Why shyness is not as good as outgoingness.

You must assume you are right, without this assumption your foundation and thereby logical substance is inferior to your position.

You must assume you are right, in order to advance your position

All you are is all you’ll be.

Be yourself. If you’re not, then who will? And if no one will, then did you ever exist?

The role you played will live without you, but you won’t.

Shyness.

It is better to be shy than outgoing.

Being shy it mistaken by those of lower intelligence as lower intelligence. To them, decreased frequency of outgoingness is the result of a low frequency of good ideas.

Rather shyness is really the tendency to assume one’s ideas are not good enough. It is the level of confidence you have in your ideas, and says nothing about the quality of the ideas. After all the discussion of shyness vs.  outgoingness is only relevant if the individuals being compared are of equal ability.

But confusing a more-capable person’s decreased frequency of activity as an indication of a diminished capability, they feel brotherhood for them. These individuals will ally with the shy. Those who nonetheless realize the reality of shyness will similarly feel a sense of brotherhood.

The reason for that is, the shy do not claim to be better. In assuming ideas are not good enough, they demonstrate humility, a trait favored by the less intelligent as it is an open hand of brotherhood to them, one which is not necessary. In addition to the open hand of modesty, they will respect the more intelligent shy because their ideas are better this in its self is a reason, and strengthens the meaning of the modesty.

But more than allowing for support by those who are less able, it allows for parity of power with those of greater ability.

Acting, the defining aspect of outgoingness, takes time. It takes energy, and as soon as you commit to acting you must drastically reallocate effort from judging whether it is a good idea to judging how to employ the idea, judging how others will react, and judging the next idea. Further, it changes the circumstances. With a new idea presented additional input can not be determined to be related to the previous or current idea.

The individual who has not acted knows all their input is in response to the previous action. Yet, while the outgoing devoted attention to acting, the shy continued to think and presumably came up with better ideas.

The better idea provides an advantage as responses may be based on better information. Since responses to the outgoing’s actions must occur after their actions, the delay is inconsequential.

The does not mean that there is not a point where shyness fails to benefit over outgoingness. Specifically this is the time where further thought does not further the idea.

But in general terms, shyness is better than outgoingness.

Schrödinger’s Woman

I’ve heard it from several self-proclaimed feminists and even just a few women, so when  read http://kateharding.net/2009/10/08/guest-blogger-starling-schrodinger’s-rapist-or-a-guy’s-guide-to-approaching-strange-women-without-being-maced/ I believe that it is true women constantly fear being raped.

The author does a great job of explaining how to approach a random girl, and what thoughts make this necessary. It’s a brilliantly simple piece which puts to words a clear yet incomprehensible experience.

That said, the situation is flawed. Women should not constantly fear being raped or killed, unless they’re constantly in a particularly dangerous situation. But despite how they may feel, most are not in such a situation. Their sex does not make them so weak that they are no longer the author of their fates.

What makes women weak is their gender(and the law). Women continue to be raised as this concept of a indefensible child, constantly prone to rape and murder, and entirely lacking control of others.

Surely, they are raised to go to school, and learn about the world, and study medicine, and go on to great professions and serve in public office, but not to live their own life. For, the central aspect of living one’s life is controlling it, and so long as an individual is raised that others are in control of their body, they will forfeit control of it to others.

Violence is a fact of life. It is something all children should be aware of, but no child should be raised to believe they are particularly more vulnerable than others. Yet, women are.

Strength is a thing of the past. To a degree more true than ever before, firearms are capable of equalizing physical strength.

Yes, you cringed at the idea of women carrying pistols, but it was not because of the violence. The violent rape and murder of women is already the topic of discussion, to turn the tables should alleviate tension. To cringe at the thought of women carrying guns, means you cringed in defense of women’s gender role.

Whether you were raised to despise those capable of violence or merely to fear violence it’s self, you are inaccurately viewing the world.

Violence is. Despite the news and movies, violence is real. It is not something which occurs only in distant war-zones. Not even war-zones need be distant. Violence is an every day fact of live. Your roommate may grab a kitchen knife and kill you at any time.

If this makes you worried, please don’t be. I do not say this to make you fear, but exactly the opposite. Because violence is real, you must understand it, you must be able to handle violence and deal it out.

Our Economy (before the Oracle’s unilateral edits)

Capitalism is a straw man. From the day Marx first put pen to paper though the day I am so doing here, it has never existed. To the extent it has existed, it does so in the hearts and minds of those who value freedom, not as a perception of how it is, but of how it ought to be.

To be perfectly frank, the claim that America follows free-market principals so absurd it is unworthy of debate. It is a more logically and morally defensible to claim that the holocaust was a hoax. For at least there one is not denying what currently rests upon our retinas.

If “… socialism is based on governmental regulation of the economy, control of property through a democratically elected government, extensive public assistance and limits on accumulation of private property.” to what extent is America not socialist?

Is the mere lack of limits on private wealth enough to qualify a country as “capitalist”?

No. If you find fault in our economy, then you are finding fault in socialism.

Property is controlled through democratically elected government. A “landowner” is not free to build as he or she wishes on that land. They must receive permission in the form of permits and zoning. When they do, they must build the structure in accordance to the rules set forth by the government. If they wish to operate a business on “their” land, they must seek permission. If they seek to paint “their” house, in many places, they must receive permission to do so. If the government wishes to take “their” land for any purpose, be it a road or a shopping mall or a park, it may do so.

More than 1.3 Trillion dollars, or over 44% of the federal government is spent on public assistance in the form of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

If they do receive permission to operate a business, and acquire a license to do so, they must operate it in accordance to the regulations. They do not have discretion in who they may serve. Food must be prepared in accordance to health codes.

Vehicles must have hoods of a particular height, roofs with a particular crush weight, seatbelts, airbags, the gas tank handle on the dashboard icon must correspond to the location of the tank on the vehicle, it must make an annoying noise if you do not use the seatbelt. They must sell vehicles at such rates as to attain an average fuel efficiency stipulated by the government.

We have a terrible economy. It’s not because of capitalism. It’s not because of communism. It is because of the bastard child of the two, the system which claims a free market but makes one that is anything but.

The General Welfare

There was a time where government claimed divine right. It was the moral and just position of the King to rule over the people, as that was what god was perceived to ordain.

This time has passed, and yet government remains, not because it exists as its own independent moral “good”, but because it is useful to the citizens of it. As our constitution decrees, it exists to promote the general welfare (amongst other things), and this is its use.

However, utilitarianism, the pursuit of the general welfare, is not the moral end all. If the whole has to go the way of the majority, then there would be no back-up plan. If the whole turned out to be wrong and the general welfare of the people ended up not to be, then so would the few’s welfare be ruined despite their intent in the right direction.

The morality of utilitarianism depends on the morality of its ends. To state that the moral option is the greater good, presumes that we know what the greater good is. However, we do not know what the greater good is.

At the end of the day, utilitarianism claims that the ends justify the means.
Others claim the means must also be moral in themselves.
But no one claims the means justify the ends.

And as such we must limit the degree to which we compel others to peruse our “general welfare”. For, our general welfare may not be the ends we hope them to be, and no unjust means can right an unjust end.