Economist Walter Williams gives great lecture about the common myths and misunderstandings about discrimination.
Watch the full lecture, titled "How Much Can Discrimination Explain?".
Showing posts with label Debate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Debate. Show all posts
Monday, July 16, 2012
Saturday, June 16, 2012
Socialism: Behind The Curtains
This post is a prelude to posts that critique socialism/communism.
The question is: If it was proven beyond reasonable doubt that socialism would lead to massive poverty, would you still support socialism?! If making everyone equal in terms of financial wealth meant that the average wealth of people in a socialist society is below the average of wealth in a capitalist society, would that change your mind?! What if the average wealth in a socialist society will be below the poverty level by today's standards, would that concern you?!
Would you rather live in a society where everyone is equally "poor"?! Or a society where wealth is disproportionate, but where even the poorest individuals are relatively well-off?!
I would love to hear from anyone who supports socialism/communism their perspective on the subject. Is financial equality the be-all-end-all value?!
Thursday, March 22, 2012
Thoughts on Speciesism
I have been lately reading a little bit about the animal rights concept, especially as it applies to justify veganism as an ethical choice, and one concept is introduced titled "speciesism", which is roughly defined as discriminating life forms according to their species. The purpose of this term is to draw parallels between sexism and racism which are generally considered as questionable practices, and raising the question of why speciesism is considered acceptable.
It should be noted that for me personally, my general attitude against racism and sexism is not axiomatic (axiomatic roughly means being regarded as an assumption). It is a derivative position. In other words, it is a consequence of other principles that I consider axiomatic, rather than a position that I hold for it's own sake. Additionally, I believe that people have a right to practice private sexism and private racism, my objection lies in institutionalized sexism and racism. In other words, sexism and racism should not exist in the legal system, however private citizens are still allowed to practice sexism and racism.
If this idea is not clear, let's see what criminalization of private sexism and racism would entail. If private racism was not allowed, there would be laws against having an unequal number of while-skinned and black-skinned friends. Would you think that a law should exist that prevents individuals from having all their friends white-skinned and none black-skinned?! I don't think that such law is desirable in any way. Same applies to opposing private sexism. Opposing private sexism would come into direct contradiction with LGBT rights for example. Should there be laws banning individuals from having sexual orientations like homosexuality or heterosexuality, and requiring all individuals to become bisexuals because this is the direct consequence of abandoning gender discrimination?! Obviously, such law is abusive and undesirable. This does not mean that racism and sexism are desirable in private interactions, however it does mean that there should not exist laws that ban the practice for private citizens.
These examples show why sexism and racism should not be considered axiomatic. This at least opens up speciesism to the view that abandoning this practice should not be considered axiomatic.
Let's explore the reason that animal rights advocates claim that killing animals constitutes speciesism. The argument goes that if we as humans consider it illegal to kill other human beings, why is it that animals are not held in the same regard. Such argument might seem reasonable at first, but I can identify few problems.
The first problem I see is that what animal rights advocates claim to be abandoning speciesism is itself an act of speciesism. It is natural that animals prey on other animals. Animal rights advocates (I assume) would not object if a lion killed a deer for food. But they would object if a human did that same action. Isn't that a form of discrimination?! I find it hard to argue that this would not entail some forms of discrimination. The only solution to this problem is to ban carnivores from preying on other animals, which would bring a whole new set of problems.
Another problem I see is the discrimination of the plant kingdom and animal kingdom, which is being systematically advocated by veganism. This of course is also a form of speciesism(*). Animal rights advocates ask the question of why we are willing to give humans rights, without providing the same rights to animals. But then again, why not give plants the same rights as those animals?! If discrimination is the principle involved that is deemed objectionable, then discriminating animals and plants raises serious questions in regards to that principle.
It should be noted that those problems are not sufficient arguments to discredit animal rights, but they do challenge speciesism as an argument for that position.
(*)PS: Technically, this should be called "kingdomism" not "speciesism". However, the underlying principle is the same. Why is it okay to practice kingdomism but not speciesism?!
It should be noted that for me personally, my general attitude against racism and sexism is not axiomatic (axiomatic roughly means being regarded as an assumption). It is a derivative position. In other words, it is a consequence of other principles that I consider axiomatic, rather than a position that I hold for it's own sake. Additionally, I believe that people have a right to practice private sexism and private racism, my objection lies in institutionalized sexism and racism. In other words, sexism and racism should not exist in the legal system, however private citizens are still allowed to practice sexism and racism.
If this idea is not clear, let's see what criminalization of private sexism and racism would entail. If private racism was not allowed, there would be laws against having an unequal number of while-skinned and black-skinned friends. Would you think that a law should exist that prevents individuals from having all their friends white-skinned and none black-skinned?! I don't think that such law is desirable in any way. Same applies to opposing private sexism. Opposing private sexism would come into direct contradiction with LGBT rights for example. Should there be laws banning individuals from having sexual orientations like homosexuality or heterosexuality, and requiring all individuals to become bisexuals because this is the direct consequence of abandoning gender discrimination?! Obviously, such law is abusive and undesirable. This does not mean that racism and sexism are desirable in private interactions, however it does mean that there should not exist laws that ban the practice for private citizens.
These examples show why sexism and racism should not be considered axiomatic. This at least opens up speciesism to the view that abandoning this practice should not be considered axiomatic.
Let's explore the reason that animal rights advocates claim that killing animals constitutes speciesism. The argument goes that if we as humans consider it illegal to kill other human beings, why is it that animals are not held in the same regard. Such argument might seem reasonable at first, but I can identify few problems.
The first problem I see is that what animal rights advocates claim to be abandoning speciesism is itself an act of speciesism. It is natural that animals prey on other animals. Animal rights advocates (I assume) would not object if a lion killed a deer for food. But they would object if a human did that same action. Isn't that a form of discrimination?! I find it hard to argue that this would not entail some forms of discrimination. The only solution to this problem is to ban carnivores from preying on other animals, which would bring a whole new set of problems.
Another problem I see is the discrimination of the plant kingdom and animal kingdom, which is being systematically advocated by veganism. This of course is also a form of speciesism(*). Animal rights advocates ask the question of why we are willing to give humans rights, without providing the same rights to animals. But then again, why not give plants the same rights as those animals?! If discrimination is the principle involved that is deemed objectionable, then discriminating animals and plants raises serious questions in regards to that principle.
It should be noted that those problems are not sufficient arguments to discredit animal rights, but they do challenge speciesism as an argument for that position.
(*)PS: Technically, this should be called "kingdomism" not "speciesism". However, the underlying principle is the same. Why is it okay to practice kingdomism but not speciesism?!
Friday, March 16, 2012
The Separation of State And Economics
In relation to politics and religion, a general belief is usually held with the slogan "The Separation of State and Church", which holds that a government should not be involved in the private life of citizens, and consequently should not endorse any religious affiliations, and should not regulate the religious life of private citizens. The resulting system is usually called "political secularism".
However, the concept that a government should not be involved in the private life of citizens is usually not applied to economics. A similar slogan can be introduced which can be expressed as "The Separation of State and Economics". This means that the government should not endorse any economic affiliations, and should not regulate the economic life of private citizens. The resulting system is usually called "laissez-faire capitalism".
Some might argue that such a system is actually promoting one form of economics over another, but nothing can be further from the truth, as I will try to explain in this post. What would most likely be confusing to most people is the difference between "state capitalism", and "laissez-faire capitalism". State capitalism is the form of capitalism that most people are familiar with, that is practiced in countries that advocate capitalism as an economic system do. And when people are thinking of capitalism they are usually thinking of state capitalism, because this is the system that is being implemented worldwide in the contemporary time.
To make an analogy with the more familiar concept of secularism, one of the basic tenets of secularism is freedom of religion. This means that private citizens have the right to choose their own religion and practice their religious views insofar that they do not abuse the rights of others to the freedom of religion. For example, in a secular society, the death penalty for apostasy (changing one's own religion) is an illegal practice. This is because penalizing apostasy restrains the religious freedoms. Similarly, laissez-faire capitalism does force individuals to participate in any economic system; It's only purpose is to protect the individuals from being coerced into adopting an economic system. The same cannot be said about state capitalism, which practices coercion in economic matters. In short, laissez-faire capitalism is a direct consequence of what might be called: "Freedom of Economics".
The major opponent of capitalism is communism. While state capitalism is a corrupt version of the ideals of capitalism which as previously discussed is embodied in laissez-faire capitalism, communism cannot be called anything except economic tyranny. It is a system where everybody is a slave. Of course, this claim does require explanation, and I will try to provide some explanations.
The basics of liberty and freedom rely on some concepts, these include: Autonomy, Individual Rights, Agency, and Responsibility. Let's touch these concepts briefly.
1- Autonomy:
Autonomy is defined as the capacity to choose, and act according to the will. This means that a person has the capacity to think and make choices (called: "Freedom of Thought"), and that they can act according to their will without coercion (called: "Freedom from Coercion", also related to the concept of "Freedom from Violence"). The only way that you can force any person to act in contradiction to their will is through aggression, usually in the form of physical threats and violence.
A liberal system would respect the autonomy of individuals.
2- Individual Rights:
The source of all individual rights is what is usually called "The Right to Life". The right to life can be defined as a moral principle that respects the right of the individual to live, and provide the means to sustain their life. This translates to that an individual has the right to take actions whose purpose is the support, furtherance, and enjoyment of one's own life.
Numerous supporting rights exist to protect the right to life. Those rights are usually called "individual rights". Examples are numerous, but to name a few: All the positive freedoms provided by society, such as freedom of religion, speech, and economics. And the negative freedoms that are advocated, such as freedom from violence, racism, and brutality. Some rights have emerged to protect the rights of individuals who are being systematically denied their rights, examples include: Women rights, gay rights, ...etc. Those rights exist to support the fundamental right to life that all humans are morally entitled to.
3- Agency:
Agency is defined as the capacity of an entity (usually, a person) to influence reality. This is a concept that is tightly connected with the concept of autonomy discussed earlier. Autonomy is the capacity of action according to the will. Agency is the idea that an action has observable consequences.
In philosophical context, agency is the opposite of the concept of fate. Fate is the idea that whatever actions happen, the outcome is the same. For example, if it was your fate to have an accident and die tomorrow, then no matter what actions you take, or any amount of precautions you make, the outcome will remain the same. [PS: Don't confuse the concept of fate with determinism.]
In personal and social contexts, the idea of social dynamics is the application of agency. Social dynamic means that a person can change their circumstances. For example, abandoning race-based slavery is an application of social agency. If a person was regarded a slave simply because that person has black skin, then that person lacks agency in his or her status as a slave. Numerous women's rights are also motivated by this social agency concept. If a woman is denied being an active member of society, holding a position of leadership, or work simply because she was born as a female, then that woman is being stripped of her social agency. Similarly, abandonment of bourgeois economics is an application of economic agency. In bourgeois societies, people are born into an economic class and they remain in that economic class. So, people who were in the working class had no means no change that, same applied to the middle class, and the ruling class. However, in capitalism, a person born in a poor family can make good economic decision and become rich. Rich people can make poor economic decisions and become poor or middle class, even sometimes go bankrupt. This phenomenon is called social class dynamic, and is a direct consequence of economic agency.
In short, in this context, agency means that the actions you take as an autonomous agent can and will affect your life.
4- Responsibility:
Responsibility is defined as the recognition that actions have consequences. With the assumption that an individual is an autonomous agent, the individual needs to accept that the actions they make based on their will and the choices they decide to make are going to affect their life due to their agency in their own life. Accepting that proposition is the basis of personal responsibility.
Autonomy and agency are not the same concept, although they are connected. Responsibility only arises when both autonomy and agency are in place. For example, a robot that is remotely controlled by an operator is an agent. But it is not autonomous. It is not autonomous because it does not make choices or decisions. However, this robot can make actions that affect reality, and hence it is an agent. A remotely controlled robot has no responsibility if it's operator directed it to commit murder [it is an the agent of murder in this case]. The responsibility lies with the autonomous agent; Which in this case is the operator of the robot.
On the other hand, if we imagine the existence of an invisible ghost, such ghost can be thought of as an autonomous non-agent. It is autonomous if it can make decisions about various things, for example, it's whereabouts. But, assuming that this ghost has no capacity to actually change anything in reality, this ghost has no agency. This should clarify the distinction between autonomy and agency.
Obviously, as stated earlier, responsibility is a necessity that arises from the recognition that humans posses the qualities of autonomy and agency at the same time. Hence, such humans would be autonomous agents. They are responsible because they can make their own decisions and act on them (ie. autonomous), and their actions have observable consequences on their reality (ie. agents), and recognize the relationship between their actions and it's consequences (ie. responsible). Denying any of those propositions means that person lacks liberty.
From the four principles that we just discussed in relation to liberty, let's see how those concepts apply to a communist economic system. Karl Marx devised a slogan in support of his economic system that states: "From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs." It is obvious that such a slogan contradicts every principle of liberty that we have discussed. If this isn't obvious, let us try and analyze how this principle relates to the economic freedom of the individuals.
First, let's look at the autonomy of individuals in the light of that statement. "From each according to their ability", this implies an obligation of the individual to provide everything they can if they are able to provide it. This denies every concept of autonomy that an individual has. What exactly is the individual ability?! And more importantly, who or what is the arbiter of an individual's ability?! Such a slogan strips humans of their decision making process. They have no choices. You cannot expect a person to do everything that he can do. I can (ie. posses the ability) to take a knife and stab the next person I see. Fortunately, I choose not to act on that ability. I am an autonomous person, I am not a controlled robot. Therefore, the actions I make are based on a process of knowing what I can do, and then deciding if I want to do them or not.
Additionally, as an autonomous person, I can try to make actions that are outside of my ability. I can try to lift a block of steel that weights a ton. I most certainly will fail at that task, because it is outside of my ability, but the important thing here is that I can try to test the limits of my ability.
Therefore, an autonomous person has no obligation to act based on his ability. He might be able to do things, but choose not to do them. And he might be unable to do things, yet choose to make an attempt. It is clear here, that this slogan denies a person his autonomy.
What about need?! "To each according to their needs". Once again, autonomous agents should have the choice of deciding what they need. Do I as an autonomous agent need a big mansion?! Or is a humble cottage enough for my needs?! Again, an autonomous agent should be the one to decide what they need. They are the arbiters of their needs. A liberal government would not prescribe the needs of the individuals, the individuals must decide what their needs are.
Secondly, let's address agency. "To each according to their needs" is a direct violation of agency. Just as claiming that a person with black skin must be a slave, and nothing they can do will change that (hence taking away his social agency), this proposed system means that what you get is predetermined by one's needs. Hence, we are denying the agency of people as to what they can get, by defining what they get by what they need. What if someone has the desire to get something they don't need?! What if someone decides that they don't want to get something that they do need?! Both of these individuals are being stripped of their agency, because regardless of their actions they will get things that have been predefined as their personal needs. Obviously, such a system can be only called absolute tyranny.
Third, let's address responsibility. The primary motive of a welfare state or a communist society is the denial of responsibility. Individuals who advocate welfare states or communism would rather not make any economical decisions, and leave all the decisions onto the government to regulate their economic life. Naturally, no liberty can ever be achieved by individuals who deny their responsibility towards their life, including among others their economic life. Communism strives to create a classless society where all people are of the same economic standing. No rich and poor individuals, all people are of the same economic standing.
Obviously, such desire is based on the desire to eliminate the social and economic dynamics. However, it is ignored that those dynamics are a direct result of social and economic agency. Actions matter. Actions creates change and dynamics. An individual who accepts their own agency, recognized that their actions have consequences. Acting while denying consequences of one's actions is the very definition of irresponsibility. Such irresponsibility is devastating to society, and comes at direct contradiction with the principles of liberty.
Capitalism advocates economic agency. Individuals are responsible for their own economic well-being. The consequences of an individual's actions and economic decisions are what makes them rich or poor. It is a great responsibility, but denying the individual responsibility has devastating effects.
Finally, the issue of individual rights is a vast and complicated issue. It will not be addressed in this entry, hopefully it will have it's own entry in a future post because it would require enormous amounts of explanation. However, to put it in a nutshell, some of the supporting rights relating to the right to life are the right to productivity and the right to property [whose purpose is to support the right to productivity]. The reasons for those rights need further explanations, but it is reasonably understood that in a communist society, the government has a monopoly on productivity and ownership. Such monopoly is devastating to any liberal system, and denies individuals their right to life.
In conclusion, I believe that anyone who proclaims to value liberty needs to think and address the problems raised, and realize that protecting liberty and individual rights has to be accompanied by the principle of separation of state and economics. State intervention in economics is undesirable and contradicts every principle of a liberal society.
However, the concept that a government should not be involved in the private life of citizens is usually not applied to economics. A similar slogan can be introduced which can be expressed as "The Separation of State and Economics". This means that the government should not endorse any economic affiliations, and should not regulate the economic life of private citizens. The resulting system is usually called "laissez-faire capitalism".
Some might argue that such a system is actually promoting one form of economics over another, but nothing can be further from the truth, as I will try to explain in this post. What would most likely be confusing to most people is the difference between "state capitalism", and "laissez-faire capitalism". State capitalism is the form of capitalism that most people are familiar with, that is practiced in countries that advocate capitalism as an economic system do. And when people are thinking of capitalism they are usually thinking of state capitalism, because this is the system that is being implemented worldwide in the contemporary time.
To make an analogy with the more familiar concept of secularism, one of the basic tenets of secularism is freedom of religion. This means that private citizens have the right to choose their own religion and practice their religious views insofar that they do not abuse the rights of others to the freedom of religion. For example, in a secular society, the death penalty for apostasy (changing one's own religion) is an illegal practice. This is because penalizing apostasy restrains the religious freedoms. Similarly, laissez-faire capitalism does force individuals to participate in any economic system; It's only purpose is to protect the individuals from being coerced into adopting an economic system. The same cannot be said about state capitalism, which practices coercion in economic matters. In short, laissez-faire capitalism is a direct consequence of what might be called: "Freedom of Economics".
The major opponent of capitalism is communism. While state capitalism is a corrupt version of the ideals of capitalism which as previously discussed is embodied in laissez-faire capitalism, communism cannot be called anything except economic tyranny. It is a system where everybody is a slave. Of course, this claim does require explanation, and I will try to provide some explanations.
The basics of liberty and freedom rely on some concepts, these include: Autonomy, Individual Rights, Agency, and Responsibility. Let's touch these concepts briefly.
1- Autonomy:
Autonomy is defined as the capacity to choose, and act according to the will. This means that a person has the capacity to think and make choices (called: "Freedom of Thought"), and that they can act according to their will without coercion (called: "Freedom from Coercion", also related to the concept of "Freedom from Violence"). The only way that you can force any person to act in contradiction to their will is through aggression, usually in the form of physical threats and violence.
A liberal system would respect the autonomy of individuals.
2- Individual Rights:
The source of all individual rights is what is usually called "The Right to Life". The right to life can be defined as a moral principle that respects the right of the individual to live, and provide the means to sustain their life. This translates to that an individual has the right to take actions whose purpose is the support, furtherance, and enjoyment of one's own life.
Numerous supporting rights exist to protect the right to life. Those rights are usually called "individual rights". Examples are numerous, but to name a few: All the positive freedoms provided by society, such as freedom of religion, speech, and economics. And the negative freedoms that are advocated, such as freedom from violence, racism, and brutality. Some rights have emerged to protect the rights of individuals who are being systematically denied their rights, examples include: Women rights, gay rights, ...etc. Those rights exist to support the fundamental right to life that all humans are morally entitled to.
3- Agency:
Agency is defined as the capacity of an entity (usually, a person) to influence reality. This is a concept that is tightly connected with the concept of autonomy discussed earlier. Autonomy is the capacity of action according to the will. Agency is the idea that an action has observable consequences.
In philosophical context, agency is the opposite of the concept of fate. Fate is the idea that whatever actions happen, the outcome is the same. For example, if it was your fate to have an accident and die tomorrow, then no matter what actions you take, or any amount of precautions you make, the outcome will remain the same. [PS: Don't confuse the concept of fate with determinism.]
In personal and social contexts, the idea of social dynamics is the application of agency. Social dynamic means that a person can change their circumstances. For example, abandoning race-based slavery is an application of social agency. If a person was regarded a slave simply because that person has black skin, then that person lacks agency in his or her status as a slave. Numerous women's rights are also motivated by this social agency concept. If a woman is denied being an active member of society, holding a position of leadership, or work simply because she was born as a female, then that woman is being stripped of her social agency. Similarly, abandonment of bourgeois economics is an application of economic agency. In bourgeois societies, people are born into an economic class and they remain in that economic class. So, people who were in the working class had no means no change that, same applied to the middle class, and the ruling class. However, in capitalism, a person born in a poor family can make good economic decision and become rich. Rich people can make poor economic decisions and become poor or middle class, even sometimes go bankrupt. This phenomenon is called social class dynamic, and is a direct consequence of economic agency.
In short, in this context, agency means that the actions you take as an autonomous agent can and will affect your life.
4- Responsibility:
Responsibility is defined as the recognition that actions have consequences. With the assumption that an individual is an autonomous agent, the individual needs to accept that the actions they make based on their will and the choices they decide to make are going to affect their life due to their agency in their own life. Accepting that proposition is the basis of personal responsibility.
Autonomy and agency are not the same concept, although they are connected. Responsibility only arises when both autonomy and agency are in place. For example, a robot that is remotely controlled by an operator is an agent. But it is not autonomous. It is not autonomous because it does not make choices or decisions. However, this robot can make actions that affect reality, and hence it is an agent. A remotely controlled robot has no responsibility if it's operator directed it to commit murder [it is an the agent of murder in this case]. The responsibility lies with the autonomous agent; Which in this case is the operator of the robot.
On the other hand, if we imagine the existence of an invisible ghost, such ghost can be thought of as an autonomous non-agent. It is autonomous if it can make decisions about various things, for example, it's whereabouts. But, assuming that this ghost has no capacity to actually change anything in reality, this ghost has no agency. This should clarify the distinction between autonomy and agency.
Obviously, as stated earlier, responsibility is a necessity that arises from the recognition that humans posses the qualities of autonomy and agency at the same time. Hence, such humans would be autonomous agents. They are responsible because they can make their own decisions and act on them (ie. autonomous), and their actions have observable consequences on their reality (ie. agents), and recognize the relationship between their actions and it's consequences (ie. responsible). Denying any of those propositions means that person lacks liberty.
From the four principles that we just discussed in relation to liberty, let's see how those concepts apply to a communist economic system. Karl Marx devised a slogan in support of his economic system that states: "From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs." It is obvious that such a slogan contradicts every principle of liberty that we have discussed. If this isn't obvious, let us try and analyze how this principle relates to the economic freedom of the individuals.
First, let's look at the autonomy of individuals in the light of that statement. "From each according to their ability", this implies an obligation of the individual to provide everything they can if they are able to provide it. This denies every concept of autonomy that an individual has. What exactly is the individual ability?! And more importantly, who or what is the arbiter of an individual's ability?! Such a slogan strips humans of their decision making process. They have no choices. You cannot expect a person to do everything that he can do. I can (ie. posses the ability) to take a knife and stab the next person I see. Fortunately, I choose not to act on that ability. I am an autonomous person, I am not a controlled robot. Therefore, the actions I make are based on a process of knowing what I can do, and then deciding if I want to do them or not.
Additionally, as an autonomous person, I can try to make actions that are outside of my ability. I can try to lift a block of steel that weights a ton. I most certainly will fail at that task, because it is outside of my ability, but the important thing here is that I can try to test the limits of my ability.
Therefore, an autonomous person has no obligation to act based on his ability. He might be able to do things, but choose not to do them. And he might be unable to do things, yet choose to make an attempt. It is clear here, that this slogan denies a person his autonomy.
What about need?! "To each according to their needs". Once again, autonomous agents should have the choice of deciding what they need. Do I as an autonomous agent need a big mansion?! Or is a humble cottage enough for my needs?! Again, an autonomous agent should be the one to decide what they need. They are the arbiters of their needs. A liberal government would not prescribe the needs of the individuals, the individuals must decide what their needs are.
Secondly, let's address agency. "To each according to their needs" is a direct violation of agency. Just as claiming that a person with black skin must be a slave, and nothing they can do will change that (hence taking away his social agency), this proposed system means that what you get is predetermined by one's needs. Hence, we are denying the agency of people as to what they can get, by defining what they get by what they need. What if someone has the desire to get something they don't need?! What if someone decides that they don't want to get something that they do need?! Both of these individuals are being stripped of their agency, because regardless of their actions they will get things that have been predefined as their personal needs. Obviously, such a system can be only called absolute tyranny.
Third, let's address responsibility. The primary motive of a welfare state or a communist society is the denial of responsibility. Individuals who advocate welfare states or communism would rather not make any economical decisions, and leave all the decisions onto the government to regulate their economic life. Naturally, no liberty can ever be achieved by individuals who deny their responsibility towards their life, including among others their economic life. Communism strives to create a classless society where all people are of the same economic standing. No rich and poor individuals, all people are of the same economic standing.
Obviously, such desire is based on the desire to eliminate the social and economic dynamics. However, it is ignored that those dynamics are a direct result of social and economic agency. Actions matter. Actions creates change and dynamics. An individual who accepts their own agency, recognized that their actions have consequences. Acting while denying consequences of one's actions is the very definition of irresponsibility. Such irresponsibility is devastating to society, and comes at direct contradiction with the principles of liberty.
Capitalism advocates economic agency. Individuals are responsible for their own economic well-being. The consequences of an individual's actions and economic decisions are what makes them rich or poor. It is a great responsibility, but denying the individual responsibility has devastating effects.
Finally, the issue of individual rights is a vast and complicated issue. It will not be addressed in this entry, hopefully it will have it's own entry in a future post because it would require enormous amounts of explanation. However, to put it in a nutshell, some of the supporting rights relating to the right to life are the right to productivity and the right to property [whose purpose is to support the right to productivity]. The reasons for those rights need further explanations, but it is reasonably understood that in a communist society, the government has a monopoly on productivity and ownership. Such monopoly is devastating to any liberal system, and denies individuals their right to life.
In conclusion, I believe that anyone who proclaims to value liberty needs to think and address the problems raised, and realize that protecting liberty and individual rights has to be accompanied by the principle of separation of state and economics. State intervention in economics is undesirable and contradicts every principle of a liberal society.
Saturday, May 14, 2011
Question For Readers
Which scenario makes more sense to you? Which scenario you think you most likely engage in practice?
1- Loving someone, and building a relationship with them using that love as a solid foundation for the relationship.
OR
2- Having a relationship with someone, and building the love on the solid foundation of the relationship.
Please share your thoughts. I am hoping that this question will trigger some sort of discussion.
1- Loving someone, and building a relationship with them using that love as a solid foundation for the relationship.
OR
2- Having a relationship with someone, and building the love on the solid foundation of the relationship.
Please share your thoughts. I am hoping that this question will trigger some sort of discussion.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Is God An Atheist?
In realm of the natural, humans differ in their views about how the universe came into existence. While some claim that a supernatural being created the universe, others claim that the universe came into existence without having been created by some supernatural influence. Traditionally, we call the first group "theists" and the second group "atheists".
Let's assume for the sake of argument that God does indeed exist, and that he created the natural universe that we live in. Let's also further assume that religions that claim to be revealed by God are in fact revealed by God. Let's go even more and assume that what God revealed is what God believes is true (ie. God is not lying to us). So what is revealed to us through religions is that God of religions created this universe, and that he was not created, but rather God came into existence without having been created by some kind of "super god".
The question becomes: Is God an atheist? Certainly God cannot prove nor disprove the claim that he was created by some "super god"... So in reality the fact that God does not believe in "super god" in a very real sense makes him super-atheist!!
Let's assume for the sake of argument that God does indeed exist, and that he created the natural universe that we live in. Let's also further assume that religions that claim to be revealed by God are in fact revealed by God. Let's go even more and assume that what God revealed is what God believes is true (ie. God is not lying to us). So what is revealed to us through religions is that God of religions created this universe, and that he was not created, but rather God came into existence without having been created by some kind of "super god".
The question becomes: Is God an atheist? Certainly God cannot prove nor disprove the claim that he was created by some "super god"... So in reality the fact that God does not believe in "super god" in a very real sense makes him super-atheist!!
Saturday, January 15, 2011
The Problem of Infinite Regress
One particular argument for the existence of God is as follows: Given that the universe exists, there must be something that created it. So if God is defined as the creator of this universe, then God must exist.
There are two problems with this argument. The first problem is infinite regress. If the universe exists, then God exists. If God exists then a God of God exists. And this argument can go on forever. This question of "Who created God?" is the problem of infinite regress.
Consequently, some people would argue that the statement: "If X exists, there exists something that created it." is itself false. And consequently, the concept of "The God of God", becomes unnecessary. The problem with this argument is that the concept of "God of the universe", is also unnecessary in this particular view.
In other words, if we are willing to accept that God exists without a creator, why not accept that the universe exists without a creator as well?
There are two problems with this argument. The first problem is infinite regress. If the universe exists, then God exists. If God exists then a God of God exists. And this argument can go on forever. This question of "Who created God?" is the problem of infinite regress.
Consequently, some people would argue that the statement: "If X exists, there exists something that created it." is itself false. And consequently, the concept of "The God of God", becomes unnecessary. The problem with this argument is that the concept of "God of the universe", is also unnecessary in this particular view.
In other words, if we are willing to accept that God exists without a creator, why not accept that the universe exists without a creator as well?
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Barack Obama Speaks About Religion And Secularism
Click here for a Youtube video, showing a very interesting speech made by the US President, Barack Obama.
I loved the whole speech, especially the part that says:
For the full speech click here
I loved the whole speech, especially the part that says:
"Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. It involves the compromise, the art of what's possible. At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It's the art of the impossible. If God has spoken, then followers are expected to live up to God's edicts, regardless of the consequences.
To base one's life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime, but to base our policy making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing. And if you doubt that, let me give you an example.
We all know the story of Abraham and Isaac. Abraham is ordered by God to offer up his only son, and without argument, he takes Isaac to the mountaintop, binds him to an altar, and raises his knife, prepared to act as God has commanded.
Of course, in the end God sends down an angel to intercede at the very last minute, and Abraham passes God's test of devotion.
But it's fair to say that if any of us leaving this church saw Abraham on a roof of a building raising his knife, we would, at the very least, call the police and expect the Department of Children and Family Services to take Isaac away from Abraham. We would do so because we do not hear what Abraham hears, do not see what Abraham sees, true as those experiences may be. So the best we can do is act in accordance with those things that we all see, and that we all hear, be it common laws or basic reason." - Barack Obama
For the full speech click here
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Digital Copies Are Not Theft
Some proponents of digital copyright laws make the conjecture that "pirating" movies and music is an act of theft, and that it constitutes in some way stealing. However, this is completely ludicrous as the concept of theft is directly constructed on the concept of starvation.
The concept of starvation is that when someone steals an item, the owner of that item loses it. So if a thief steals your car, you can no longer have that car. While theft might not be universally evil in all situations (consider a starving man stealing food to stay alive - X-Ref), but digital copies are in no way resembling the act of theft. Simply put, there is no starvation in a digital world. Pirated copies are, as the name suggests, "copies" and the content in question is still available to its original owner.
However, don't jump to conclusions. Proving that pirating digital material is not theft, is not a sufficient argument for the legitimacy of piracy. However, it is imperative to make this distinction when corporations are willing to make any argument, no matter how ridiculous, to delegitimize digital piracy.
The concept of starvation is that when someone steals an item, the owner of that item loses it. So if a thief steals your car, you can no longer have that car. While theft might not be universally evil in all situations (consider a starving man stealing food to stay alive - X-Ref), but digital copies are in no way resembling the act of theft. Simply put, there is no starvation in a digital world. Pirated copies are, as the name suggests, "copies" and the content in question is still available to its original owner.
However, don't jump to conclusions. Proving that pirating digital material is not theft, is not a sufficient argument for the legitimacy of piracy. However, it is imperative to make this distinction when corporations are willing to make any argument, no matter how ridiculous, to delegitimize digital piracy.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Meta-Definition
Suppose we define a horse's tail to be a leg. How many legs does a horse have?
This question is part of a joke, but I decided to turn it into a real question... What do you think the answer should be?!
Read More:
This question is part of a joke that goes like this:
A mathematician, scientist, and engineer are each asked: "Suppose we define a horse's tail to be a leg. How many legs does a horse have?" The mathematician answers "5"; the scientist "1"; and the engineer says "But you can't do that!"
The joke is basically to ridicule engineers, as they are stereotyped to not have a great command of the concepts of hypothesizes and inferencing. But the joke includes another implicit stereotyping of the difference between mathematicians and scientists.
In the field of mathematics, new definitions and theories are usually inclusive of all the definitions and theories that preceded it. Hence, a mathematician would consider a new definition to be inclusive of previous definitions. There is actually another joke about this specific idea:
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things.
Hence, the mathematician's answer is 5!
In the field of science, usually new theories replace older theories, thats why the scientist's answer assumes that the new definition abolishes the older definition. Hence the scientist answered 1!
My answer to this question is "5"... It was actually my first reaction, and also after some thought I think its most convincing. The argument is that: The question doesn't specify whether or not the conventional concept of a leg is still called a leg. First of all, we can agree that the question does not specify; Which is -after all- why the answer is debatable. But the first rule that comes to the mind is that the best answer is the one with the least problematic assumptions. As a rule of the thumb, when something is not explicitly stated to have changed, then leave it as it is. We shouldn't assume something to change when the question doesn't explicitly state that it was changed.
[+] Show\Hide
Update: Added an explained answer
Thursday, August 31, 2006
Friends And Romantic Companions
Girl: I think the worse mistake a guy might commit is to suggest love to a female friend of his!
Me: Why?!
Girl: Many people confuse getting used to someone with loving them. Its normal that if you spend a long period of time with someone you start feeling close to them: This closeness is not love...
Me: So you are suggesting that if a guy and girl are casual friends they should never become romantic companions?!
Girl: Pretty much! Those who do so usually confuse closeness with love!
Me: I disagree... As opposed to what you suggest I guess relationships advance and morph through time! I think its almost impossible for a healthy relationship to jump right away to the love phase before a relaxed friendship phase...
Girl: That's a mess you will never want to go throught!! Friendship and romance are better not be mixed up!
As has been suggested before I am pro open relationships! Not many people understand the true meaning of being an open relationist... Generally, open relationists have a blur line between different types of relationships: That's to say open relationists don't make formal differentiation between: A friend, a romantic companion, a one-nighter, a fuck buddy, a soul-mate, a spouse, or whatever of the numerous categorizations other people make; Rather they view all those as interpersonal relationships and being such its really hard to draw any lines (not all open relationists submit to this description - but personally, I do agree to some extent)!!
Having such blur lines and with my unconventional view of relationships, I have been at times challenged with similar views as above that thrive on the distinctions between friendship and romantic companionship....
Tuesday, July 04, 2006
Debating Theistic Views {Stub}
The comments that follow pose debates about the validity of theistic views... This post is a place holder for those debates!
Wednesday, May 17, 2006
Ontological Question: Atheist Or Agnostic?
In discussions after dinner Darwin asked his guests, "Why do you call yourselves Atheists?" saying that he preferred the word "Agnostic." Aveling replied that "Agnostic was but Atheist writ respectable, and Atheist was only Agnostic writ aggressive." (source)
However, later in the same lecture, discussing modern non-anthropomorphic concepts of God, Russell states: That sort of God is, I think, not one that can actually be disproved, as I think the omnipotent and benevolent creator can. (source)
However, later in the essay, Russell says: I think that if I heard a voice from the sky predicting all that was going to happen to me during the next twenty-four hours, including events that would have seemed highly improbable, and if all these events then produced to happen, I might perhaps be convinced at least of the existence of some superhuman intelligence. (source)
So it depends on who is asking, and what they mean by their question; If it was an average person asking, i say im an atheist! If it was a philosophical question asked by a well-informed person, i say im an agnostic! From an ontological point of view, i am agnostic!
Ontology is the study of what exists... Materialism states that matter is the only thing that exists; I agree with the definition, with a slight twist to clear some confusion that might arise: Materialism states that everything that exists is matter!
So it exists if and only if it is matter...
What does that mean? It simply means that if there is such a thing as creator of this universe AKA God, then this "creator" is part of the universe rather than out of it! If a "super-natural being" created this universe, then this being is a "natural being" in its own dimension!
From an ontological POV i am an agnostic; From a semantic POV i am an atheist; Atheism states that there is no GOD... But the God that atheism rejects isnt a question of what exists; But rather rejects the definition of GOD; An omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipotent, conscious definition of GOD...
The problem of evil shows that omnibenevolence is nothing but a dream! "Can God make a rock so big, that even he can't lift it?" This simple question shows that nothing is omnipotent! Assuming the existance of Injustice, Justice is an unattainable goal even for a GOD! One demonstration of the unattainability of Justice is the problem of hell...
Saturday, May 13, 2006
Argument By Lack Of Imagination
Flaws in arguments vary in type, but they are all eventually flaws... Its is important to have knowledge in various types of flaws and fallacies used in arguments! The most notorious of those fallacies is the over-generaliztion.
One of the less commonly known fallacies, which usually passes unquestioned, is the "argument by lack of imagination" or alternatively called "argument by ignorance";
To give an example of such argument:
Imagine that at year 1000 BC, two people had this little chat,
Obviously, PersonY lacks the basic element of imagination, therefore had made a false assumption based on his ignorance of the possibility to land on the moon.
One of the notable usuages of this kind of argument is in oposition to atheism; It is said that in the old times, this conversation happened between a religious person and an atheist:
Obviously, that religious person lacks the basic element of imagination! I leave the proof to the smartasses out there!! ;)
One of my school teachers used to say: "Imagination is more imprtant than knowledge"; I have to agree, because you can gain knowledge by imagination, while without the element of imagination you cannot make use of the knowledge you have!
One of the less commonly known fallacies, which usually passes unquestioned, is the "argument by lack of imagination" or alternatively called "argument by ignorance";
To give an example of such argument:
Imagine that at year 1000 BC, two people had this little chat,
PersonX: I wish I can reach the moon.
PersonY: You are unrealistic person. It is impossible to reach the moon.
Obviously, PersonY lacks the basic element of imagination, therefore had made a false assumption based on his ignorance of the possibility to land on the moon.
One of the notable usuages of this kind of argument is in oposition to atheism; It is said that in the old times, this conversation happened between a religious person and an atheist:
Religious: Yesterday i saw a ship; It had no crew, it had no captain, it was sailing in the middle in the sea without anyone onboard!
Atheist: Sorry Sir, I think this is a made up lie!
Religious: So you are telling me that it makes sense that our whole world, with all galaxies... The accurate system in which a simple flaw can be drastic... This big big universe can exist without a captain managing it, yet find it questionable to find a ship without a captain?
Obviously, that religious person lacks the basic element of imagination! I leave the proof to the smartasses out there!! ;)
One of my school teachers used to say: "Imagination is more imprtant than knowledge"; I have to agree, because you can gain knowledge by imagination, while without the element of imagination you cannot make use of the knowledge you have!
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
Debates Over Freedom - Part 3: Darwinistic Freedom
Lets first agree on one concept; The concept is dubbed as questionable, so it might be viewed as an assumption rather than necessarily factual; Refraining from committing one's initial choice is not seen as lack of Freedom, but rather as a Freedom in itself. What matters is that one had the choice of course of action, and acting out what seems reasonable is a matter of choice.
This means that Freedom in itself can backfire and lead to unfavorable consequences;
Freedom is Darwinistic feature: The fitter (stronger?) lays out the rules and others can either submit or fight. The fitter doesn't have to be a single person: it could be an authority, a community, or even just a simple idea.
In this sense, we can see law makers as being fit to their positions: They lay out the rules; The law enforcement force is the 'muscle' of that position... In short, the laws are not viewed as lack of Freedom, but rather as a practiced Freedom of people in position to influence the Freedom of others.
Thus, somehow I find it absurd to 'support' true anarchism! The thing is our world is actually already lawless; Anarchic system is intuitively ruled by the fitter (rule of the jungle), and in the case of human societies, the fitter happens to be an authority they don't like: The government!
Human communities are nothing more than a civilized jungle!
In this series:
Debates Over Freedom - Part 1: Introduction
Debates Over Freedom - Part 2: The Dilemma
Debates Over Freedom - Part 3: Darwinistic Freedom
Next: Debates Over Freedom - Part 4: Pipe Dreams
This means that Freedom in itself can backfire and lead to unfavorable consequences;
Freedom is Darwinistic feature: The fitter (stronger?) lays out the rules and others can either submit or fight. The fitter doesn't have to be a single person: it could be an authority, a community, or even just a simple idea.
In this sense, we can see law makers as being fit to their positions: They lay out the rules; The law enforcement force is the 'muscle' of that position... In short, the laws are not viewed as lack of Freedom, but rather as a practiced Freedom of people in position to influence the Freedom of others.
Thus, somehow I find it absurd to 'support' true anarchism! The thing is our world is actually already lawless; Anarchic system is intuitively ruled by the fitter (rule of the jungle), and in the case of human societies, the fitter happens to be an authority they don't like: The government!
Human communities are nothing more than a civilized jungle!
In this series:
Debates Over Freedom - Part 1: Introduction
Debates Over Freedom - Part 2: The Dilemma
Debates Over Freedom - Part 3: Darwinistic Freedom
Next: Debates Over Freedom - Part 4: Pipe Dreams
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
Debates Over Freedom - Part 2: The Dilemma
Statement of the dilemma: Choices affect our lives. The choices of others also affect us.... If one knows that their choice will induce unfavorable consequences to oneself, it makes perfect sense to consider alternative options, and probably refrain from acting out those initial choices.
Biased Freedom: Since consequences causes one choice to be favored over another, actions will lack variety; This variety is important for the Darwinistic evolution of actions... As human community has evolved Free Speech has been favored over brutality... Call it bias, and that won't be far from truth.
Protecting The Freedom of Speech: Variation of views is important for a healthy evolution of a community: If i were in your place, I'd take that as fact... Ideas just as individuals exhibit evolution over time: Some ideologies gain popularity and\or support, other are diminished! As ideas evolve community morals develop over time to accommodate supported ideologies of that time... In order to maintain a wide set of schools of thought, the Freedom of Speech need to be protected; Call it a fair fight of ideologies if you want... The concept is that ideas have to evolve for their own competence, rather than the strength of people supporting them.
Expression Instead of Repression: Individuals need a safe environment to discuss thoughts away from violence; Individuals need to be assured that their ideas will not be the cause of their damnation, but rather as a cause for the diversity needed in any human community; In all civilized communities such rights are protected! It is important to note that such policies enrich the communities enforcing those policies leading the community to fit better in a world of surprises.... Open discussion leads to enrich knowledge of all parties participating in such discussion... To have such open discussion all parties need to express their point of view; In a discussion there is only one weapon to use: debates... On the other side of the coin, legal threats or otherwise repress some parties in the discussion leading them to withhold their honest views; Such threats leads to counter-productive discussion, and leads to loss of honesty, integrity, and openness.
The Dilemma: Encouraging one party to share their views is not at all an easy task: How much protection does one need to feel at ease sharing their views; The other side of the question is: what action the offended party is allowed to... Even a non-violent action could lead that a party in a discussion to choose to withhold their honest views... If one party offends another, does that party have the right to take action? Even a non-violent action could discourage that offending party! Answers to those questions remain in the hands of participating parties, and the degree of openness they are aiming at....
Finally, I leave you with this cartoon to ponder.
In this series:
Debates Over Freedom - Part 1: Introduction
Debates Over Freedom - Part 2: The Dilemma
Debates Over Freedom - Part 3: Darwinistic Freedom
Next: Debates Over Freedom - Part 4: Pipe Dreams
Biased Freedom: Since consequences causes one choice to be favored over another, actions will lack variety; This variety is important for the Darwinistic evolution of actions... As human community has evolved Free Speech has been favored over brutality... Call it bias, and that won't be far from truth.
Protecting The Freedom of Speech: Variation of views is important for a healthy evolution of a community: If i were in your place, I'd take that as fact... Ideas just as individuals exhibit evolution over time: Some ideologies gain popularity and\or support, other are diminished! As ideas evolve community morals develop over time to accommodate supported ideologies of that time... In order to maintain a wide set of schools of thought, the Freedom of Speech need to be protected; Call it a fair fight of ideologies if you want... The concept is that ideas have to evolve for their own competence, rather than the strength of people supporting them.
Expression Instead of Repression: Individuals need a safe environment to discuss thoughts away from violence; Individuals need to be assured that their ideas will not be the cause of their damnation, but rather as a cause for the diversity needed in any human community; In all civilized communities such rights are protected! It is important to note that such policies enrich the communities enforcing those policies leading the community to fit better in a world of surprises.... Open discussion leads to enrich knowledge of all parties participating in such discussion... To have such open discussion all parties need to express their point of view; In a discussion there is only one weapon to use: debates... On the other side of the coin, legal threats or otherwise repress some parties in the discussion leading them to withhold their honest views; Such threats leads to counter-productive discussion, and leads to loss of honesty, integrity, and openness.
The Dilemma: Encouraging one party to share their views is not at all an easy task: How much protection does one need to feel at ease sharing their views; The other side of the question is: what action the offended party is allowed to... Even a non-violent action could lead that a party in a discussion to choose to withhold their honest views... If one party offends another, does that party have the right to take action? Even a non-violent action could discourage that offending party! Answers to those questions remain in the hands of participating parties, and the degree of openness they are aiming at....
Finally, I leave you with this cartoon to ponder.
In this series:
Debates Over Freedom - Part 1: Introduction
Debates Over Freedom - Part 2: The Dilemma
Debates Over Freedom - Part 3: Darwinistic Freedom
Next: Debates Over Freedom - Part 4: Pipe Dreams
Sunday, February 05, 2006
Debates Over Freedom - Part 1: Introduction
What is the true sense of Freedom? I'd define it as choice of course of action. Not all actions necessarily lead to the desired outcome; this is the beauty of choice, each action has a different set of consequences, and the 'wise' choices are hard to define and\or identify.
Some people argue for Freedom, while some argue against that; Naturally, from an earthly perspective, we are all Free (in the sense of rebellion; contrast with an equally credible opposing argument). No "man-made" law has been able to stop people from unlawful acts; In this sense, its senseless to defend Freedom, since it cannot be abolished in the first place. If you come to think about it, somehow Freedom is self-preserving...
So what debate is held against Freedom? Roughly speaking, many people seek an authoritative party protecting people from themselves; In other words, protecting one person from another. So such party is required to define a set of social norms. Naturally, such norms outlaws several minorities, and yet some widely accepted parties. Consider how conservatives oppose liberals, or how dictators oppose the republicans, and several similar conflicts between major parties.
Human-rights advocates claim that Freedom is a basic human right; As far as I am concerned: Freedom is a human nature, even before admitting it as a human right! (based on the 'Freedom is self-preserving' argument) But let's face it, those human-rights advocates preach not true Freedom, but rather few forms of Freedom: they introduce terms such as: Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Expression; No-one hears them talking about Freedom of Brutality, or the Freedom to be a mass-murder: they claim this is inhumane...
PS: Humans are assumed to exhibit Free Will (which is highly debatable)
In this series:
Debates Over Freedom - Part 1: Introduction
Debates Over Freedom - Part 2: The Dilemma
Debates Over Freedom - Part 3: Darwinistic Freedom
Next: Debates Over Freedom - Part 4: Pipe Dreams
Some people argue for Freedom, while some argue against that; Naturally, from an earthly perspective, we are all Free (in the sense of rebellion; contrast with an equally credible opposing argument). No "man-made" law has been able to stop people from unlawful acts; In this sense, its senseless to defend Freedom, since it cannot be abolished in the first place. If you come to think about it, somehow Freedom is self-preserving...
So what debate is held against Freedom? Roughly speaking, many people seek an authoritative party protecting people from themselves; In other words, protecting one person from another. So such party is required to define a set of social norms. Naturally, such norms outlaws several minorities, and yet some widely accepted parties. Consider how conservatives oppose liberals, or how dictators oppose the republicans, and several similar conflicts between major parties.
Human-rights advocates claim that Freedom is a basic human right; As far as I am concerned: Freedom is a human nature, even before admitting it as a human right! (based on the 'Freedom is self-preserving' argument) But let's face it, those human-rights advocates preach not true Freedom, but rather few forms of Freedom: they introduce terms such as: Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Expression; No-one hears them talking about Freedom of Brutality, or the Freedom to be a mass-murder: they claim this is inhumane...
PS: Humans are assumed to exhibit Free Will (which is highly debatable)
In this series:
Debates Over Freedom - Part 1: Introduction
Debates Over Freedom - Part 2: The Dilemma
Debates Over Freedom - Part 3: Darwinistic Freedom
Next: Debates Over Freedom - Part 4: Pipe Dreams
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
