Wednesday, December 30, 2009

And the winner is... not us?

Whenever I hear people talking about regulating businesses for either financial or ecological purposes, one thing is certain. Those who support increased regulations fail to take into account the fact that borders are more porous then ever. Allow me to explain.

If I happen to be a liberal politician and want to increase my populist outreach I will do one thing: Rail against the greed of corporations and call for their taxation. I would probably use inflammatory language and point out how their CEO makes 100x more than their lowest paid worker. Chances are I will ride a wave of populism into office. If enough politicians follow suit, especially during a time of an economic crisis, we will have enough legislators in office to pass a 10% increase in corporate taxes. This will make all the voters feel empowered, and increase my chances for reelection. And we all lived happily ever after.

You should have expected any story to begin with me being a liberal politician to be fictional. Here is how it would really go down:

After the tax gets enacted, the CEO of looks around and say to himself, (Yes the CEO of the evil company is a guy) "While I would love to continue to produce services in this nation/state/municipality, I have a responsibility to the evil shareholders who are only interested in money *gasp*, so I will move my factory/office/headquarters from this unfavorable tax environment." Due to a company leaving California, there is a sudden spike in unemployment, and the voters grab their torches and go to the door of the liberal politician to demand accountability. The voters break into his house and in a dramatic act of revenge, that would later be portrayed on the silverscreen, literally throw the bum out and install a wise business oriented conservative. And we all lived happily ever after.

While I definitely like this ending a lot more it is also far from the truth. Let's continue, shall we?

The conservative enters office with a cheery disposition and a can do attitude. He cuts taxes on businesses (Yes the conservative politician is also a guy, deal with it), to bring back lost jobs. The CEO has a little chat on the telephone with the conservative politician that goes something like this:

Politician: Hey, now that taxes are down, you want to leave China/Wyoming/Eureka and come back to the United States/California/San Francisco.
CEO: Well... how do I know that the tax rate won't go back up again?
Politician: As long as I am in office, I won't increase taxes on you.
CEO: And what if you lose your bid for reelection to a liberal?
Politician: (Fingers crossed) That will never happen... *wince*
CEO: Let's say I am stupid enough to take you at your word, moving is expensive, and besides the minimum wage is much cheaper here, is there anything you can offer me to entice me to move back?
Politician: It's... the... right thing to do? *click* Hello?... You there?



The story then takes a turn for the worse and the conservative caves in to the demand of the now-unemployed voters and  increases welfare spending, further increasing the tax burden on the now-scarce companies, causing them to leave the tax environment for fairer pastures. The previously deposed liberal is elected on a wave of populist anger, and the downward spiral continues.

And the moral of the story is: If you increase your rent, people will leave and probably never come back.

This theory can be applied to thousands upon thousands of political issues such as global warming (increasing emission standards for factories who then move to China), and unionization (workers unionizing against pay cuts which forces companies to move to China for ununionized labor). This wasn't such a big problem when moving costs were prohibitive, however now with cheap internet access across the world, such moves can be done long before the implementation of a crippling tax.

And the winner is... not us?

Whenever I hear people talking about regulating businesses for either financial or ecological purposes, one thing is certain. Those who support increased regulations fail to take into account the fact that borders are more porous then ever. Allow me to explain.

If I happen to be a liberal politician and want to increase my populist outreach I will do one thing: Rail against the greed of corporations and call for their taxation. I would probably use inflammatory language and point out how their CEO makes 100x more than their lowest paid worker. Chances are I will ride a wave of populism into office. If enough politicians follow suit, especially during a time of an economic crisis, we will have enough legislators in office to pass a 10% increase in corporate taxes. This will make all the voters feel empowered, and increase my chances for reelection. And we all lived happily ever after.

You should have expected any story to begin with me being a liberal politician to be fictional. Here is how it would really go down:

After the tax gets enacted, the CEO of looks around and say to himself, (Yes the CEO of the evil company is a guy) "While I would love to continue to produce services in this nation/state/municipality, I have a responsibility to the evil shareholders who are only interested in money *gasp*, so I will move my factory/office/headquarters from this unfavorable tax environment." Due to a company leaving California, there is a sudden spike in unemployment, and the voters grab their torches and go to the door of the liberal politician to demand accountability. The voters break into his house and in a dramatic act of revenge, that would later be portrayed on the silverscreen, literally throw the bum out and install a wise business oriented conservative. And we all lived happily ever after.

While I definitely like this ending a lot more it is also far from the truth. Let's continue, shall we?

The conservative enters office with a cheery disposition and a can do attitude. He cuts taxes on businesses (Yes the conservative politician is also a guy, deal with it), to bring back lost jobs. The CEO has a little chat on the telephone with the conservative politician that goes something like this:

Politician: Hey, now that taxes are down, you want to leave China/Wyoming/Eureka and come back to the United States/California/San Francisco.
CEO: Well... how do I know that the tax rate won't go back up again?
Politician: As long as I am in office, I won't increase taxes on you.
CEO: And what if you lose your bid for reelection to a liberal?
Politician: (Fingers crossed) That will never happen... *wince*
CEO: Let's say I am stupid enough to take you at your word, moving is expensive, and besides the minimum wage is much cheaper here, is there anything you can offer me to entice me to move back?
Politician: It's... the... right thing to do? *click* Hello?... You there?



The story then takes a turn for the worse and the conservative caves in to the demand of the now-unemployed voters and  increases welfare spending, further increasing the tax burden on the now-scarce companies, causing them to leave the tax environment for fairer pastures. The previously deposed liberal is elected on a wave of populist anger, and the downward spiral continues.

And the moral of the story is: If you increase your rent, people will leave and probably never come back.

This theory can be applied to thousands upon thousands of political issues such as global warming (increasing emission standards for factories who then move to China), and unionization (workers unionizing against pay cuts which forces companies to move to China for ununionized labor). This wasn't such a big problem when moving costs were prohibitive, however now with cheap internet access across the world, such moves can be done long before the implementation of a crippling tax.

Monday, December 21, 2009

Being a moderate is over-rated


Once again another post that won't make me very many friends but it is worth considering.


Professional wrestler turned Governor of Nebraska Jesse Ventura once stated that

"you have the far left at 15 percent, you have the far right at 15 percent, and there's 70 percent of us in the center."
While I cannot testify as to whether or not Jesse Ventura was a moderate, ( The only thing I know for sure, is that he was moderately insane) there is some credence to this statement. Being a moderate, or as some call it an independent, is in. What's more fashionable then to say "I am fed up with the way that government has been run as of this point by both parties and consider myself a moderate?"

The one thing that you hear most moderates complain from is that they are not represented in the media. That statement is more or less correct. You have your Olbermans and your Moores on the far left and your Hannitys and your Becks on the far right. The problem, as moderates see it, is that there is no representation for this huge middle. Moderates assume that with no alternative left, those who are right leaning centrists are forced towards Fox and those with even the slightest liberal tendency are forced to Msnbc. 


This prognosis, while it makes every moderate as happy as a clam, fails to take into account one of the key problem with moderates in America. The problem is, on balance, moderates don't care. This is a question worth asking yourself if you consider yourself a moderate. Do you care about politics?  Every government teacher I ever had talked about the true silent majority of centrism and yet fail to take into account this key point. You want proof? Ask any self-proclaimed moderate whether they voted in the midterm election. Chances are they will say no. The phrase "party faithful" wasn't created out of thin air, they are the group that volunteers, votes, and donates. Not to say that there are civic minded moderates, in fact a friend of mine is exactly that. These people however are the true minority of the silent majority. Why do politicians hold rallies? Why do they go on talk shows that the middle don't watch? Its because in reality while Americans are on a bell curve politically, the graph is bimodal when it comes to civic activity.


Side note:
Some people consider me to be righter than anyone when it comes to politics. While I am fiscally conservative near the point of economic anarchy, I consider myself a social moderate. Obviously I do not set my point of reference for moderacy to be the Bay Area, so all you nay-sayers out there take a minute and consider the following. 

Liberals want to maintain abortion rights to all women on the federal level. Conservatives wish to illegalize abortion at the federal level. My belief is that abortion should be handled at the level of the state with the approval of the citizenry. The reason I am not farther left is because I believe abortion is unjustified killing. The reason I am not farther right is because I believe that states have the right to legislate murder, especially since murder is typically handled by the state anyways.


:Liberals want to grant the right of marriage to every gay couple. Conservatives want an amendment to the US constitution legislating marriage to be between a man and a woman. I on the other hand subscribe to the belief that this too should be decided on the state level with consent from the governed. Mind you I am for civil Unions, and would support attempts to increase rights for gay couples in such unions, however the term marriage has no real purpose for gays. If marriage was a natural right then I would reconsider my view, however there is no reason to believe so. (Note- I know that the Supreme court determined marriage to be such a right but they were dead wrong, and you can quote me on that.) If a couple has a wedding, registers with California as a domestic partnership, they have almost all of the same rights that a married couple has. If the left were to push for an increase in those rights, I would not provide resistance.


Its rather funny how I spend all this time bashing moderates, and then claim to be one near the end. C'est la vie!


Side side note: 
Never use French again.





Being a moderate is over-rated


Once again another post that won't make me very many friends but it is worth considering.


Professional wrestler turned Governor of Nebraska Jesse Ventura once stated that

"you have the far left at 15 percent, you have the far right at 15 percent, and there's 70 percent of us in the center."
While I cannot testify as to whether or not Jesse Ventura was a moderate, ( The only thing I know for sure, is that he was moderately insane) there is some credence to this statement. Being a moderate, or as some call it an independent, is in. What's more fashionable then to say "I am fed up with the way that government has been run as of this point by both parties and consider myself a moderate?"

The one thing that you hear most moderates complain from is that they are not represented in the media. That statement is more or less correct. You have your Olbermans and your Moores on the far left and your Hannitys and your Becks on the far right. The problem, as moderates see it, is that there is no representation for this huge middle. Moderates assume that with no alternative left, those who are right leaning centrists are forced towards Fox and those with even the slightest liberal tendency are forced to Msnbc. 


This prognosis, while it makes every moderate as happy as a clam, fails to take into account one of the key problem with moderates in America. The problem is, on balance, moderates don't care. This is a question worth asking yourself if you consider yourself a moderate. Do you care about politics?  Every government teacher I ever had talked about the true silent majority of centrism and yet fail to take into account this key point. You want proof? Ask any self-proclaimed moderate whether they voted in the midterm election. Chances are they will say no. The phrase "party faithful" wasn't created out of thin air, they are the group that volunteers, votes, and donates. Not to say that there are civic minded moderates, in fact a friend of mine is exactly that. These people however are the true minority of the silent majority. Why do politicians hold rallies? Why do they go on talk shows that the middle don't watch? Its because in reality while Americans are on a bell curve politically, the graph is bimodal when it comes to civic activity.


Side note:
Some people consider me to be righter than anyone when it comes to politics. While I am fiscally conservative near the point of economic anarchy, I consider myself a social moderate. Obviously I do not set my point of reference for moderacy to be the Bay Area, so all you nay-sayers out there take a minute and consider the following. 

Liberals want to maintain abortion rights to all women on the federal level. Conservatives wish to illegalize abortion at the federal level. My belief is that abortion should be handled at the level of the state with the approval of the citizenry. The reason I am not farther left is because I believe abortion is unjustified killing. The reason I am not farther right is because I believe that states have the right to legislate murder, especially since murder is typically handled by the state anyways.


:Liberals want to grant the right of marriage to every gay couple. Conservatives want an amendment to the US constitution legislating marriage to be between a man and a woman. I on the other hand subscribe to the belief that this too should be decided on the state level with consent from the governed. Mind you I am for civil Unions, and would support attempts to increase rights for gay couples in such unions, however the term marriage has no real purpose for gays. If marriage was a natural right then I would reconsider my view, however there is no reason to believe so. (Note- I know that the Supreme court determined marriage to be such a right but they were dead wrong, and you can quote me on that.) If a couple has a wedding, registers with California as a domestic partnership, they have almost all of the same rights that a married couple has. If the left were to push for an increase in those rights, I would not provide resistance.


Its rather funny how I spend all this time bashing moderates, and then claim to be one near the end. C'est la vie!


Side side note: 
Never use French again.





Friday, December 4, 2009

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.



"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

What a bigoted statement! That sounds like a radical evangelical who knows nothing about the constitution. Well, the reality couldn't be farther from the truth. The speaker of this quote is none other than one of the fathers of this nation: John Adams. What would lead such an enlightened revolutionary to make such an anti-secular statement.

I am going to make a rather controversial argument. I contend that without religion the very basis of our nation would be irrelevant. For the purpose of argument let me assume an atheist paradigm*. Lets say for a minute that this world came to be due to statistical chance, and God did not exist. Can the United States exist? Can limited government exist in any form?

Let's play a game.

An atheist has to decide whether human beings are inherently evil, or inherently good. If humans were inherently good, then how could one explain the existence of evil? One could of course take the view that Rousseau held and assume that man made institutions directly lead to evil. Then you come across a bigger problem. If man made institutions lead to evil, then who created these institutions? These institutions obviously do not predate man so evil had to exist before then.

What most atheists end up conceding is that humans are inherently evil or at the very least selfish. If you find yourself in this group, you are in company with many of the prominent atheists of today's time such as Dawkins and Hawking. The problems arise later when you consider what this nation was founded on. Here is a quote you should be pretty familiar with:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"
The Declaration of Independence

This country was founded on the very notion that men are endowed with certain unalienable rights. The key question that Atheists tend to ignore is, "Who endowed us with these rights?" An Atheist cannot concede the existence of a creator so must look elsewhere to justify the existence of these rights. The original writer of these words was John Locke who wrote of life liberty and property as unalienable rights. According to Locke, the reason these rights should be protected by governments is because they were given by God. So let's explore how atheists rationalize human rights.

Utilitarianism

One effort by atheists to justify humanitarianism is Utilitarianism. The principle of Utilitarianism states that given two decisions, one should take the decision that better benefits society in general. By such a principle human rights such as life liberty and property would be protected since it benefits the community as a whole. They would also cease to be protected if it does not benefit the community as a whole. Under this framework, speech would be protected but hate speech would not as maximum benefit would be attained by suppressing offensive speech.While this may seem like the perfect paradigm of atheist humanitarianism, it is inherently flawed in several regards.

Flaws of Atheist Utilitarianism
  1. Why would an atheist value every person's happiness equally? Who is to say that me killing someone else will not increase my happiness at a greater magnitude then the decrease to the happiness of the other person. And since there is no after-life in the atheist paradigm, then who is to say that I am not doing him a favor if he is leading a miserable life? If someone ceases to exist, does there happiness go to zero? 
  2. If you could save the lives of five people by killing one person, would you do it. The atheist utilitarian by definition believes that we should kill that one person to save five people. However such situations exists in this world today. I guarantee you there are 5 people who need an organ transplant to survive. If you kill one healthy person, you would have 2 kidneys, a liver, 10 pints of blood, a heart and more. By its very principles, utilitarianism justifies organ harvesting.
  3. Utilitarianism assumes a non-existent perfect knowledge. In other words, in order to make the best decision, one must know the consequences of your actions and the consequences of any actions resulting directly from your action. To put it simply, if you were the dean of admissions at the Vienna academy of the Arts and an incompetent student applied to your school, the utilitarian decision would be to reject the student and make room for students with more potential. The result would be that the rejected students would find work more in line with their skills. The only problem of course would be if a student by the name of Adolf Hitler applied to your school with a less the beautiful portfolio. (Yes I broke Godwin's law, deal with it) By the standard of utilitarianism, you would have committed an atrocity since your actions lead to the slaughtering of millions of humans. You should be tried at Nuremberg for such vile actions! Obviously no human has perfect knowledge, and as such utilitarianism is inapplicable.
Nihilism
  
The only paradigm possible for an atheist is Nihilism. Nihilism is the assumption that there is no purpose in life. Since Utilitarianism is impractical and humans are inherently evil, then only one conclusion could be made, government should control the people. People are selfish and have no reason to do what is best for society so the only logical decision would be to suppress the human will.

To conclude, if you are an atheist, you should go to Norway... Ok... probably not, but you should reconsider your views on virtually everything and probably shouldn't be a libertarian and come to the conclusion that our constitution was not made for you.


*Paradigm: A set of assumptions, concepts, values, and practices that constitutes a way of viewing reality

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.



"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

What a bigoted statement! That sounds like a radical evangelical who knows nothing about the constitution. Well, the reality couldn't be farther from the truth. The speaker of this quote is none other than one of the fathers of this nation: John Adams. What would lead such an enlightened revolutionary to make such an anti-secular statement.

I am going to make a rather controversial argument. I contend that without religion the very basis of our nation would be irrelevant. For the purpose of argument let me assume an atheist paradigm*. Lets say for a minute that this world came to be due to statistical chance, and God did not exist. Can the United States exist? Can limited government exist in any form?

Let's play a game.

An atheist has to decide whether human beings are inherently evil, or inherently good. If humans were inherently good, then how could one explain the existence of evil? One could of course take the view that Rousseau held and assume that man made institutions directly lead to evil. Then you come across a bigger problem. If man made institutions lead to evil, then who created these institutions? These institutions obviously do not predate man so evil had to exist before then.

What most atheists end up conceding is that humans are inherently evil or at the very least selfish. If you find yourself in this group, you are in company with many of the prominent atheists of today's time such as Dawkins and Hawking. The problems arise later when you consider what this nation was founded on. Here is a quote you should be pretty familiar with:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"
The Declaration of Independence

This country was founded on the very notion that men are endowed with certain unalienable rights. The key question that Atheists tend to ignore is, "Who endowed us with these rights?" An Atheist cannot concede the existence of a creator so must look elsewhere to justify the existence of these rights. The original writer of these words was John Locke who wrote of life liberty and property as unalienable rights. According to Locke, the reason these rights should be protected by governments is because they were given by God. So let's explore how atheists rationalize human rights.

Utilitarianism

One effort by atheists to justify humanitarianism is Utilitarianism. The principle of Utilitarianism states that given two decisions, one should take the decision that better benefits society in general. By such a principle human rights such as life liberty and property would be protected since it benefits the community as a whole. They would also cease to be protected if it does not benefit the community as a whole. Under this framework, speech would be protected but hate speech would not as maximum benefit would be attained by suppressing offensive speech.While this may seem like the perfect paradigm of atheist humanitarianism, it is inherently flawed in several regards.

Flaws of Atheist Utilitarianism
  1. Why would an atheist value every person's happiness equally? Who is to say that me killing someone else will not increase my happiness at a greater magnitude then the decrease to the happiness of the other person. And since there is no after-life in the atheist paradigm, then who is to say that I am not doing him a favor if he is leading a miserable life? If someone ceases to exist, does there happiness go to zero? 
  2. If you could save the lives of five people by killing one person, would you do it. The atheist utilitarian by definition believes that we should kill that one person to save five people. However such situations exists in this world today. I guarantee you there are 5 people who need an organ transplant to survive. If you kill one healthy person, you would have 2 kidneys, a liver, 10 pints of blood, a heart and more. By its very principles, utilitarianism justifies organ harvesting.
  3. Utilitarianism assumes a non-existent perfect knowledge. In other words, in order to make the best decision, one must know the consequences of your actions and the consequences of any actions resulting directly from your action. To put it simply, if you were the dean of admissions at the Vienna academy of the Arts and an incompetent student applied to your school, the utilitarian decision would be to reject the student and make room for students with more potential. The result would be that the rejected students would find work more in line with their skills. The only problem of course would be if a student by the name of Adolf Hitler applied to your school with a less the beautiful portfolio. (Yes I broke Godwin's law, deal with it) By the standard of utilitarianism, you would have committed an atrocity since your actions lead to the slaughtering of millions of humans. You should be tried at Nuremberg for such vile actions! Obviously no human has perfect knowledge, and as such utilitarianism is inapplicable.
Nihilism
  
The only paradigm possible for an atheist is Nihilism. Nihilism is the assumption that there is no purpose in life. Since Utilitarianism is impractical and humans are inherently evil, then only one conclusion could be made, government should control the people. People are selfish and have no reason to do what is best for society so the only logical decision would be to suppress the human will.

To conclude, if you are an atheist, you should go to Norway... Ok... probably not, but you should reconsider your views on virtually everything and probably shouldn't be a libertarian and come to the conclusion that our constitution was not made for you.


*Paradigm: A set of assumptions, concepts, values, and practices that constitutes a way of viewing reality

Thursday, November 19, 2009

On Abortion

Ah. The topic that pits freedom against ethics. To say the least, this is a subject of much controversy and for the most part there is no middle ground. However in true Wahbastic fashion I shall strip the emotions that have defined this debate for so long and attempt to convince you that it is wrong in principle.

While I am not a person to criticize freedom of self destruction, I subscribe to the fact that an abortion is legally considered the killing of a human. I know, controversial, but here me out here.

The law has almost always considered fetuses to be alive. This can easily be shown in the Scott Peterson case. While this case doesn't have anything to do with abortion, the case shows that the law acknowledges the life of a fetus. Peterson killed his wife who was 8 months pregnant. If the law considered the fetus not to be alive, then Peterson would have been charged with one count of homicide, no problem. However, the court went a step further and added a second count of homicide for the unborn child. This shows beyond any doubt that fetuses are alive, and as such have a right to life, liberty and property. Mind you homicide is defined as the killing of a human being. There is no ownership of an unborn fetus. It is not private property. It is legally a human life. Remember that.

Some will say " Abortions in the third trimester are restricted by Roe v. Wade." It is true that third trimester abortions are technically restricted to cases where the life and well being of the woman are at stake under Roe v. Wade. However, these restrictions are essentially canceled in the case of Doe v. Bolton. In this case, the court stated that abortions are legal in the third trimester as long as the "physical, emotional, psychological, (and) familial." are at stake.  In other words, as long as the woman can show the doctor that her emotional well-being will be put at stake by the addition of a dependent (duh!) then she has the right to an abortion.

Do you see the dichotomy? While the law is not willing to abridge a woman's right to have an abortion, it
acknowledges the life of the fetus. In other words abortion is homicide. There is absolutely no way to dispute that. However even homicide can sometimes be justified, so let's explore this option for a moment.

The justification that some people have for the legalization of abortion is that if the fetus was not aborted, it would be mistreated, and would more likely than not become a criminal. This does seem to be a sound logical argument that may or may not be disputed by statistics, however the principle behind this argument is flawed. If ending a life can be used in order to protect society, then we open a door that frankly should be under lock and key. With parental consent (in the form of a will) should we kill orphans as they are likely to cause societal grief? How about single parents who were abandoned by a spouse, should they be allowed to end the life of a child since they are likely to become criminals? African American children are statistically more likely yo become criminals, should we kill them? We as a society do not dispute that those actions would be monstrous and yet we are willing to justify abortion on the grounds of societal welfare.

I am not suggesting that tomorrow we wake up and declare abortions to be illegal throughout the land. What I am suggesting we do is leave the decision to the states. Roe v. Wade should be overturned and states should be able to outlaw it by popular vote. I am simply not convinced that an abortion should be protected by the 4th amendment which protects private property. If you can kill a fetus, then it is not private property.

Abortion is killing. No ifs, ands or buts about it. If anyone wants to give a justification for it I would be more than happy to discuss that.

Sound off below.

Coming up next: Soccer is more than just a game

On Abortion

Ah. The topic that pits freedom against ethics. To say the least, this is a subject of much controversy and for the most part there is no middle ground. However in true Wahbastic fashion I shall strip the emotions that have defined this debate for so long and attempt to convince you that it is wrong in principle.

While I am not a person to criticize freedom of self destruction, I subscribe to the fact that an abortion is legally considered the killing of a human. I know, controversial, but here me out here.

The law has almost always considered fetuses to be alive. This can easily be shown in the Scott Peterson case. While this case doesn't have anything to do with abortion, the case shows that the law acknowledges the life of a fetus. Peterson killed his wife who was 8 months pregnant. If the law considered the fetus not to be alive, then Peterson would have been charged with one count of homicide, no problem. However, the court went a step further and added a second count of homicide for the unborn child. This shows beyond any doubt that fetuses are alive, and as such have a right to life, liberty and property. Mind you homicide is defined as the killing of a human being. There is no ownership of an unborn fetus. It is not private property. It is legally a human life. Remember that.

Some will say " Abortions in the third trimester are restricted by Roe v. Wade." It is true that third trimester abortions are technically restricted to cases where the life and well being of the woman are at stake under Roe v. Wade. However, these restrictions are essentially canceled in the case of Doe v. Bolton. In this case, the court stated that abortions are legal in the third trimester as long as the "physical, emotional, psychological, (and) familial." are at stake.  In other words, as long as the woman can show the doctor that her emotional well-being will be put at stake by the addition of a dependent (duh!) then she has the right to an abortion.

Do you see the dichotomy? While the law is not willing to abridge a woman's right to have an abortion, it
acknowledges the life of the fetus. In other words abortion is homicide. There is absolutely no way to dispute that. However even homicide can sometimes be justified, so let's explore this option for a moment.

The justification that some people have for the legalization of abortion is that if the fetus was not aborted, it would be mistreated, and would more likely than not become a criminal. This does seem to be a sound logical argument that may or may not be disputed by statistics, however the principle behind this argument is flawed. If ending a life can be used in order to protect society, then we open a door that frankly should be under lock and key. With parental consent (in the form of a will) should we kill orphans as they are likely to cause societal grief? How about single parents who were abandoned by a spouse, should they be allowed to end the life of a child since they are likely to become criminals? African American children are statistically more likely yo become criminals, should we kill them? We as a society do not dispute that those actions would be monstrous and yet we are willing to justify abortion on the grounds of societal welfare.

I am not suggesting that tomorrow we wake up and declare abortions to be illegal throughout the land. What I am suggesting we do is leave the decision to the states. Roe v. Wade should be overturned and states should be able to outlaw it by popular vote. I am simply not convinced that an abortion should be protected by the 4th amendment which protects private property. If you can kill a fetus, then it is not private property.

Abortion is killing. No ifs, ands or buts about it. If anyone wants to give a justification for it I would be more than happy to discuss that.

Sound off below.

Coming up next: Soccer is more than just a game

Saturday, November 7, 2009

A petition from the men who deliver milk

http://bastiat.org/en/petition.html

There are people within our very borders who are losing their high paying jobs to the diabolical influences of competition. The most persecuted group of people is none other than the milkman. These men are being ruthlessly pushed out of the market by competition. The milkman provides a valid and necessary service to Americans. They deliver you fresh and cold milk to your house on a day to day basis. This job however is being encroached upon by the diabolical refrigeration business. These ice boxes from hell use sorcery and black magic to take heat out of the air and make food colder. We as a nation need to take a stand against toyota, I mean refrigeration, and protect the milkman. Sure it is cheaper to install a refrigerator in your house, but is it worth taking a job from a man? This is a terrible problem that can only be solved by having the government buy the patents that put this evil device on the market. Don't act in your self-interest by buying an efficient and affordable Japanese car...I mean refrigerator.What right does the market have in determining who gets paid? Fight the market and think of the poor milkman's family who won't have any customers. This poor man will be forced onto the street and made to get a higher education. Don't make these poor uneducated, autoworkers... I mean milkmen, have to actually learn a new skill. Think of the children.

Signed Sahr Kazim
Representative of the United Auto Worker... I mean milk man union.

A petition from the men who deliver milk

http://bastiat.org/en/petition.html

There are people within our very borders who are losing their high paying jobs to the diabolical influences of competition. The most persecuted group of people is none other than the milkman. These men are being ruthlessly pushed out of the market by competition. The milkman provides a valid and necessary service to Americans. They deliver you fresh and cold milk to your house on a day to day basis. This job however is being encroached upon by the diabolical refrigeration business. These ice boxes from hell use sorcery and black magic to take heat out of the air and make food colder. We as a nation need to take a stand against toyota, I mean refrigeration, and protect the milkman. Sure it is cheaper to install a refrigerator in your house, but is it worth taking a job from a man? This is a terrible problem that can only be solved by having the government buy the patents that put this evil device on the market. Don't act in your self-interest by buying an efficient and affordable Japanese car...I mean refrigerator.What right does the market have in determining who gets paid? Fight the market and think of the poor milkman's family who won't have any customers. This poor man will be forced onto the street and made to get a higher education. Don't make these poor uneducated, autoworkers... I mean milkmen, have to actually learn a new skill. Think of the children.

Signed Sahr Kazim
Representative of the United Auto Worker... I mean milk man union.

Wednesday, November 4, 2009

Why You Should Vote for Mavericks


Before You start to throw rotten tomatoes at me for for suggesting you vote a certain way, I need you to consider history. 


Let me lay a foundation for this blunt statement without condition. Let us look at the last four effective presidents. 
Presidents were only considered effective when some of their actions were not in line with their party platform. Let's start from the most recent. 

Let us skip bush, as history has not judged his actions yet and go straight to Clinton. Despite being an ethically controversial character, by many he is looked to as one of the most effective president. What is his most praiseworthy action? He cut the deficit. Wait, what? I thought he was a democrat? That's right the most important Clintonian accomplishment was not the establishment of a liberal program that will increase the deficit. He followed the conservative principle of responsible spending. Maybe Clinton is an anomaly, lets move on to the next president that the people love.


Ronald Wilson Reagan. A man of great communication skills, arose in a Republican party at a time when the republican platform was incredibly hawkish. In fact when talking about the Carter administration the Republican platform was crystal clear:
"Despite clear danger signals indicating that Soviet nuclear power would overtake that of the United States by the early 1980s, threatening the survival of the United States and making possible, for the first time in post-war history, political coercion and defeat, the Administration reduced the size and capability of our nuclear forces."(http://tinyurl.com/ygwo92x)
Yet why do we remember Ronald Reagan for? Let me give you a hint: it was not increasing our nuclear arms. He did what many consider a very "dovish" move and he negotiated with the enemy. While on the surface he had harsh rhetoric for the Soviet Union, his real strategy were behind the closed doors of negotiation. What we praise him for is the very thing that the Republican party stood against, and yet there is mutual agreement that the United States is better off because of him.


Now before you ready your rotten tomatoes at what I am about to say, please remember that I am talking about effective presidents and not in anyway a reference to the moral character of the person. The next president on my list is Richard Millhouse Nixon. What can we possibly have to thank Nixon for? Well pretty much everything you own. The computer your reading this blog on, your possibly fruit labeled phone, and pretty much every piece of electronic equipment in your life are brought to you courtesy of Richard Nixon. There are plenty of things to hate him for, but if it wasn't for his efforts with China, we would not have recognized them as a country and we would right now be paying $2000 for union made laptops. What was the republican party platform's opinion about China about at the time?
"5. We are opposed to the recognition of Red China. We oppose its admission into the United Nations. We steadfastly support free China."(http://tinyurl.com/ykrapbm)
Are you serious? The party of the man who did the most to build US-China relations did not even want to recognize the country. Let's move on shall we?

The next effective president in history would probably be Dwight Eisenhower. Ike did many things as far as pushing the party platform, but he also did somethings that were completely irrelevant to the platform. Nowhere in the republican platform did it mention increasing the civil rights of African Americans or Expanding the highway system, in fact some would argue that the party opposed it at the time, yet we remember Ike for those actions.

What I am saying is a president is only as good as he is willing to snub his nose at the party. Now for reasons why Republican Presidents tend to be that type.

Republicans have spines: The only democrat I know who was able to snub his nose at his party was Bill Clinton. All the other Democratic presidents, no offense to the office, were more or less wusses who want to please everyone.

Republicans have a smaller party: This simply means that they have less people to please and are more willing to reach out because of that.

Republican special interest groups fight for Americans (as well as themselves) . The big one that pops into mind is the NRA. Sure they are pushed by gun corporations but there is a benefit to gun ownership to the average american. Another post for another day. However, when you look at the Democrat special interest groups, aka unions you realize that you do not benefit from buying union made products. When voting, you are essentially choosing between the lesser of two evil lobbies, and on balance the Republican lobbies have selfless goals compared to the Democrat lobbies. Regardless of your opinion on abortion, you and I both know that no one will make money by outlawing abortions.

To conclude Vote Right. (You know exactly what that means.)

Why You Should Vote for Mavericks


Before You start to throw rotten tomatoes at me for for suggesting you vote a certain way, I need you to consider history. 


Let me lay a foundation for this blunt statement without condition. Let us look at the last four effective presidents. 
Presidents were only considered effective when some of their actions were not in line with their party platform. Let's start from the most recent. 

Let us skip bush, as history has not judged his actions yet and go straight to Clinton. Despite being an ethically controversial character, by many he is looked to as one of the most effective president. What is his most praiseworthy action? He cut the deficit. Wait, what? I thought he was a democrat? That's right the most important Clintonian accomplishment was not the establishment of a liberal program that will increase the deficit. He followed the conservative principle of responsible spending. Maybe Clinton is an anomaly, lets move on to the next president that the people love.


Ronald Wilson Reagan. A man of great communication skills, arose in a Republican party at a time when the republican platform was incredibly hawkish. In fact when talking about the Carter administration the Republican platform was crystal clear:
"Despite clear danger signals indicating that Soviet nuclear power would overtake that of the United States by the early 1980s, threatening the survival of the United States and making possible, for the first time in post-war history, political coercion and defeat, the Administration reduced the size and capability of our nuclear forces."(http://tinyurl.com/ygwo92x)
Yet why do we remember Ronald Reagan for? Let me give you a hint: it was not increasing our nuclear arms. He did what many consider a very "dovish" move and he negotiated with the enemy. While on the surface he had harsh rhetoric for the Soviet Union, his real strategy were behind the closed doors of negotiation. What we praise him for is the very thing that the Republican party stood against, and yet there is mutual agreement that the United States is better off because of him.


Now before you ready your rotten tomatoes at what I am about to say, please remember that I am talking about effective presidents and not in anyway a reference to the moral character of the person. The next president on my list is Richard Millhouse Nixon. What can we possibly have to thank Nixon for? Well pretty much everything you own. The computer your reading this blog on, your possibly fruit labeled phone, and pretty much every piece of electronic equipment in your life are brought to you courtesy of Richard Nixon. There are plenty of things to hate him for, but if it wasn't for his efforts with China, we would not have recognized them as a country and we would right now be paying $2000 for union made laptops. What was the republican party platform's opinion about China about at the time?
"5. We are opposed to the recognition of Red China. We oppose its admission into the United Nations. We steadfastly support free China."(http://tinyurl.com/ykrapbm)
Are you serious? The party of the man who did the most to build US-China relations did not even want to recognize the country. Let's move on shall we?

The next effective president in history would probably be Dwight Eisenhower. Ike did many things as far as pushing the party platform, but he also did somethings that were completely irrelevant to the platform. Nowhere in the republican platform did it mention increasing the civil rights of African Americans or Expanding the highway system, in fact some would argue that the party opposed it at the time, yet we remember Ike for those actions.

What I am saying is a president is only as good as he is willing to snub his nose at the party. Now for reasons why Republican Presidents tend to be that type.

Republicans have spines: The only democrat I know who was able to snub his nose at his party was Bill Clinton. All the other Democratic presidents, no offense to the office, were more or less wusses who want to please everyone.

Republicans have a smaller party: This simply means that they have less people to please and are more willing to reach out because of that.

Republican special interest groups fight for Americans (as well as themselves) . The big one that pops into mind is the NRA. Sure they are pushed by gun corporations but there is a benefit to gun ownership to the average american. Another post for another day. However, when you look at the Democrat special interest groups, aka unions you realize that you do not benefit from buying union made products. When voting, you are essentially choosing between the lesser of two evil lobbies, and on balance the Republican lobbies have selfless goals compared to the Democrat lobbies. Regardless of your opinion on abortion, you and I both know that no one will make money by outlawing abortions.

To conclude Vote Right. (You know exactly what that means.)

Sunday, November 1, 2009

Global Warming

Ah, my personal favorite scientific topic, only because it is in and of itself a political one.
global warming as declared by "the vast majority of scientists" is a regeneration of the hippy cry evolved into some allegedly sensible scientific arguments but before I continue I need to address the real problem which is that the populace regards scientific consensus as fact. It also follows that if the populace believes in scientific consensus then the journalist also does without a doubt. Several journalists refuse to allow arguments against global warming on their articles citing that "... global warming is impossible to deny. Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future."

I wish to address the serious question of the purity of scientists. Scientists, like any other profession interact with market forces. A scientist who says that the apocalypse is nigh get funding while a scientist who does not preach the end of the world gets nothing. By definition the government creates a self-fulfilling prophecy. It goes something like this:

  1. Government asks if need to check if there is a threat against our existence.
  2. Scientists who believe there is a threat against our existence are funded for research.
  3. Studies by paranoid scientists conclude that the world is going to end and call for more research
  4. Funding is not given to other scientists who do not believe that the end is eminent in order to pay for the funding for apocalyptic scientists.
  5. Scientists who believe that life is good make a decision between moving out of their discipline or moving towards the now forming consensus of eminent apocalypse.
Left wing think tanks are now trying something that they never succeed at doing: rebranding. Some worrisome leftists, who wish to push a conservationist agenda, are trying to change the terminology from global warming to global climate change. This is the saddest action I have ever seen taken. If the global climate goes up they say that we need to decrease our emissions, If the global climate goes down then we need to decrease our emissions. They are hedging their bet by using a catch all phrase. The only conceivable manner to disprove global warming is for the climate to stay constant, although that can be "proven" by dictating that climate cycles have been stopped because of human activity.

Global Warming has become unfalsifiable, the only way to disprove global warming is to detonate an earth sized EMP and discover that global climate change, surprise surprise, still happens.

Thankfully Americans have wizened up to global warming

Chalk one more for the rightist conspiracy

Global Warming

Ah, my personal favorite scientific topic, only because it is in and of itself a political one.
global warming as declared by "the vast majority of scientists" is a regeneration of the hippy cry evolved into some allegedly sensible scientific arguments but before I continue I need to address the real problem which is that the populace regards scientific consensus as fact. It also follows that if the populace believes in scientific consensus then the journalist also does without a doubt. Several journalists refuse to allow arguments against global warming on their articles citing that "... global warming is impossible to deny. Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future."

I wish to address the serious question of the purity of scientists. Scientists, like any other profession interact with market forces. A scientist who says that the apocalypse is nigh get funding while a scientist who does not preach the end of the world gets nothing. By definition the government creates a self-fulfilling prophecy. It goes something like this:

  1. Government asks if need to check if there is a threat against our existence.
  2. Scientists who believe there is a threat against our existence are funded for research.
  3. Studies by paranoid scientists conclude that the world is going to end and call for more research
  4. Funding is not given to other scientists who do not believe that the end is eminent in order to pay for the funding for apocalyptic scientists.
  5. Scientists who believe that life is good make a decision between moving out of their discipline or moving towards the now forming consensus of eminent apocalypse.
Left wing think tanks are now trying something that they never succeed at doing: rebranding. Some worrisome leftists, who wish to push a conservationist agenda, are trying to change the terminology from global warming to global climate change. This is the saddest action I have ever seen taken. If the global climate goes up they say that we need to decrease our emissions, If the global climate goes down then we need to decrease our emissions. They are hedging their bet by using a catch all phrase. The only conceivable manner to disprove global warming is for the climate to stay constant, although that can be "proven" by dictating that climate cycles have been stopped because of human activity.

Global Warming has become unfalsifiable, the only way to disprove global warming is to detonate an earth sized EMP and discover that global climate change, surprise surprise, still happens.

Thankfully Americans have wizened up to global warming

Chalk one more for the rightist conspiracy

Saturday, October 24, 2009

Capital crimes

Before I begin I would like to say that this is not a place to debate the moral efficacy of the death penalty [groans]. Instead I think it would be more interesting to debate the uses of it.

If we were to apply the death penalty to all felonies, I guarantee you that the amount of larceny, drug trafficking and any other crimes will go down. However I plan to argue that murder, or crimes that result directly in death should be the only capital crimes.

The theory behind the death penalty is that the most important thing for a person is their life. If you take away all a person's possessions including freedom and dignity, the only thing that remains is their life. In order to create a proper incentive system one has to instill inside the populace both a value of their own life and a belief that if they commit the crime they will be caught and put to death.


For the purposes of simplicity we will call our would-be criminal Mr. Poman Rolanski [snicker]
We will also assume that Poman is not mentally insane and more or less a rational human being
.

If Poman does not value his own life then the death penalty serves no purpose whatsoever. Think of him as a suicide bomber; no amount of laws will stop him from doing what he wants or feels is proper. This is also the case if someone is getting revenge for a crime committed. If Poman's family was brutally killed by a person or organization, you can rest assured that Poman will be out to kill those responsible regardless of the consequences. This point is also moot if Poman feels the benefit from committing the crime is greater then the cost, which is his life. It is important to note that this can only apply if this person believes in the after life or a benefit that can be enjoyed after death. All capital crimes that fall under this umbrella are revenge motivated crimes and religiously motivated crimes. An important characteristic of these crimes is that neither society nor the law can do anything to stop them.

Even if Poman values his life, there is still a chance that that he will commit a capital crime anyways. If like the majority of criminals, Poman thinks he can get away with the crime by say, escaping to a country that doesn't extradite criminals, then he is more likely to commit the crime. One of the countries most associated with crimes is Mexico and for good reason. There is almost no incentive to "stay clean". In fact only 2 out of every one hundred crimes committed in Mexico are punished. http://tinyurl.com/yhpo3x2.

To put it mathematically
C=L*V
C= perceived cost of crime, L= perceived likelihood of being caught and punished
V= perceived value of life, B= perceived benefit if alive
If B is greater than C then a capital crime is committed, If B is less than C then a capital crime is not committed

It is the responsibility of the society to increase the perceived likelihood of getting caught and punished as well as, increase the amount a person values their life. The latter is simple and solved through public schooling, the first however needs explanation.

Perception is key. For instance if we had the death penalty in place for a crime and in reality sent all criminals to a remote island that no one knew about to do slave labor for the rest of their lives that would be fine, as long as there was a perceived belief that the criminal would be killed. Similarly if the percentage of capital crimes that are punished went up and yet no one felt it, then there would be no increase in L. To quote Daniel Webster
"The world is governed more by appearance than realities so that it is fully as necessary to seem to know something as to know it."

Assuming we succeeded in doing the preceding it is also important that we do not cause perverse motivations. That means that only crimes that lead directly to death are punishable by death. If a crime like rape is capital, then there will be perverse incentives. If rape was a capital crime, and Poman had committed rape then that would have been the first in a series of crime that would have resulted in several deaths. Poman would be forced to kill his victim because the marginal cost of another murder is almost nonexistent while the benefit of eliminating a witness decreases L. Furthermore, Poman would have a great incentive to kill anyone who might have witnessed the crime for the same reason. While the amount of rapes will go down, the amount of murders will surely go up.

It is also important to note that the way the system is currently set up, there is no marginal cost for committing a capital crime as the death penalty can only be applied once. Jail sentencing also has the same problem. There is no difference between 100 years in jail and 1000 years in jail. Several countries fixed this problem of marginal incentive by implementing what is considered to be a barbaric punishment. Singapore has taken to paddling its criminals. While there is no difference between 100 years and 1000 years in jail, there is a huge difference between 10 paddlings and 100 paddlings. By creating a system where the marginal cost of committing another felony is as high as committing the first, Singapore successfully limits its crime.

To conclude incentives is what drives crime.

Capital crimes

Before I begin I would like to say that this is not a place to debate the moral efficacy of the death penalty [groans]. Instead I think it would be more interesting to debate the uses of it.

If we were to apply the death penalty to all felonies, I guarantee you that the amount of larceny, drug trafficking and any other crimes will go down. However I plan to argue that murder, or crimes that result directly in death should be the only capital crimes.

The theory behind the death penalty is that the most important thing for a person is their life. If you take away all a person's possessions including freedom and dignity, the only thing that remains is their life. In order to create a proper incentive system one has to instill inside the populace both a value of their own life and a belief that if they commit the crime they will be caught and put to death.


For the purposes of simplicity we will call our would-be criminal Mr. Poman Rolanski [snicker]
We will also assume that Poman is not mentally insane and more or less a rational human being
.

If Poman does not value his own life then the death penalty serves no purpose whatsoever. Think of him as a suicide bomber; no amount of laws will stop him from doing what he wants or feels is proper. This is also the case if someone is getting revenge for a crime committed. If Poman's family was brutally killed by a person or organization, you can rest assured that Poman will be out to kill those responsible regardless of the consequences. This point is also moot if Poman feels the benefit from committing the crime is greater then the cost, which is his life. It is important to note that this can only apply if this person believes in the after life or a benefit that can be enjoyed after death. All capital crimes that fall under this umbrella are revenge motivated crimes and religiously motivated crimes. An important characteristic of these crimes is that neither society nor the law can do anything to stop them.

Even if Poman values his life, there is still a chance that that he will commit a capital crime anyways. If like the majority of criminals, Poman thinks he can get away with the crime by say, escaping to a country that doesn't extradite criminals, then he is more likely to commit the crime. One of the countries most associated with crimes is Mexico and for good reason. There is almost no incentive to "stay clean". In fact only 2 out of every one hundred crimes committed in Mexico are punished. http://tinyurl.com/yhpo3x2.

To put it mathematically
C=L*V
C= perceived cost of crime, L= perceived likelihood of being caught and punished
V= perceived value of life, B= perceived benefit if alive
If B is greater than C then a capital crime is committed, If B is less than C then a capital crime is not committed

It is the responsibility of the society to increase the perceived likelihood of getting caught and punished as well as, increase the amount a person values their life. The latter is simple and solved through public schooling, the first however needs explanation.

Perception is key. For instance if we had the death penalty in place for a crime and in reality sent all criminals to a remote island that no one knew about to do slave labor for the rest of their lives that would be fine, as long as there was a perceived belief that the criminal would be killed. Similarly if the percentage of capital crimes that are punished went up and yet no one felt it, then there would be no increase in L. To quote Daniel Webster
"The world is governed more by appearance than realities so that it is fully as necessary to seem to know something as to know it."

Assuming we succeeded in doing the preceding it is also important that we do not cause perverse motivations. That means that only crimes that lead directly to death are punishable by death. If a crime like rape is capital, then there will be perverse incentives. If rape was a capital crime, and Poman had committed rape then that would have been the first in a series of crime that would have resulted in several deaths. Poman would be forced to kill his victim because the marginal cost of another murder is almost nonexistent while the benefit of eliminating a witness decreases L. Furthermore, Poman would have a great incentive to kill anyone who might have witnessed the crime for the same reason. While the amount of rapes will go down, the amount of murders will surely go up.

It is also important to note that the way the system is currently set up, there is no marginal cost for committing a capital crime as the death penalty can only be applied once. Jail sentencing also has the same problem. There is no difference between 100 years in jail and 1000 years in jail. Several countries fixed this problem of marginal incentive by implementing what is considered to be a barbaric punishment. Singapore has taken to paddling its criminals. While there is no difference between 100 years and 1000 years in jail, there is a huge difference between 10 paddlings and 100 paddlings. By creating a system where the marginal cost of committing another felony is as high as committing the first, Singapore successfully limits its crime.

To conclude incentives is what drives crime.