Loser Pay

Two major problems we face today in this country is the high cost of medical treatment and frivolous lawsuits that are filed against ordinary citizens and large corporations for no reason other then to gain a little bit of money. Everyday we see the evidence of a society gone mad with suing everyone in sight. Spill coffee on yourself while driving? Sue McDonalds, after all they should have told you it was going to be hot. Your kid falls off a swing set in a public park? Sue the city, after all if they hadn’t put that swing there in the first place your kid wouldn’t have hurt himself. Whenever someone gets themselves hurt the first response for many is to sue and refuse to take personal responsibility for their actions. It is not McDonalds fault if you’re too stupid to keep your coffee from spilling, it’s yours; it’s not the cities fault if your kid scraped his knee in their park, you should have been watching him better.

But we don’t want to admit that. We don’t want to fess up for our own actions and take responsibility for what we do as free beings. We don’t want to be treated like adults, no; instead we childishly blame others for our own actions and demand we be compensated when we act foolishly. It’s downright sickening, that’s what it is. And what are the consequences of this sue first society? Paranoia, the disintegration of common sense, higher prices, government interventions on our liberties and the free market, on and on and on. When a student can sue her teacher for sexual abuse because he helped show her how to place her fingers on a flute then we have problems. Teachers become afraid of bothering their students because now the students have the power in the classroom, school boards pass more and more rules impeding on the teachers ability to teach. We never think of such things until they bite us in the butt. This also effects our medical field because doctors are always looking over their shoulders trying to avoid the next mall practice suit, which isn’t always a bad thing, but most of the time when someone sues a doctor its for some inane and stupid reason. This forces doctors to pay high mal practice insurance prices (high because of the number of suits) and drives up the prices for medical care.

So what is the solution? Easy, we enact a loser pay system where if the defendant wins the prosecuting party must pay for their court expenses. As is a dedicated prosecutor can file suit against anyone as many times as they wish, forcing them into court again and again and again until they win or force a settlement. This is a completely stupid system which favors the prosecutor over the defendant. If, however, the prosecutor was forced to pay if they lose the case, we can see the frivolous lawsuits which haunt our system today vanish before our very eyes. Who’s going to sue over something extremely stupid (spilling coffee on your shirt while driving out of a McDonalds drive through) when you’ll have to pay McDonalds if you lose? In cases where winning seems unlikely, such as in the case of many frivolous lawsuits, why even take the risk? On the other hand, in legitimate cases of harm, the chances of winning would go up, so people who were actually harmed will still feel inclined to take their cases to court.

Its time to end the sue first mentality in this country and force people to act like adults by taking responsibility for their own actions. You sue and lose, you should pay, plain and simple.

Consent of the Governed.

In a world of constant wars and chaos the people of a particular nation will always find it necessary to band together for their mutual protection and well being in order to secure for themselves a number of needs, the need to protection for foreign enemies, the need to live in a relatively safe and peaceful environment, and the need to live free and happy lives as they see fit. For these reasons and many others all peoples of all nations will find themselves under the authority of some sort of governing power. When a people are in need of a governing body they will institute one for themselves in order to create a more perfect society for themselves.

But very often a powerful leader can usurp the natural process of a people’s establishment of a government and impose their own rule upon the masses. Dictators and others of their ilk fall into this classification. Their rule is one not formed from the common consent of the governed, but one created and held together through personal strength and power of will, using fear and persuasion to solidify their control of the populace.

The preferred method of government for the general population of a nation will always be to create one which holds and maintains its power only and without question from the consent of those they govern. No other kind of government is to the best interest of a people and will always pursue its own self interest at the expense of those below them. A dictator will not care about the will of the people, or the common interest of those who they govern; no, the goal of a dictator who rules through intimidation is merely to remain in power and force their will upon those beneath them. What does a dictator care if his people live in poverty as long as he remains in power? What does he care if his people nation dies around him as long as he himself lives in luxury? Any government which rules without the consent of those governed will pressure its own interest.

A government which rules at the consent of the governed means not that everything a government does is done at the agreement of the general population and that they may not act in a way which the people do not wish; what it means is that although they, the general population, may not agree with the decisions of the governing body, they acknowledge the right of that body to decide for them the direction in which their nation will go. The people of the USA may not agree with our presidents decisions, but we do agree that as the holder of that office he has certain rights and privileges and may act in that way without facing an armed revolution. As long as a people allow a governing body to rule over them and make decisions that body rules at the consent of the governed, regardless of personal opinions. This is why the judicial courts in this nation have the right to rule against he common will of the people in order to protect human rights. We the people instituted a government based on respect for human rights and we the people created a government with a set of rules and conceded to that government the power and the right to make decisions that would protect those rights. As such a decision passed down from the courts which are against the will of the general population and yet consistent with the rules which our founders set down is still a decision made at the consent of the governed. The only way to reverse such decision, like Brown VS the Board of Education or any other anti segregation law, would be to change the original rules on which this nation was founded.

Click it Or Ticket; the nonsense of seatbelt laws.

I’ve seen the ads on TV and have heard the arguments, but for the life of me I cannot figure out why the hell the government finds the need to force drivers to wear their seatbelts in their cars while driving. Why is it any of the government business whether or not I wear a seatbelt? Why should I get a ticket if I chose not to or if I forget?

I’ve made no secret my libertarian views that for an act to be considered illegal the government must first prove that someone’s rights were violated, and if not then the act committed should be allowed no matter how disgusting or “immoral” that act may seem. Seatbelt laws are merely the comical absurdity of a government gone mad. What is the rationality behind such an inanely stupid law? That seatbelts save lives and therefore it is okay to force people to wear them? Well how come it is perfectly legal for motorcyclist to drive around without helmets? Look, I know seatbelts save lives, and I think everyone should do it, as I myself do, but I do not under any circumstances believe that people should be MADE to do so. You can suggest it all you want, but to force someone to wear a seatbelt is an absurd notion.

So why do people support this law which my state graced my people with? Here are two arguments I’ve heard.

1. Seatbelts save thousands of lives every year. You know how many people would die if they were allowed to not wear their seatbelts?

First of all, I don’t care. People have EVERY right to act in a manner which does not affect the rights of anyone else, so if they want to be stupid and risk their lives unnecessarily then I say let them. If someone can be trusted to drive a thousand pound death machine down a road with the potential to kill dozens of people I think we can also trust them to manage their own lives. Plus what does this argument really boil down to? If something risks lives then the government has the right to force people to protect themselves against it; this argument could be used in any number of situations. Smoking kills thousands, so the government has the right to ban smoking; drinking kills, so the government can ban drinking. Unprotected sex, contact sporting events, fatty foods, hell did you know you can get arthritis from cracking your knuckles? Should the government then make it illegal to crack our knuckles in order to protect their fragile little children, oh I meant their citizens, from the dangers of arthritis? Oh, and fat people, you are no longer allowed to eat a Burger King. Try selling that one.

Now you may say that’s crazy, no one wants that, and yes I agree that is an extreme example, but if the logic that because seatbelts save lives they should be mandatory is sound logic then that means the government has the right to force people to act in a way which benefits their health, and that means they can tell you how much to eat, how many hours you need to work out a day, and how much sleep you need. Oh yeah, Big Brother is watching you.

2. Not wearing seatbelts DOES violate the rights of others. You could fly out of your car, hit someone, and kill them.

Really? How likely is this situation? You hit a car and FLY out of the windshield with enough force to hit some guy and kill him? How many times have you read about that story in the local news? It would be considered bizarre for something like that to happen, and yet it’s an argument I’ve heard maybe a dozen times already. Oh, but you could fly out an open side window. Okay, even given that, then what? You’re going to fly all the way to the sidewalk and hit some random person? This argument still sound feasible? But even IF I were given reason enough to believe that anyone without a seatbelt is a hazardous projectile just waiting to fly out of their car and kill the nearest bystander, which I do not have, it still leads to a slippery slope which most people don’t even consider. If that is the case, then EVERYTHING a person has in their care MUST be tied down to prevent them from flying out the windows in case of an accident. This means groceries, backpacks for all out students out there, sporting equipment, boxes, etc, anything which could potently fly out of your car and (gasp) hit someone with enough force to harm them. Is this really what you want? For every time you leave your home do you want to get pulled over because that carton of milk you just bought might fly out of your car and kill someone if you get in a wreck? I can just see the politicians cracking their knuckles (oh, you thought just because YOU couldn’t do it they would hold themselves to the same standards?) and smiling, sitting back in their chairs thinking about how much money they can make.

Now I pose the question to you people who support seatbelt laws; why? What possible reason do you have to force your will upon me? Why is it that I can’t drive without a seatbelt and yet motorcyclist can ride without a helmet? Why are you always trying to take away my liberties and tell me how to live my life? Get off your high horses! You are not humanitarian, you are not protecting my liberty, and you are not acting upon the principles on which this greatest nation was founded.

Limited Power.

Existence is, itself, a power struggle which all things, living or no, take part in. Whenever two objects exist in close enough proximity to effect one another one will always hold power over the other. For power to exist there must be matter, for without matter there would be nothing to control. Nothing can’t control nothing, and if control isn’t possible then power would not exist. Even if only one simple thing, a physical object which does not have any parts, existed in the universe power would still be in existence, for although there would be nothing for even there would be natural laws to govern it and tell it what to do. Cause and effect can be better understood with the knowledge that one thing is holding power over another, and is therefore causing it to act in a certain way. Power exists over matter, and since matter may never be created nor destroyed, so also may power over the conventional powers never be created or destroyed. This means that power may never be created nor destroyed as well, instead it can only be transferred from one thing to another.

The Analogy of the Sand.

Sand on a beach exists in quantities so vast that it would be physically impossible for any human being to count the exact number of grains contained within it; but we also know that the sand on the beach, despite our inability to know its quantity, cannot possibly exist in infinite amounts, for if it did so then there would be nothing else; the sand would consume the entire planet and everything else would exists as mere islands in the midst of an eternal ocean of sand. There would be no escaping the sand of this particular beach. We can therefore conclude that the sand of a beach, although being beyond our ability to number, could theoretically be counted provided the proper tools and measuring devises to undertake such a task.

In the same way we can conclude that matter cannot go on for eternity, and at some point in the universe the physical world comes to an end leaving nothing but a black void beyond. The very existence of empty space that is not confined as islands in the midst of a physical existence is proof of this. On the contrary the physical world exists as islands on a vast sea of nothingness, in a void where absolutely nothing exists. By this we can see that matter is finite, and therefore power must also be finite in nature. Provided the proper tools and equipment it would be possible to break down everything into its fundamental existence (its simple parts, things that have no parts, which must exists for if they didn’t nothing would exists) and know how many of those parts exist in reality.

The Fundamental Principle.

Human beings derive meaning for their lives based on the beliefs they have. To believe in a higher truth, whether that truth is God or something else, gives human beings a reason for livening that they can reasonably accept. Without a basic belief, a Fundamental Principle as I like to call it, meaning in life is impossible to obtain.

The Fundamental Principle is the most basic of all your beliefs, the one belief from which all others are derived. It is the very end to the question “what do you believe;” keep asking anyone that question and they will eventually reach a point where they can go on no longer either because they are too ignorant to go on, or because they have reached their Fundamental Principle. If that person is learned then they may be able to go on farther than others, but in any case there will be an end, a break in their knowledge and reach that one foundation for their beliefs. THAT is the Fundamental Principle.

The need for a Fundamental Principle, besides finding meaning in life, is that without one a person will have no consistency is thought or belief. Their ideas and convictions will be hopelessly contradictory to one another, undermining all attempts to seek out and debate truth. You cannot win a debate when your ideas conflict with one another. When examining ones beliefs without having a Fundamental Principle one will find their beliefs very often do not match one another. They conflict, and contradiction can be found in abundance. The need for coherent and consistent thoughts and beliefs is what drives people to develop a Fundamental Principle.

Unfortunately this need for a Fundamental Principle also leads many to become fundamentalists who will fight venomously to protect their Principle from skeptics. A rational human being will search for the answers in life and only come to their conclusion on the Fundamental Principle after obtaining enough knowledge of the world to come to an informed opinion. That informed opinion can be defended if need be with reason, logic, and evidence gathered from experience. These beliefs can be passionately defended but are not so set in stone that they can not to altered or re examined. The flop side is an irrational mans desperate leap of faith. Although I do not in any way consider faith of any kind in and of itself irrational (provided it is backed by reason) I do consider blind faith to be the very definition of irrational. The blindly faithful person recognizes a need for a Fundamental Principle and in desperation stretches his arms for the nearest Principle they can find, most often religion. It is this kind of Principle which results in fundamentalism, religious or otherwise. The blindly faithful person will fight tooth and nail against rational arguments against their position. Because their Principle was founded in faith to begin with, and not in reason, that faith cannot be defended. Faith along cannot save your beliefs against a rational argument. An attack on an undefended Principle will either cause the blindly faithful person to reject said principle without examining it, find a reason to believe it (back up faith with reason) or venomously fight back, often violently.

But in the end all Fundamental Principles are based, at least in part, on faith. It always comes down to faith. Faith that ones knowledge is sufficient enough to judge the world, faith that ones knowledge is correct, faith in one thing or another. Faith, however, is not knowledge of truth; faith is merely admitting a lack of knowledge and choosing to believe in what cannot be proven true or false. Faith is not a judge of knowledge and yet all beliefs are based in this leap of faith which we cannot know for certain to be true.

What are you thoughts on this?

Eternal good and evil.

I'll have a picture up later.
If God is all good then why is there evil in this world? I’ve stated earlier why I don’t think God is all powerful, but now I’ve come to a question which has been bugging philosophers for hundreds of years. I will not presume myself to be smarter then the thousands who have come before me who’ve tried to solve this problem of evil, but I will at the very least give my two cents.

If God is not all powerful then that still allows Him to be all good. Here’s the question though, is God all good because He cannot be evil, or because He chooses not to? If God is supremely powerful how would it be possible for us, His creations, to do something which He Himself is incapable of doing, IE sinning? I don't think God can do the logically impossible (IE count to the highest number or something like that) but by the very act of sinning it is made known that sinning is logically possible, otherwise God wouldn't find it necessary to warn us to do the right thing.

So back to the question, if God creates us and we can sin is it then impossible for God to sin as well? If He can't, that is something we humans posses the ability to do that He doesn't have, giving us more power then Him in that area. If we had power that God did not, could we still consider God to be God?

So I think God is good not because He is incapable of doing evil, but because He CHOOSES to be good. If God could not do wrong, and He could not do otherwise by being good, that would mean God Himself has no free will and is controlled by pre-existing laws. If that were true, He couldn't' really be called God, not in the way we think of Him. So God has free will to choose to be good or evil, and He chooses to be good (we can only assume that much anyway).

But if God chose to be good, then that means He didn't create good or evil and that they existed for all eternity with Him (almost said before Him, but that wouldn't make sense because if there is a God [which, again, I'm assuming to be true based on my knowledge, although I can never know for sure] then there is no before Him is there?). So, good and evil have existed for all eternity with God as choices to be made, and God chose to be good as a free being capable of independent thought.

Then God created angels which I will also assume had free will. The devil decided as a free being to be evil, not because God MADE him an evil being, but because God made him a free being (another question worth discussing is whether or not God COULD know how Satin would act if Satin was a free being). Satin chose evil in much the same way God chose good.

So now here comes humanity. If we are truly free beings then we, like God, would also have the ability to freely choose between the good and evil which already exist. Sometimes we chose good, sometimes we chose evil, but in either case God didn't create either, He merely chose one and allowed us the same ability to chose one for ourselves.

Well that’s my theory at least.

Liberals are not Humanitarian

The liberal left will have you believe that it is a humanitarian ideal, that they represent the goodness of mankind in their desire to help the poor and misfortunate in this country with their welfare programs such as Social Security and other such programs. Many times I’ve heard them make the analogy that if you saw a man thirsty in the desert would you not give him water? If you saw a man lying by the side of the road, his cloths torn and bloody, would you pass by on the other side and ignore him, or would you come to his aid like a Good Samaritan?

This example is complete bull, and anyone with an ounce of sense can see that (not that many people have that much sense, but for the sake of discussion lets ignore that). Liberals often see conservatives who seek less government interference in the privet market and NO welfare programs as somehow evil people who wish not to help their fellow man. Nothing could be further from the truth. In reality it is the liberals who do not respect their fellow men. It is one thing to give to the poor and the less fortunate, to do that is morally righteous and commendable, it is an entirely thing altogether to force someone into charitable giving, which is essentially what the government does when it gives any kind of welfare program. The American tax payers have no choice on whether or not the government may take their money, all that we ask is that our dully elected officials spend our hard earned cash wisely in fulfilling their mission of protecting our rights. By giving out money directly to the poor the government is, in fact, taking money away from you to give to someone else, wealth redistribution. Charity is wonderful, and no one gives more than the American people, but forcing someone to give to charity by taking their money under false pretenses and then giving that money to someone else who didn’t earn it is wrong and despicable.

This is America, where protection of property is assured. Our wealth is our property, and although the government must take what it needs to protect our rights, it should never take more than what is needed and should never spend what they have on welfare programs which take money from one American and hand it over to another. This is the foundation for my arguments against the welfare state.