

Read my Letter

to be a Real Man

What does it mean to be a Man? What does it mean to be a real Woman? This is the question we considered in Contep Political Thought, and fromt he perspective of feminism and sexism.

While there are rites of passage for both sexes(loss of virginity, first period, bar mitzvah, killing first prey), no one action can clearly define a man to be a man or a woman a woman. If any one action can define a person to be a type of person, then the word describing that type, that genre becomes meaninless. It evolves to mean simply one who has done that rite. However, to be a man clearly means more than to have had intercourse, or any of the other things listed. Indeed it’s very possible for a boy to have sex and a bar mitzvah and kill a hog and still remain just as much a boy as before.

Being a Man or Woman, as opposed to a boy or girl, signifies adulthood. It indicates that those those traits necessary for full acceptance into society are present; responsibility, maturity, experience, etc.

Is this oppressive? Why clearly not, to be a real man is no more oppressive of women than to be a boy is toward a girl. No real change has occured between the boy and the adult male’s action toward women. Their aquizition of adulthood is independent of the opposite sex. If then there is oppressive characteristics that the ‘real’ man has, it is because those are traits he has learned.

For a boy is to a girl not very different. Genitals are different, but otherwise no noteworthy differences exist between pre-pubescent children. In all sincerity, the use of ‘boy’ and ‘girl’ does little to describe the child currently at hand. It does however describe their future role in society. The use of such early gender distinguinesments serves in many respects as a placeholder for gender roles. Where the strength of men has yet to devolp and the the beauty of women has yet to distinguish them from men, boys and girls learn the roles they are supposed to play. After all, if children were not told they were boys or girls, it’s logical that a great many would devolp to be more ‘male’ or ‘female’ than their sex perscribes.

Which comes to the point at hand, which is namely not much of one. Ought we abolish the concept of boys and girls? Quite clearly not. The differences which are imposed prior to puberty are in many aspects fulfilled later in life. The question, is whether these roles are oppressive, for example that women are considered weaker, passive, objects of desire rather than desirers, and so forth. This answer to this is indeed the role is oppressive. For while the mature female form is indeed weaker than that of the male, the difference is not uniform, and certianly does not extend to those other psychological traits which the role preports to be appropriate. Many women would no be as submissive as their gender role pushes them to be, they would be more sexual than society demans, they would be less sexual than society demands, they would simply be different than the mold which currently forms them.

Ought the mold then be abolished as previously asked? Why no, but it should clearly not be pressed upon everyone. For the concept of of Man and Women to exist hurts no one. It is the pressure in which others force it upon an individual which causes pain. I’d argue, do not press the molds so harshly upon others. Especially, remove those aspects of the mold which are irrelevant and of no good consequence. Remove those hills and valleys which provide undue pressue, and let individuals try the molds on for themselves. See which one fits. And possibly carve for themselves a new design.

New designs may not mesh with other more tried molds, but this is the risk those individual take. A storied mold is known to function. It may be slightly uncormfortable, but it’s utility may be worth the costs. Similarly it may not. Costs, are not to be abolished, the results of actions must always remain, but we must not force anyone into a mold of hetrosexuality or whathaveyou if they are incompatable with it.

Education has Failed.

I came to the realization just now that all that really matters is what you do. That life is about action, and there is an imperative to do. Yet our educational system does not promote this. It does, or at least in my experience say it, but it’s pointless for the teachers to tell students to do what they want and value entertainment over compensation,  but re-enforce whatever exactly it is the system we have does. We do no do anything in education. Even in the most liberal of settings it seems we democratize the classroom to the extent that the professor is no longer the dictator of knowledge, but simply the guy with the most information and experience. Yet still, the focus of school is education.

I guess if education is the goal of education then education would be the proper way to do it, but we can experience very clearly that it has many harmful effects. For,  what is the purpose of an educated person if his instinct to do has been drained from him? We study law, we study political theory and physics, and economics and all kinds of stuff, and yet we DO nothing. I guess in other areas such as engineering they have more of a hands on approach, but this is not just necessary in that field. It is necessary in all fields.

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity.html

the Constitutional Arguement Against Firearms Registration.

The slippery sloap arguement that the registration of firearms leads to and facilitates their prohibition and confiscation is a noteworthy point. History show a great many examples of this, and in fact, every marginally effective confiscation of arms has been preceded by their registration. It’s hard to confiscate something if you don’t know where they are or how many of them exist.

This is however an ultimately irrelevant point. It focuses on the merits of another issue(the right to own guns) and ignores the merits of the issue at hand(registration). That said, a clear and constitutional arguement against registration exists.:

The Second Ammendment protects both the right to Keep and to Bear Arms. Now how does registration infringe on these?

To ground the discussion, lets start on the topic of arms. What arms are included in this list, or at least what minimum arms are protected? Well quite clearly, as the Heller  case upheld, there is the right to keep and bear handguns and longarms in a readily operable(unlocked) state. But more basically, could arms be limited to .22lr and 2″ blades? Obviously not, while it meets the requirement of allowing arms, their utility is greatly harms, their effectiveness is greatly lessened, and ultimately all meaning is stripped from the word ‘Arms’. Therefor, ‘arms’ does not simply include any arms, but imples a certian level of effectiveness. It means that they may not be rendered useless.

Similarly, the right to bear arms is not limited solely to the physical act of having it on one’s person. There are far many more aspects of bearing which the word ‘bearing’ includes. Amongst these are the ability to use them effectively, to be able to train with the weapon and become familiar with its operation,  to be able to use it in all apropriate situations not merely a subset, to do many other things. Now if firearms must be registered, then this greatly harms your ability to bear them. After all, the effectiveness of arms depends in part on the enemy’s knowledge of that weapon. Does the potential enemy know you have a weapon? Do they know what capabilities it has?  Do they know who owns it and where it is stored? These are all things which would harm the militia’s ability to bear arms against anyone with access to the registration list, and since the purpose of the militia is to protect the authentic ‘State’ from both external and internal forces, even the state’s knowledge of the public firearm ownership greatly harm’s their ability to bear them.

Furthermore, registration infringes on the keeping aspect of the 2A. Specifically, Keeping arms includes as demonstrated, more than the simple posession of arms. It includes the posession; the storage, the mantanience; the knowledge of which arms are stored, the checking in and out of arms for use, the recording of sale or purchase of arms. Thus for the state to take control of any aspect of this process of keeping arms, to control, regulate and monitor the purchase and sale and storage of arms usurps the people’s righ to keep them

Imigration and Americanization

It is understandable for a person to move to another nation to seek the opportunities which it provides, and which are unavailable in their native country. Similarly, it is understandable for them to wish to keep their culture, mindset, beliefs and social temperament unchanged. There is talk that Americanization rapes immigrants of their heritage.

It is however the opposite. For if the people of one nation do not have the opportunities of another, it is for some reason; it may be physical or biological(which it obviously isn’t); it may arise for the form of government and the particular laws it imposes; and it may be the result of their culture, and social temperament. Whatever the cause, it is not random that some nations prosper more than merely their physical conditions indicate they would. There is a certain level of efficiency/effectiveness in their ideas.

For a people to move into such a more prosperous nation, take advantage of its promise, and yet maintain the culture and outlook which failed to provide them change, rapes the more prosperous State of its gains. Furthermore, if those people reproduce at an  inordinate rate they can effectively take over, or alter the landscape of the country they move into and to such an extent that it is ruled not by the ideas of the founders and their decedents, but by the unsuccessful ideas of outsiders who refuse to adopt the the successful strategy of their new ‘home’.

Not all immigrants refuse to adopt their new country’s society as their own, however by moving to another country and discounting its culture, society and governers many bite the hand which feeds them.

Anarchy as Oppression

“Nobody panics when things go according to plan. Even if the plan is horrifying.” – the Joker

It’s suprising how true this is. How, there may be resistance to bad plans, but so long as they go as expected then it’s nothing to panic about. The rule of law, the rule of the plan, is still in control.

We’ve talked about the definitions of Freedom and Oppression in class. We’ve gone over Marx, Nietzsche, some Marcusa, Friere, Havel, and now this feminist chick(lol); and I’ve reached the conclusion that as they argue freedom entails a level of uncoerced action. That many times, we focus too much on the coercion aspect, to the deficit of the action part. But what really makes us human is exactly that action part. It is choice part of action. Coercion will always exist. Even in a state of nature, where there is no law, there is coercion in the form of others, of predators, of even in the absence of those, hunger, cold, etc. ; all which exert influence on our ability to act on our own accord.

In a wierd way, it is for this reason that the Joker is deeply liberating. His ultimate goal, is to create disorder (well maybe to oppose Batman, but since he wants to uphold order/peace, the Joker incites the opposite). His goal is to get people to act as free individuals, to act without the pressures which are applied by society and government.

The problem is that a democratic government, so long as participation is common, is the epitome of free action. (damn I just forgot the a great point to the arguement) To return society to a state of nature, is exactly that, to return it to a lower order of existence. It denies and opposes the right of people to ally with others and form coalitions. Anarchy, it aiming to create absolute freedom is quite possibly more oppressive than totalitarianism or Hobbesian governments, and at least oppressive.

(remember not all coercion is oppression)

On Federal Assistance

As I’m sure it’s clear, I’m not one to support Federal “Assistance”. Companies come and go, they grow and die, and as one passes into bankruptcy another takes it’s place. As a man told me today, there’s always someone right behind you to pick up the pieces, for themselves that is, and that’s not necessarily bad, because they’ve seen you carry it. They’ve watched your techniques and when a critical failure occurred they saw it, learning from the mistake.

But if the government is to give 150 Billion dollars to AIG as the NYT reports today, then why them? I do not like the idea of spending 150 billion, let alone all in one place. After all, if every single American, man woman and child, is going to have to pay $500 then darn well better be for something important.

In another paper, I read that GM is receiving a 25 Billion dollar Loan. Honestly, this makes more sense. While I do not doubt that AIG employs many and has a significant role in world markets, I’d suggest that GM plays a larger role. Indeed, after all the talk about alternative fuel sources and our dependence on foreign oil for transportation, doesn’t  GM directly control a major portion of the US energy policy?

While it’s become popular to complain about American cars, a trend I much disgust and is entirely unwarranted, their costs must be considered. On on hand they’re slammed for cutting and negotiating pension releases. They’re insulted for laying off workers and closing plants for their “profit”. Yet, at the same time, they lose market share to foreign their competitors. Why is it so hard to connect the two? Is it not obvious that it’s hard to compete with companies that don’t treat workers as well when you do? Is it not clear that technological development is dependent upon the amount of free capital available to be invested in such research? Is it not clear that as a result of free trade many foreign companies gain an unfair advantage by foregoing civil liberties and labor rights which are taken for granted here? Is it not also so true that as a result of this American companies have been less able to adapt, to re-tool for smaller cars, and to shift to other fuels.

We have the technology. We’ve seen Hydrogen Fuel-Cell cars. They’ve made prototypes, they’ve showed off design concepts, they’ve built partnerships with leading American research companies to design viable alternatives. We’ve seen this out of American companies well before the Toyota Prius. We need to put our money where our mouth is. And I don’t mean write yet another check, but overturn the allocation of the trillions and use that for change, not the maintenance of an already flawed financial system.

Sadly, that’s not going to happen.

Unforseen Intellegence

Today Obama had his first press conference as President-Elect and while I didn’t watch it all I saw one question that sparked my interest. The lady asked whether any of the new information he was privy to has lead him to take pause or change any of those policies he campaigned on. His response was quite reasonably, that he must decine that questions.

Now, it’s not only plausable that the President-Elect may change his positions once informed of new classified information. Indeed, when new knowledge is gained it is imparative to re-evaluate the postions you’ve previously held considering the new perspective.

The fact that he declined to answer this does not it’s self signify too much. If obviously he has or is changing his opinions the he obviously would decline not just to avoid backlash, but also so as not to reveal anything about the information he has recieved. Saying his policy on Iraq has changed would indicate that important information regarding the necessity of Iraq is not available to the public. Of course this is fairly obvious that it is or would be. But just the same, if his policies have not changed, this would similarly reveal that the US is not in posession of information that makes the US involvement necessary.

Now if our involvement is indeed necessary as a result of Iranian activities, and Obama said his opinion is the same, that would mean he’s, and the US, is unaware of Iran’s activities. If he said he is changing, then well.. I’ve already said what..

My point is, do not expect him to follow through with what he campaigned on. This isn’t to say he’s disloyal to his word, but that when new information is available, new outcomes are reached. And if it takes a day longer than 16 months(or whatever he said) for US troops to leave, then have no doubt there is good cause for us to remain there. And this, is exactly what I expect to occur.

On Unmanned Law Enforcement Cameras

Very few would say that until today the rule of law did not exist. Even centuries before law came to limit it’s enforcers, it ruled with an iron fist over the governed. There was of course crime. While not everyone obeyed the law, it was enforced and those who broke it, or sufficient a subset, were captured and punished. The fact that some escaped punishment, did not subvert the rule of law.

This is not to say that successful avoidance of punishment does not threaten the rule of law, but rather that it threatens mainly the rule of those laws which are unenforced(unenforceable), leaving those laws where punishment is certain almost as effective as always.

For disobedience, however, to become so grand that the rule of such a law is threatened indicates a great disapproval for the law. That even if the majority of the population believed in it, the fact that majority could not afford to enforce the particular law upon a minority indicates exactly how large that minority is.

In this, physical law enforcement provides a check upon oppressive laws; for not only must such massive resources be allocated to the law but actual humans must enforce it; neighbors and fellow citizens must look into their compatriot’s eyes, grab their hands, and cuff them; they must do so knowing that this arrest does nothing to enforce the law, that this arrest is not an act against a group let alone the crime its self, but is an act against a particular individual, an act of oppression which has no beneficial aspect.

With unmanned video and photographic surveillance, this is not the case. A man drives down the road. The radar clocks him at 5 over. It takes a photograph. It records video. It is visually checked by an officer and mailed out along with a copy of the photo, and all day long, the officer does the same thing. He sees a picture; this guy ran a red light, this woman was going 8 over, this family was going 5 over, this person was going 15 over. Lick. Stick. Send.

I am not saying that it should be legal to run red lights, but red lights were enforced well before there were camera’s to do the job. Speeding laws were enforced well before automated radar-equiped camera’s hit the streets of the UK. The enforcement was not complete. Some got away. Many were not even witnessed. But the rule of these laws was not compromised.

If no one sees a man run a red light, did he break the law? Sure, but what does it matter?

If I drive at least 70, 75, 80,  on I-275 where the speed limit is 55 and no officer pulls me over, should I be ticketed?

If a poor disillusioned youngster spray paints, “Worker’s of the world Unite!” on the side of a wall, should there be a camera to watch him?

If you light up a joint, should there be a camera to watch you?

Should there be a camera watching you on the way to work?

On the way to school?

On the way to your AA meeting?

If we can’t hire enough police to enforce a law, and neighbors are unwilling to call the police when they see a “crime” in progress, should that act really be a crime? When last did you call the cops because someone was driving 75 on I-275? Would you? How about if they were driving 90? What about 110? Answer that question for youself, and my answer to you will be the same, that’s what the law should be.

Change has come..?

“It’s been a long time coming, but tonight, because of what we did on this date in this election at this defining moment, change has come to America.” Obama

To the extent that a half-black man has been elected President of the United States, some change has come, but rather than being its self change, it is indicitive of change which has occured over the years since the Civil Rights movement. Indeed, the election of Barack Obama both indicates how far we’ve come and positions America in step to make many more strides. While I disagree with the route he intends to take the nation, no one can disagree that we are in a far better position than we were many decades ago.

That said, change has not come. His election, while signifying the sucess of past efforts, is in it’s self no change. From 6pm November 4th to 11pm Nobember 4th, nothing changed. Hopes grew, the nation’s image bettered, but not one substancial effect has occured. This is not to say he will not forever change the way America works, but rather to note that celebration at this point is quite premature.

His path, while endlessly touted as a turn, has not been clearly plotted. Where we go from here is yet to be determined, and since we’ve not discussed the merits of any position, we’ve decided who will lead, but do not know where we want to go.

In response to the Oracle’s “Plunging Gas Prices About to Slow”

To say the recent drop in gas prices is the result of supply and demand is patently misleading. While the US DOT cites a 78 billion mile decrease in driving, this 5.6% year to year reduction can in no way account for the 38% price drop that America has seen over the past three months. Further, when considering OPEC’s 5% cut in production, simple supply and demand would suggest little to no decline in retail prices.

As AAA spokesman Gregg Laskoski noted, supply and demand has played a role in the futures market where speculators purchased oil for well more than its current value. However, the concept that these prices were in some way justified in the ‘real’ economy is both entirely unfounded and the cause of such prolonged rampancy.

The fall of such inflated gas prices marks a great failure of the American media. It demonstrates that the endless excuses, from hurricane ravaged refinaries to increasing Chinese consumption, served only to stay popular disgust, thereby allowing price inflation to continue.

As is the nature of market corrections, it’s true that that the price decline will slow, cease and, as with the housing market, once more begin to grow. However, had newspapers, TV and other media sources properly reported on these values to be unjustifiably inflated far fewer would have suffered and for far shorter a time.

edit: This was just printed in my college’s paper, The Oracle.