Environmentalism; The Cause of our Food Crisis.

Environmentalism; what do you think when you hear this word? For all the good intentions this movement has going for it, and saving the earth is a very worthy cause, environmentalism has grown from more than a concern and desire to save our natural world and turned into an obsession of almost religious proportions. What once was a good cause has now become a vendetta to rid the world of the evils of green house gasses and those who create them, never mind the devastating damage to human beings they cause.

In case some of you don’t know, the price of food around the world has gone up steadily and is now, it would seem, nearing crisis levels. Take these articles into consideration.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1717572,00.html
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200804/NAT20080403c.html

Why are food prices skyrocketing? Why is there less and less food to eat? There is, believe it or not, a very frustrating connection between the environmentalists and the food crisis. Environmentalists have made it almost impossible for the US to drill for oil in our own nation, forcing us to rely on oil from nations such as Iran and Venezuela, nations that hate our guts in other words. Because of our lack of drilling the amount of oil at our disposal is down, forcing the price of gas up, which in turn makes it more expensive for trucks to drive groceries and other supplies to stores across the nation. Law of Supply and Demand people, economics 101. The less gas there is, which is a result of not being able to drill for it in Florida (where I live) and Alaska, the more expensive it will be, the more expensive it will be to transport ANYTHING, which drives up the price for EVERYTHING. Forget price gouging, forget taking away profits for oil companies, and forget McCain’s plan to lift the tax of gas for a short time (although that would be great) and just focus on getting MORE OIL! Drill, drill everywhere oil can be found. End our dependence on foreign oil and lower food prices, is that so hard to understand? You want gas and food prices to go down? We need to get more fuel.

But another problem that raises food supplies is (told you) government intervention in the private market. The government has been giving out large subsidies to companies to encourage them to create bio-fuel created from corn. Sounds great doesn’t it? A reusable fuel that doesn’t harm the environment and completely ends our dependence on foreign oil sounds great, except that this ethanol fuel doesn’t work very reliably at all and is expensive to create. There’s a reason no one actually uses it, the making of it consumes more fuel than it creates. Because of government subsidies farmers have stopped making other crops in order to make corn that will be turned into this impractical and wasteful fuel. So government intervention is part of the problem, you don’t say.

Please people, I love nature just as much as the next guy, but for me the environment takes a back seat to human beings. The fact of the matter is extreme environmentalism is the cause of our oil and food shortages today. America is one of the leading growers of food in the world, but if we waste all our time growing corn for ethanol which will never be used than the price of just about everything we need is just going to go up. It is unbelievably unethical to turn food into fuel in the middle of a food crisis.

Why Both Parties Would Hate Me.

In my personal life I have made it no secret how much I hate politicians and both political parties for their hypocrisy and phony ideas. As of right now there is not a single person running for office, with a chance of winning, who stands for my deepest political beliefs, which are liberty and limited government. No matter what the Republicans say they do not stand for limited government, not after the awful eight years of President Bush, and they most certainly don’t stand for liberty as their wars against basic equality such as gay marriage continues without reason or logical thought. But the democrats are no better. Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama have both more than proven their socialist intentions for this nation. Despite their insistence they aren’t so different when you strip them of their details and focus on their fundamental beliefs. Both wish for larger governments, both want more government programs, both wish to interfere in the private economy and make this nation more and more government run. They also disrespect the rights of unborn children by proclaiming abortion to be a woman’s “right” to her own body, something I find disgusting and morally indefensible.

Both parties would hate me because unlike them I stand for liberty and limited government and if I would ever run for public office (which I never will because power corrupts) neither side would take me in nor would anyone ever vote for me. My fundamental belief is simple and definitely conservative; government exists for the SOLE purpose of protecting our rights from all enemies foreign and domestic. Power to make decisions best belongs in the hands of those most affected by those decisions, IE the individual citizen, and whenever a government gains even a little power, that is power they took from you and me. By this fundamental principle conservatives would love me to death, and liberals would hate my guts. On the other hand the conclusions I derive from such a belief are hardly conservative at all. Because I believe government exist to protect our rights I also believe in something called the “Liberty Principle,” which simply says that people should be allowed to do whatever they want as long as they do not impede on the rights of anyone else (this principle doesn’t apply to children, mentally handicapped people, and criminals). Under this belief a whole lot of social evils would be legal; drugs, prostitution, polygamy, gay marriage, all would be legal. This is a very liberal conclusion derived from a conservative premise.

So in short the democrats would hate me because I would cut social security, welfare, the minimal wage, socialized medicine, and just overall reduce the government to as small a size as possible. The republicans would hate me because I stand for liberty for all and do not believe that government should, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, dictate morality and make laws on that alone. And so I am an independent, a loner in this world, not a wishy washy undecided voter but a consciences objector to both parties and their beliefs.

No help for the irresponsible and the incompetent.

A recent controversy is over whether or not the government should bail out homeowners, who took out risky loans they couldn’t afford and lost their homes when the housing market tanked, and the banks which gave out these loans and are now going bankrupted because of the borrowers inability to pay them back. Politicians, especially the liberal left, have vilified the bankers as aggressive lenders who want nothing more than to make a cheap buck off the backs of hard working middle class Americans, saying they are acting unethically by taking away the houses of those who can’t afford to live in them. The left thinks it is the governments job to bail out these “hard working” Americans. At the same time president Bush wants to bail out the banks that are going out of business because of this.

Here’s a thought, no one deserves any government money. There, I said it. These “hard working” middle class Americans who took out these loans knew they couldn’t afford to pay them back and are simply irresponsible. It is not the banks fault that they lost their homes; it is not the fault of greedy powerful men rubbing their palms together at the thought of putting people out of their homes. The blame is to be laid mainly on the backs of those who took out the loans in the first place. To bail out these people would not only be an unconstitutional use of federal funds (I defy you to show me the justification in the constitution for such a move) but also rewarding irresponsible and reckless behavior. This is the precedent the government set back in the 1930’s when President Roosevelt began bailing out irresponsible Americans who lost their wealth in the stock market. There was no constitutional justification then, and there is no constitutional justification now.

But it is equally wrong to bail out the banks which made these loans. These banks knew that those taking out these loans were risky customers who might not be able to pay back all the money they owned, and yet still thought it good business to lend them money for a home. Is it any wonder these banks are going out of business? With such reckless business ethics I’m surprised it hasn’t happened sooner? Is it any wonder at all? Bailing out irresponsible citizens is wrong, but bailing out incompetent businesses is equally wrong. These lenders deserve to go out of business and allow other, more competent competitors to take over.

If a business fails in the free market then it is only because consumers have found it lacking and have moved on to other, more desirable businesses or because the company has acted in a way which caused its own destruction. In the world of capitalism, the losing business would be forced to improve its product to compete, or else it would die. This is how it should work. Incompetent businesses die out leaving only the strongest. Survival of the fittest isn’t just an evolutionary term, it also applies to economics. It is when the government interferes with the free market where our problems begin. You want to know why airlines are so horrible to ride? It is because every time they lose money and are threatened with bankruptcy they appeal to the government for money and get what they want. Face it, the airline companies are incompetent but they get away with it because instead of being forced to improve for fear of death, they simply get money from the government which allows them to minimize improvements.

I say no more! The government has NO business interfering with the private market. Let these incompetent businesses die and allow better ones to take their place. Let us learn a lesson from the irresponsibility of our fellow citizens. Do not appeal to the government for help for it has no constitutional right to do so.

The Three Levels of Morality.

There are three levels of morality in which humans being may live their lives. The world isn’t as simple as black and white at all time, although in lots of situations there is a clear right and a clear wrong from which the doer may chose; but in some cases there is no clear distinction. There is a middle ground in the moral scheme in which you may live your life.

Moral Rightness. This level of morality is the one in which all human beings should strive to live in, but is at the same time the one which is at most times the least practical to the promotion of your own self interest. This level is loving your fellow man in all the ways you can. Remember, love is a conscious effort to better the life of another before your own; love is recognizing, respecting, valuing, and protecting the natural rights of your fellow man; love is acknowledging the rationality of all men and not impeding upon it; love is living for something besides yourself. This is the essence of morality, and the code of conduct in which we should all live our everyday life. To love another being in such a way is to live the life of a morally right person. It is when you make others happy WITHOUT violating the natural rights of anyone that you live the morally right life. This way of living goes above and beyond the call of most, for it is not simply a duty to respect the rights of others, it is a command to actively make the world a better place and to always, under all circumstances, put the well being of others above your own.

Moral Neutrality. Moral neutrality is simply going though life recognizing, respecting, valuing, and protecting the natural rights of your fellow man at all times and refusing to impede upon them. This way of living is a more laid back approach, neither morally commendable nor morally wrong. If you sit at home watching movies and eating popcorn all day, you are morally neutral; if you ignore your fellow man you are morally neutral. By not actively pursuing the happiness of others you live in a morally neutral zone. This kind of living, although of lesser value then living the morally right way, is not bad; in fact this way of living is actually more fundamentally sound. We are all equal beings on this planet; to live the morally right way is to put others above yourself, but in reality no man is more important than you are, and you are more important than no man. Moral neutrality simply recognizes that no one is better then you are, and you are no better than anyone else, and so you live for yourself with respect for others natural rights.

Moral Wrongness. Moral wrongness is living a life without respect for the natural rights of others. This style of living is the result of arrogance and is to be criticized at all times. Simply put this is immorality, a way of living which violates all moral codes and refuses to recognize others as equals with all the same rights and privileges as yourself. Those who live in this manner MUST be judge and not be allowed to violate the rights of their fellow human beings.

Human Nature Doesn't Change.

Human nature never changes, people never learn from history. It’s been said that human nature is to change, but nothing could be farther from the truth. What held true a thousand years ago for human beings hold true still today. The only thing that has changed is what our society needs in order to survive. As a civilized society we have discovered the great benefits that equality has produced for society overall, despite the temporary damaging effects it may have for the present ruling class. We’ve learned that valuing the freedoms of all men make it more likely for all men to value your personal freedom as well, and because of our rich and prosperous society we no longer need to kill and do wrong to one another in order to survive and therefore we respect the rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. But do not think for a second that we as wealthy Americans have changed from our basic nature, that we have somehow evolved from the cave men we once were to something more pure, more tolerant, and more fundamentally moral; we have not. Take away the comfort and security which a consumer society provides and our notions of freedom and equality, of human rights and ethical behavior, disappear. The one overruling human instinct is self preservation, and all humans at their core will do whatever they deem necessary to survive. Turn off the lights, throw everyone in the dark, introduce the population to a danger it has never encountered, and the “civilized” society of any modern nation falls apart.

Do not have faith in the “goodness” of human nature, do not trust that neighbor across the street will hesitate to harm or even kill you if it meant keeping himself or his loved ones alive. Human beings have not changed; human beings have merely become more wealthy and prosperous which means the old violent ways of the past are no longer practical or to the benefit of society as a whole or the individual in most cases. Few will chose goodness over life, fewer still would recognize Immanuel Kant’s views in a crises, “let justice be done though the heavens may fall.” This is an ideal which holds no practical relevance in a time of crises, and although it is sound moral advice which should be followed, it would not be.

Human beings aren’t naturally good in nature and to believe so is to deceive yourself to the realities of this world; nor are we naturally evil, what we are is opportunistic; we seek to better ourselves and pursue our own self interest whether that be at the expense of others or not. If killing others is to our benefit then we will kill, if marching down the streets of Montgomery being sprayed by water hoses is to our perceived benefit we will do that as well. Not to say that we are incapable of acting beyond our basic nature, but to do so requires a deep philosophical and fundamental belief in the value of human life and the willingness to carry out that belief in the face of total chaos and turmoil. Few have this steadfast moral compass though, and most always revert to our basic human nature when a crisis hits. This, unfortunately, is the reality of the human being.

Problems with God 4.0

(I am not in any way trying to sell the book being used in the picture and am not reviewing it).

Those who have read some of my blogs know that I believe in a God who created the universe and all that is in it. The arguments for His existence are frankly much more convincing and harder to explain away then those that claim He doesn’t, and so I chose to believe that He exists in one form or another. But I’ve been thinking for a while now, is it logically possible for God 4.0 to exist? By that I mean, can it be possible for a god that is at the same time A) All powerful, B) All good, C) All knowing, and D) All present, to exist? Are all these compatible with each other? Here’s my case that maybe that’s not true. Think of this from a philosophical standpoint.

Problem #1
If the universe goes on for eternity, how can God be in all places? The universe never ends, so how can He be in all of it? Being in all places gives the impression that there is a limited amount of places one can be. It would be like saying God can count to the highest number; there is no such thing as the highest number, numbers in their nature never end, so how can one count to the highest one? Same with the universe, how can anyone or anything be in all places when there is no such thing as all places since the universe goes on forever?

Problem #2
If god is all powerful, then that means there is nothing He can not do. He can do anything, as long as it fits in the rules of logic. He can't clap with one hand and such things like that. Then is it not at least POSSIBLE for Him to do wrong? If He is all powerful, and by that I means He controls everything and can do anything logically possible, can you then say it is IMPOSSIBLE for Him to do wrong? And if He CAN do wrong, how can we know to a certainty that He never has? The only thing we’d have to go on is the Bible, and if God can do wrong how can we know that the Bible is true? Wouldn’t an imperfect being try to make you believe He IS perfect?

Problem #3
As I’ve said before, if God is all powerful then that means by definition there is nothing He cannot do that is logically possible. If it were impossible for Him to do something, He wouldn’t be all powerful. He, in other words, controls 100% of the power in this world. There is nothing outside His control. Well if He controls 100% of the power in the world, then that, also by definition, means that nothing else in existence can have any power whatsoever. He has it all, so there is nothing left for the rest of us.

If that is true, then we are not in control of our actions and beliefs, our thoughts and actions are outside out control without our will or consent. There is no such thing as free will if there is a God who is all powerful. Therefore how can a God that is also all good command that his creations, which have no ability to control themselves, act in a certain way and then punish them to an eternity of suffering for failing to do so? And how can He reward others for living in a way completely outside of their control? Without free will, which a God who controls 100% of the world’s power would not allow for, there can be no judgments on people behaviors, and so there can be no morality. Another thought to ponder is that if God does indeed hold 100% of the world’s power, then nothing can happen that He doesn’t control. Every act of every human being is committed by God Himself, not any man.

You can’t have it both ways, either you believe God is all powerful but not all good and that we have no free will, or you can believe that He is all good but not all powerful and that He gave up His power when He created the universe. To believe in both is double-think. Any thoughts?

Arrogance from Ignorance.

I wrote before that the root of all evil is arrogance, the belief that you are more valuable/important then another human being for ANY reason whatsoever. But where does arrogance come from? Why is it present in one shape or another in every human being on the planet? Are we born arrogant? Yes and no, arrogance is the result of a lack of knowledge or an unwillingness to learn.

Ignorance is simply not knowing something; for instance, I am completely ignorant of advanced math, medicine, rap music, and the workings of a computer because I know absolutely nothing about those subjects. This kind of ignorance I call unintentional ignorance, and it is, needless to say, impossible to avoid. No one knows everything, so there is always going to be something out there that you are ignorant of. It is not the ignorance itself which is the problem here, its making judgments based upon that ignorance. I cannot make any sort of judgments on a Doctors medical procedures because, although I may know a little about medicine, anything I assume to be true would most likely be based on ignorance. To make assumptions based on ignorance and false information unwittingly leads to arrogance if one is not aware of what they are doing. They will believe themselves to be right despite arguments to the contrary. This kind of ignorance isn’t overall that bad, as long as one realizes when faced with the facts that they are wrong. Everyone is unwillingly ignorant of one thing or another, but it isn’t a problem if you recognize your ignorance; as Socrates once said, true wisdom is knowing that you are ignorant.

The kind of ignorance I’m most concerned about is willing ignorance. When someone bases a view on unwilling ignorance, is then faced with the facts, and still refuses to concede his position, that is willing ignorance and it is the cause for arrogance. People who deny scientific, historical, and mathematical proof because of a pre conceived belief are only kidding themselves into living in a false world derived of true knowledge. Stuff like this happens a lot in politics, for instance when a politician denies the existence of global warming despite the overwhelming evidence for it, that is called willing ignorance. When a racist insists that there is a difference between the races and that their race is somehow better despite being shown that there really isn’t any difference at all, that’s willing ignorance.

So what is the solution? Simply this, learn. Learn as much as is possible about the world, any kind of knowledge will do. The pursuit of knowledge won’t just make you a better informed and successful person, it will also open your eyes to the ignorance you once had and make you a more moral person as well. Seek out the truth about the world, examine the theories of philosophy, politics, etc, and if there be a subject you just can’t stand (math and science for me) simply admit your ignorance and submit your views to the authorities in those subjects. You can’t know everything, but the knowledge of the world and your wisdom to know you don’t and can’t know everything will make you a more productive and moral human being.

Gay Marriage.

I love my college ROTC class, but sometimes the ignorance of some people in it makes my skin crawl. For instance, recently over Spring Break I got into many heated debates about various things, such as the war in Iraq (I’m military guy and think the war is wrong), or whether Obama is a Muslim or not (he ISN’T). But the one I want to talk about right now is a controversial issue that has been fought over for years, gay marriage.

Of course living in the highly conservative south in an area dominated by military installations and red necks, most of the people in my area are venomously against the idea of two men or women getting married and receiving from the government the same rights and privileges straight couples do. There are a few reasons why they think gay marriage should be illegal, none of which hold any legal water.
1. It’s unnatural. Of course, keeping people alive on medication is also unnatural, there’s nothing natural about pain medication and such, so under that kind of logic anything unnatural should be illegal.
2. It’s a slippery slope; if gays can marry then you have to legalize polygamy and people getting married to animals. First of all, I don’t think polygamy should be illegal as long as no one is violating the natural rights of another. Show me someone’s rights being violated, and I’ll be against it. Second of all, animals cannot sign a marriage license nor can they willfully agree to marriage, so that point is irrelevant.
3. Sex should be between a man and a woman. This goes back to the whole “it isn’t natural” thing, but it’s even scarier for one reason; do you really want the government to decide who should and should not be having sex? Shouldn’t that be the decision of the individuals? What’s next? You can only have sex in the missionary position? Only if you’re married? Only if it’s to have children? THIS is the slippery slope you should be worried about.
4. It would ruin the sanctity of marriage. This, of course, is total nonsense. How is the sanctity of marriage any more ruined by two men getting married then a man and a women getting married in Los Vages and then divorcing two days later? Statistics show that half of married couples will get a divorce; does this not ruin the sanctity of marriage?
There may be other argument against it, but as far as I can see gay marriage would not impede on the natural rights of any citizen in this country, and so I see no reason to be against it.

No matter how you swing it gay marriage is not in any way wrong from a legal standpoint. I’ve asked people who are against the idea a million times who’s rights are violated by two people of the same sex getting married, and then always come out with the same predictable answers, which always boil down to, A) It’s disgusting, or B) God doesn’t like it. Neither or those beliefs are reason enough to outlaw something, to do that you must show that someone’s rights are violated by the act, and in this case you cannot. If you truly believe in a free society then you must also believe in gay marriage. You accept the premise, you must support the logical conclusion no matter what that may be, otherwise you are a hypocrite and a liar.