Thoughts
This is where I express my thoughts on various issues
1. Athiesm
No evidence to the contrary.
2. Deteminism
Everything is as it had to be - nothing could have been different - reason simply would not work as a practical tool if this were not so (ultimately all science is validated by enabling predicability.) Nothing is truely random (the Heisenberg uncertainty principle merely indicates that apparently there is at least one aspect of our existance about which we must forever remain ignorant.) The notion of free will is a natural illusion caused by each man's inclination to divide the world into two realms: me and not me.
3. Capitalism
Empirical evidence clearly demonstrates that unsubsidized and unfranchised capitalism restrained only by laws restricting the use of force and fraud is the most efficient econmic system, and is the only economic system that is virtually immune to corruption.
4. It is inaccurate to regard man as a rational animal
Although some men are capable of reasoning in regard to any issue most men are only capable of reasoning in regard to very limited practical realms and otherwise employ thier reasoning skills to create for themselves justifications for convictions determined viserally. As a species man is in a transitional state (hopefully.)
Return to TopMany people think of government as an institution whose purpose is to redistribute wealth, enforce 'desirable' behavior and forcibly manage the dissemination of 'good' ideas while restricting the dissemination of 'bad' ideas.
Let us look at these ideas.
Wealth redistribution-
Except for real estate (anything of value that has always existed), all wealth is created wealth. Created wealth is the product of work. Work is the investment of an individual's time and energy. It is clear that an honest individual's wealth is the product of his investment of time and energy. No rational conception of rights gives anyone the 'right' to forcibly take his investment of time and energy for the purpose of redistributing it to others merely because those others have less wealth. Theft is theft regardless of the number of thieves and regardless of who benefits.
Desirable behavior-
Who decides?! No behavior can be objectively defined as good and only criminal behavior can be objectively defined as bad. Except for a criminal justice system, government should have no role in mandating or restricting any behavior.
Good and Bad ideas-
Who decides?! If good means true and bad means untrue than certainly there are good ideas and bad ideas, but who decides what is true? If all men were impeccably rational, acutely intelligent, and universally well informed then all men would agree on what is true and what isn't true; but of course, that isn't and never will be how it is. If a government is allowed to promote or suppress ideas it is inevitable that such power will be misused by whoever gets to decide what is to be regarded as true and what is to be regarded as untrue.
It is my conviction that government should be restricted to doing for the individual what the individual sometimes needs to do, but cannot be trusted to do - specifically, government should be restricted to the enforcement of justice.
-Justice is the rectifying of an injustice ( a crime)
-Crime is any action that trespasses on an individuals right to property
-Property is anything of value to the owner that was created by the owner, honestly acquired through trade or gift or is inherently a part of the owner (e.g. his fingers)
Return to TopFill in text. NOT WRITTEN YET
Return to TopFill in text. NOT WRITTEN YET
Return to TopFill in text. NOT WRITTEN YET
Return to TopFill in text. NOT WRITTEN YET
Return to TopFill in text. NOT WRITTEN YET
Return to TopFill in text. NOT WRITTEN YET
Return to TopFill in text. NOT WRITTEN YET
Return to TopFill in text. NOT WRITTEN YET
Return to TopFill in text. NOT WRITTEN YET
Return to TopFill in text. NOT WRITTEN YET - yup it isn't yet written but I am compeled to at least jot down a few points... The question 'Just exactly what is a concept?' has screwed with philosophy for thousands of years, but to me it seems fairly simple and straight forward. The most fundamental type of concept is a mental unit that defines a things 'action relationship' to the concept holder. What do I mean by 'action relationship?' Consider the concept 'river.' To the concept holder the concept is an attempt to answer these questions:
How has the river affected me?
How might the river have affected me?
How is the river affecting me?
How might the river be affecting me?
How will the river affect me?
How might the river affect me?
( AND )
How have I affected the river?
How might I have affected the river?
How am I affecting the river?
How might I be affecting the river?
How will I affect the river?
How might I affect the river?
In other words it is the sum of all possible past, present, and future possibilities of how self and thing might potentially interact.
How could river affect me? A: It could prevent me from traveling to where I want to go AND flood it's banks damaging my home AND attract wild game into the area etc.
How could I affect river? A: I could remove water from it AND remove fish from it AND build a dam rerouting it's path etc.
The famous statement made by Heraclitus 'You cannot step into the same river twice' makes no sense if river is thought of in terms of it's action relationship to you.
Return to Top