Monday, December 04, 2006

polls are awful and so are their results

So according to a poll of you people, in which I include myself, by which i mean represented from the small amount of people actually taking part in the poll, of which I don't count myself or you, unless by some strange coincidence you did take part in it, in which I really do mean you... see how fun polls can be?
Let me start again...

60% of people asked said they would support a ban on wearing the veil in public. Assuming these people are representative of the rest of the nation, of which I fall into the opposing 40%,
I have to ask the majority of you:What the hell is wrong with you people?
No, no let me start again.

Why ban the veil?You say the veils are a barrier to communication? So what? So are Geordie accents. I'm sorry to say this, but they are. Would you suppose we round up all the Geordie's and send them to elocution "camps"? This would make them speak "proper English" , by which I mean "majority southern English" (actually that's not a bad idea).

No of course not, it's a bad, insulting, pig headed suggestion.But how is it different from banning the veil for the same reason?Oh, I hear you cry; "It's the subjugation of women!". True that is it's origins, but so were bras. Should we ban them? (again, not an awful idea). It is possible for chauvinist pieces of cultural fashion to be adopted by women as their own. It seems to me that men have been trying to persuade women to take them off much over recent years. With this should we ban other sexist regalia, makeup, dresses, high heels?

Then you say that the veils are threatening and imposing to look at. Then why not suppose a ban on the "punk" style? With their unwashed faces, Mohawks, boots, spikey jackets and tattoos they’re actually trying to look imposing! Why not ban this instead? Then why not ban those who dress like the mean intimidating gang members from rap groups? These are large groups of people who deliberately try to look threatening. Why not ban those clothes?

Then you fall into further subcategories, too many piercings (some say one is too many), coloured hair (some hate the unnatural colours some hate any dye at all), ungroomed facial hair (some hate any facial hair), alternative hair styles (the army hates any hair). Being a fair democracy, I'm sure a majority against all these things exist, so why not ban them?
Regualtion haircuts and grey jumpsuits for all!

"Is it just or reasonable that most voices against the main end of government should enslave the less number that would be free? More just it is, doubtless, if it came to force, that a less number compel a greater to retain, which can be no wrong to them, their liberty, then that a greater number, for the pleasure of their baseness, compell a less most injourously to be their fellow slaves. They who seek nothing but their own just liberty, have always the right to win it, whenever they have the power, be the voices never so numerous that oppose it." - John Milton

Tuesday, July 18, 2006

…that art has a definition.

Art is a deliberate action that is made to convey a concept or concepts. Blue tack stuck on a wall if done deliberately to convey a message is art, not necessarily good art but art nonetheless.

A sunset in and of itself may be beautiful but isn’t art, a painting of a sunset is. Why? Because it is deliberately made to convey whatever concepts the artist felt or perceived during the event. The painting is art, the sunset itself isn’t.

With that said this isn’t art:

LONDON (Reuters) - One of Britain's most prestigious art galleries put a block of slate on display, topped by a small piece of wood, in the mistaken belief it was a work of art.

The Royal Academy included the chunk of stone and the small bone-shaped wooden stick in its summer exhibition in London.

But the slate was actually a plinth -- a slab on which a pedestal is placed -- and the stick was designed to prop up a sculpture. The sculpture itself -- of a human head -- was nowhere to be seen.

"I think the things got separated in the selection process and the selectors presented the plinth as a complete sculpture," the work's artist David Hensel told BBC radio.

The academy explained the error by saying the plinth and the head were sent to the exhibitors separately.

"Given their separate submission, the two parts were judged independently," it said in a statement. "The head was rejected. The base was thought to have merit and accepted.

"The head has been safely stored ready to be collected by the artist," it added. "It is accepted that works may not be displayed in the way that the artist might have intended."

Sunday, June 25, 2006

...capitalists need to regain the moral high ground

Mankind is motivated primarily by morality. The mental justification for the virtue of your actions plays such an important role in the mind of the individual and social consciousness.

For too long now has capitalism been branded as “practical but immoral” and collectivism as “moral but impractical.”

This cross comparison has been made an uncountable number of times and is regurgitated by TV, books, films, magazines and newspapers.

The young are particularly immersed in this propaganda.

Haven’t you ever noticed how the youth often start as socialists but later in life when facing the practicalities in existence partially accepts capitalism? This is often seen as idealism being sidelined by experience. Morality compromised by reality.

People spend the rest of their lives being resentful of the means that sustains them and of being told by collectivist preachers that their lives are immoral and evil.

People believe or are told to believe that they are dammed by the required needs of their existence; an original sin.

Worse yet people are told that happiness is akin to sin or at best unimportant, worth nothing. You are told your happiness should be sacrificed for the needs of others. Life is ascribed the rules of a zero sum game in which any win for your is a loss for someone else.

If the collectivist dogmatists had their way every plus 1 you had would be used to fill a minus 1 in someone else. The only acceptable outcome they would allow is zero for everyone; a tie game.

What effect does this morality have on a person when they are told they are immoral by the means of their survival and every happiness they have earned is a violation against others?

Guilt for mere existence and guilt for joy.

People resent what happiness and success they achieve as a necessity, but they hate the success and happiness of wealthy industrialist and businessman as pure evil.

But life isn’t a zero-sum game, it is beyond that.

Man’s means of survival is rationality and ingenuity, both come from his mind. To embrace a morality that rejects our means of survival is to embrace a morality of suicide.

Capitalism is a morality of its own, and the businessman or industrialist are its greatest adherents.

Capitalism does not work off violence and force, it asks man to act out of rationality with each person’s own individual gain and happiness being the prime motivator.

It acknowledges your right over your own creations and asks for no man to be a sacrifice for others. It rewards the greatest achievers.

Can you name one thing that has not improved since your grandparents’ time? Or even your parents’ youth?

What would capitalism achieve when it is not hampered by the suicide morality of collectivism that demands intervention and punishes those most able.

What if capitalism was realised as the moral code it is, one that views happiness as life’s only goal?

Sunday, June 18, 2006

... that even whales and lions should be hunted

What is the premise for banning the hunting of any animal? What philosophies and what ideas underpin this notion?

Fundamentally it comes down to if you believe individual animals or entire species have a right to exist.

Many profess that there is a great difference between believing that an entire species has a moral right to exist and the belief that every individual animal has the right to life. In other words it is the difference between thinking it wrong to kill a single animal and thinking it wrong to wipe out an entire species.

True enough there is a difference that seems vast to people on either side, however both are based upon applying rights where there are none.

No species has a right to exist, not even mankind. Existence is a state of being and has to be earned everyday and every moment, it is facilitated by evolution.

Animals learn to adapt their environment or die; mankind is special in that we adapt the environment to us.

Over 99% of species that have ever existed have become extinct. Why should the lion, tiger or whale be any different?

The argument has been made that extinction by the means of nature (“natural predator” or “natural disease”) is intrinsically good but unnatural causes (manmade) is wrong. You’ll often hear claims that we are “disrupting the natural order”.

But by what rational and for what reasons is mankind not natural?

We are the outcome of natural selective evolution; we are nature’s grandest achievement.

Animals can and have been forced into extinction by direct cause of natural forces.

Humanity is the greatest natural force. Humans have and can cause extinctions.

If animals have rights similar to our own then us killing them is wrong, but why do we have rights and can they be applied to animals?

The basis of our rights is that we can decide things for ourselves. We can choose to live or die. We can create things that were never possible before from the efforts of our minds independent of our biological constraints in pursuit of happiness. We can act against our biological imperatives and make choices, as such our choices over ourselves and our property are to be respected and deemed moral. With our rights comes the duty to respect and protect those rights in others, anything else would be immoral.

Animals are unable to choose death or subsequently life. They are ruled by base biological impulses. They are neither capable of resisting those impulses nor of even understanding they exist. They have no choice ergo they have no right to make decisions over their own bodies or the things they produce for their survival.

Animals have no rights.

I will not debate the mindset of those who seek to hunt animals for pleasure. Happiness is the goal of human life and each person has the right to pursue that goal, so long as it does not take away the rights of any other person.

So, what harm could there be in legislating to protect animals and ensure their survival Why not make laws protecting them? Many gain happiness from the animals being alive.

The laws protecting animals, like all laws, would rely on violence. Violence against other people in the pursuit of happiness for yourself violates human rights and is an immoral act, as no species has a right to exist nor do animals have any individual rights the only reason to protect them is for personal pleasure.

The laws set up a bizarre reversal in the relationship between animals and man where rights are being taken away from people and ascribed to animals.

The whole process is irrational and immoral.

The cause of the problem and the solution is ownership. The animals and the lands they inhabit are in the public domain, managed by the state or intergovernmental bodies. As such no one person or group has responsibility for the animals or the land nor do they have any personal attachment. This lack of financial responsibility has produced poor if not non-existent management.

People will over hunt because they have no cause to fear financial hardship if all the animals die off. If they had to buy the land and/or the animals the burden of cost would be placed upon the hunters. The animals being the main draw for customers or resource would be an investment upon which they could earn money. They would have to protect their investment in order to earn back the initial cost of the land, and then earn back the costs of maintaining and protecting their investments. The environment would also be preserved and maintained as not only is it a draw for customers but a vital part in keeping their animals alive. Health and population maintenance of the animals would also be crucial if the owners wouldn’t want to make a massive loss.

After the owners have earned back the initial and upkeep costs the land and animals start producing profit and provide greater reason to be maintained.

If however an owner would have no intention of ever hunting the animals it could be maintained as a preserve. Force would even be acceptable in defending the animals from attack; defending your property is a moral right.

The problem was caused by overactive governments, the solution won’t be found in asking the government to do more.

Thursday, June 15, 2006

...libertarianism requires great personal honesty and bravery

The government is violence, and anything people want from the government is gained by the barrel of a gun.

I believe that it is ignorance of this that most allows state power to exist and grow.

I have found that people will do what they can to keep this fact from being fully realised.

This is because we’re all moral creatures and once the violence of the sate is exposed you can either blindly deny that this is the case, attempt to moralise the violence, or you have to accept the state is fundamentally immoral and by promoting its use and growth you too have been immoral.

It is far easier to rationalise the violence in a false way ("elections make it okay") rather than being honest and having to face past instances of immorality in not only yourself but in most of the people you love too.
This is tough, my sympathy and admiration goes out to anyone who is able to accept past immorality and embrace new ideas.

Hopefully once anyone fully understands violence as the core of state power they will refrain from using it and maybe promote its limitation or abolition.

This is a major step towards developing a fully integrated and morally consistent philosophy. Every step is hard work, but worth it.

Wednesday, June 14, 2006