Taxation, and Social Contracts.

I have stated in the past that taxes are inherently a form of theft, and social contracts are a bunch of bullshit. After thinking on it further, I was wrong.

Let's start with taxes. If you are an anarchist, you believe all government is bad, and all taxation is theft (you cannot run a government without some form of taxation). Many people believe libertarians are anarchists. Some are. Most aren't. I am not; I believe government has a legitimate function; to protect your rights from others, and protect others' rights from you.

The place where taxation becomes theft is when it involves taking your money for the purpose of giving to others. What's the difference, you ask?

Well, first you have to understand what I mean by rights. We have come to associate "rights" with "needs" or even "desires" as in "I have a right to food, shelter, basic medical care, TV, affordable transportation, etc." These are needs, or desires. I do not believe on any respect that they are rights. All rights are freedoms *from* something, not something being given to you for free.

You have a right not to have your things stolen.
You have a right not to be forced into slavery.
You have a right not to be cheated or lied to in business.

I could go on, but these are rights to *not* have things done to you. And that is what government should be there to do. Defense of the borders? Good role. Policing the streets? Good role. A system of courts to administer justice, and jails to house the lawbreakers? Good role. These are all legitimate. And they require taxes.

So no, I don't think taxation is inherently theft. But when it comes to government providing goods and services, then yes. I think it is always theft. Every time. And any government program which involves providing goods and services is funded by theft.

Are all government programs bad things? By no means. I love the space program. I drive on our highways. That doesn't change the fact that I believe they are illegitimate, funded by theft, and should never have been administered by the government. I also believe that the free market (were we to have one) would provide much, much better.

Even the government programs that you love, that I love, if they provide goods or services - even these the most statist among us would admit are hopelessly inefficient, bloated, and poorly run. Government by its very nature is wasteful, since it spends money not its own, generally on people not its own. There is no and can be no incentive to provide efficiently.

So what percentage of our taxes is theft? I don't know; I'd have to
A) analyze our budget exceedingly closely, and
B) trust that the numbers provided are accurate
and neither of those seems like a winning use of my time. But on a guess, I'd say probably 95% of our tax dollars are theft, taking money from one person, then giving it to somebody else, after taking a cut.

When the mob does that, it's despicable. When the government does that, it's somehow supposed to be better. Not in my opinion.

But just because taxes are generally theft, or usually theft, or almost always theft, doesn't mean it's ALWAYS theft, or even inherently so. Where the money is used makes a difference in legitimacy.

So, that takes us to social contracts.

Now, here it's a matter of terminology. Most people use "social contract" to mean something that is accepted by society, and is considered okay because of majority rule. I reject that. The majority is usually wrong. And when I find myself in the majority of almost anything, it makes me immediately question whether I know enough to have a valid opinion.

People will use the term "social contract" to signify a vague thing that allows them to get whatever they want, or feel is just. Nowhere do they have a copy of this social contract. Nowhere can they define this social contract. But they'll use it to push for Universal Health Care, Gun Control, Prayer in Schools, banning Gay Marriage, or any other pet cause they believe either has a majority behind it, or that they believe is a moral imperative.

Again, I reject this. If you cannot show me a contract that I have agreed to live by, it does not exist. If there is nothing spelled out in black and white that I have agreed to, it does not exist.

So what social contract do I believe in? For there is one. I have agreed to it. I have sworn to uphold it. I have studied it extensively. I think it is one of the finest contracts ever devised. It is called the Constitution of the United States of America. By living in this country, I agree to live by its constitution. It is not vague. It does not permit the fickle wind of public opinion to change its fundamental principles.

If this country were to return to the social contract signed on September 17, 1787, we would once again take our place as the champions of freedom that we once were. We could return to the prosperity that freedom brings. And we would be freed of most of the theft that our government currently engages in.

A Worthy Cause

I can think of no more noble cause than this.

The goal of Project Pterosaur is to mount an expedition to locate and bring back to the United States living specimens of pterosaurs or their fertile eggs, which will be displayed in a Pterosaur Rookery that will be the center piece of the planned Fellowship Creation Science Museum and Research Institute (FCSMRI). Furthermore, the rookery facility will establish a breeding colony of pterosaurs in order to produce specimens that could then be put on display by other regional institutions or church groups.

Enough said.

Like, you know?

I stole this from Ed Gonzales who put up this clip from Steve Farber's blog:



Actually, I do believe there are other uses for these terms. For instance, when I say "you know" or "you know what I'm saying," I'm searching the face of the person I'm conversing with, seeking to see whether they understand and/or agree. If not, I'll rephrase the statement. And I use "like" more than I should, but it is often instead of "for instance," "nearly," "almost," "resembling somewhat" or "approximately." It's like, kinda the same thing. You know? No. Okay, let me put it another way...

I also use it instead of "uh" as a time filler in my sentences. As I'm searching for the words to say exactly what I mean, I say "like." It is no better, possibly worse than "uh." But I do it. When I haven't started speaking yet, I say "How shall I phrase this?" This drives some people crazy. But then, if I say nothing as I'm thinking of exactly how to phrase it, they generally assume that I'm going to say something bad or negative.

My father uses "and" repeatedly as a time filler. I do wonder if he does it for the same reasons as me. Then again, I've never asked. Maybe I should.

I don't speak at the same rate at which I think. I do read at that speed, which tends to make people assume I'm lying, speed-reading, or skimming. I usually think very, very fast, and on multiple topics at once. This makes it somewhat difficult to converse, as I'm probably finished with one thought and on another entirely by the time I finish a sentence. I have to keep circling back to the sentence in my head.

This sometimes. Leads to strange. Almost... Shatner-like rhythms. Inmyspeechpatterns.

I've never really done a great deal of public speaking. I wonder sometimes if I'd be any good at it, or terrible! I don't get stage fright at all, and I don't get nervous. Those are usually the main liabilities for public speakers. But I come with (probably unique) liabilities of my own!

Speech is a very, very fascinating thing. On the one hand, it must evolve. On the other, some branches of evolution should not be protected as endangered, but merely allowed to die. Like the dinosaurs, or the woolly mammoth, or "Ebonics." You know?

If I were to tag something...

Hi yer Edjukayshun iz good, 2.

What would you do without proper resorces?

Yes, yes they do...

The glories of a public education.

Boys and girls might write differently!

I don't remember if I've written about this here, or just conversed with friends about it. I'd made the observation that literature by men tends to be about doing, while literature by women tends to be about simply being. For instance, a fantasy fiction book by a man tends to delve into wish fulfillment about the main character going and doing great things to prove his/her worth, and rising through society as a result of his/her accomplishments. Fantasy fiction books by women are more likely to focus on the main character being recognized for how wonderful/brilliant/beautiful he/she is, without actually doing anything to deserve said praise, other than existing.

Think "Harry Potter" vs. "The Hobbit."

Anyway, I came across this, and had to include it. It's real - been vetted by Snopes as much as anything on the 'net can be. And I know it's made its way around, but I'm just now coming across it!

English 44A, SMU, Creative Writing, Prof. Miller.

In-class Assignment for Wednesday:"Today we will experiment with a new form called the tandem story. The process is simple. Each person will pair off with the person sitting to his or her immediate right. One of you will then write the first paragraph of a short story. The partner will read the first paragraph and then add another paragraph to the story. The first person will then add a third paragraph, and so on back and forth. Remember to re-read what has been written each time in order to keep the story coherent. The story is over when both agree a conclusion has been reached."

"The following was actually turned in by two of my English students: Rebecca - last name deleted, and Gary - last name deleted."

_____ STORY: (first paragraph by Rebecca) ________

At first, Laurie couldn't decide which kind of tea she wanted. The chamomile, which used to be her favorite for lazy evenings at home, now reminded her too much of Carl, who once said, in happier times, that he liked chamomile. But she felt she must now, at all costs, keep her mind off Carl. His possessiveness was suffocating, and if she thought about him too much her asthma started acting up again. So chamomile was out of the question.

Meanwhile, Advance Sergeant Carl Harris, leader of the attack squadron now in orbit over Skylon 4, had more important things to think about than the neuroses of an air-headed asthmatic bimbo named Laurie with whom he had spent one sweaty night over a year ago. "A.S. Harris to Geostation 17," he said into his transgalactic communicator. "Polar orbit established. No sign of resistance so far..." But before he could sign off a bluish particle beam flashed out of nowhere and blasted a hole through his ship's cargo bay. The jolt from the direct hit sent him flying out of his seat and acros sthe cockpit.

He bumped his head and died almost immediately, but not before he felt one last pang of regret for psychically brutalizing the one woman who had ever had feelings for him. Soon afterwards, Earth stopped its pointless hostilities towards the peaceful farmers of Skylon 4."Congress Passes Law Permanently Abolishing War and Space Travel," Laurie read in her newspaper one morning. The news simultaneously excited her and bored her. She stared out the window, dreaming of her youth -- when the days had passed unhurriedly and carefree, with no newspapers to read, no television to distract her from her sense of innocent wonder at all the beautiful things around her. "Why must one lose one's innocence to become a woman?" she pondered wistfully.


Little did she know, but she had less than 10 seconds to live. Thousands of miles above the city, the Anu'udrian mothership launched the first of its lithium fusion missiles. The dim-witted wimpy peaceniks who pushed the Unilateral Aerospace Disarmament Treaty through Congress had left Earth a defenseless target for the hostile alien empires who were determined to destroy the human race.Within two hours after the passage of the treaty the Anu'udrian ships were on course for Earth, carrying enough firepower to pulverize the entire planet. With no one to stop them, they swiftly initiated their diabolical plan. The lithium fusion missile entered the atmosphere unimpeded. The President, in his top-secret mobile submarine headquarters on the ocean floor off the coast of Guam, felt the inconceivably massive explosion which vaporized Laurie and 85 million other Americans. The President slammed his fist on the conference table. "We can't allow this! I'm going to veto that treaty! Let's blow 'em out of the sky!"


This is absurd. I refuse to continue this mockery of literature. My writing partner is a violent,chauvinistic, semi-literate adolescent.


Yeah? Well, you're a self-centered tedious neurotic whose attempts at writing are the literary equivalent of Valium.



Asshole.



Bitch.

Honestly, I think this would've gone on to make a great story. But maybe I'm a little warped!

A Mind is a Terrible Thing to Waste...

Yeah, I was on a roll, then I left for my vacation. Got back, and haven't had my computer working consistently long enough to write anything.

Yeah, I know. Computer problems. Blah, blah, blah.

I should write something about the Fourth of July. I really, really should. But I'm feeling a little heartbroken for my country right now, and I just can't stand it.

I read an interesting article over at The Friday Challenge - it reinforced my conviction that, should I ever have kids, the TV will be locked away except at such times as we can all watch it together as a family. I know, there are those who scoff at such things, as it makes such a wonderful babysitter. But consider this viewpoint (which I have observed myself, just not in cartoons):

While I won't bore you all by listing every cartoon my kids have watched, I cannot think of a single one which portrays fathers as anything other than fools with much to learn from the brilliant children and spouse.

Apparently it wasn't enough for fathers to be morons. These days, most of the boys are idiots, too. I am hard pressed to name a single cartoon that doesn't have at least one boy who complete and utter moron. Conversely, I can't name a single cartoon which has even one girl who isn't clever and forever having to pull the moron boy's fat out of the fire.

I have to wonder exactly what all of these "males are stupid, females are brilliant" messages are doing to our boys. I know there are some who will say, "You're making a big deal over a bunch of silly cartoons and sitcoms!" Those same people will then protest that video games are turning our children into killers or that exposure to NRA gun safety training will get kids interested in guns and shooting. (Interestingly, these same people will tell you that detailed sex education will not get kids more interested in having sex.)

The most important thing any person can do is raise their children as best they can. The television is not an evil tool, any more than a gun, or a car, or medicine is. But used irresponsibly, each can cause great devastation. The only problem is, with a TV you might not notice for many years.

A 3rd Grade Civics Lesson

Originally posted on the Campaign for Liberty blog, courtesy of Don Rasmussen (via his mother)

The most eye-opening civics lesson I ever had was while teaching third grade. The presidential election was heating up and some of the children showed an interest. I decided we would have an election for a class president. We would choose our nominees. They would make a campaign speech and the class would vote.
To simplify the process, candidates were nominated by other class members. We discussed what kinds of characteristics these students should have. We got many nominations and from those, Jamie and Olivia were picked to run for the top spot.
The class had done a great job in their selections. Both candidates were good kids. I thought Jamie might have an advantage because he got lots of parental support. I had never seen Olivia’s mother. The day arrived when they were to make their speeches. Jamie went first. He had specific ideas about how to make our class a better place. He ended by promising to do his very best. Every one applauded. He sat down and Olivia came to the podium. Her speech was concise. She said, “If you will vote for me, I will give you ice cream.” She sat down. The class went wild. “Yes! Yes! We want ice cream.”
She surely would say more. She did not have to. A discussion followed. How did she plan to pay for the ice cream? She wasn’t sure. Would her parents buy it or would the class pay for it. She didn’t know. The class really didn’t care. All they were thinking about was ice cream. Jamie was forgotten. Olivia won by a land slide.
Every time Barack Obama opens his mouth he offers ice cream, and fifty percent of America reacts like nine year olds. They want ice cream. The other fifty percent know they’re going to have to feed the cow.

Before you dismiss this, honestly think about it.

I guess I'm a social retard!

You know, discrimination of all types abound. No doubt about it. Some are obvious; race, gender, class, etc. Some are extreme, others are less so.

One that surprised me, one that I never would've imagined, one that's become more and more apparent to me every day - is the one against homeschooling!

When I was a kid, people used to assume that homeschooled kids were stupid, that they weren't getting as good an education. It was common knowledge that parents could not possibly teach their children as well as trained professionals.

Well, that's been proved so far wrong that almost nobody bothers to assert that anymore. Homeschooled kids so routinely beat public school kids in every conceivable test that most public schools do their best to avoid all academic comparison. By every measure, homeschooling leads to far superior academic prowess.

Does this mean that people admit that homeschooling is better? Hardly. Having lost the battle when it comes to the very purpose of school (academic achievement), the default answer is that homeschooled kids have no social skills. Why? Because they weren't herded together in groups of thirty people of the exact same age, and droned at by underpaid and often underskilled teachers in a highly controlled beaureaucratic environment. This is obviously the best way to teach children the necessary skill for socializing in all other settings, as it so closely resembles... Um... Honestly? Nothing that I'm aware of.

When I was in New Orleans, everybody I knew there believed completely and totally in Astrology. I started asking people to guess my sign, and kept close track of the result (both strangers and people that knew me well). You would think that 1/12th of them would've guessed correctly. Nope - not a single one got it right. However, once I told them my sign, without exception they all said it was obvious, because it fit me so well. (You can guess how well this affirmed my belief in the system... *bullshit!*)

In the same way, I've never in my adult life had anyone guess that I was homeschooled. In fact, the vast majority of people express disbelief when I tell them that. Afterwards, though - they all start searching for any sign of social awkwardness, blunder, or faux pas. And when they see it, they immediately blame it on my homeschooling. It is clear that had I simply gone to public school, I would never make a single mistake. Ever.

I see them doing the exact same thing to other homeschooled people. But when it comes to the social blunders of publicly schooled individuals, all sorts of other reasons are given. "He's just a nerd." "She's immature." "He's kinda a jerk that way."

I've even had people claim they can tell a pattern in the "homeschooled social skills set" that points them out. Needless to say, I've never seen a successful demonstration of this so-called pattern.

You know what? I screw up in public a lot. I make stupid decisions, say things I probably shouldn't, make enemies where I don't mean to. It's not because I'm homeschooled. It's because I'm human. And probably a good bit because I'm a nerd with no interest in fitting in.

I know a lot of people with great social skills that went to public school. I know more that have little to none.

Reality check - very few people learn their social skills in school, whether it be home, public, or private. We learn them from our friends outside of class. We learn them from our parents, from our siblings. We learn them at summer camps, or at jobs. I learned mine first at home, then at church, at karate class, on the shooting range, in Boy Scouts, at the movie theater, out on dates. Did I screw up a lot when I was a teenager? Hell yeah. I'd like to find one person who can honestly say they didn't!

But saying that homeschooled kids can't socialize is the last bastion of hope remaining for those who cling to the public school model. People - wake up and admit the emperor has no clothes.

The public school model is a very recent phenomenon in human history. It's never been tried this way before. It will probably not be tried again for a long, long time. It is a complete and utter failure by every rational standard. Spending more money won't fix it. Hiring more specialists won't fix it. Pretending it's working won't fix it. It was an experiment - and it FAILED. We are close to dead last in every category when compared to any other "modern" nation. And when I talk to foreigners, they usually don't rave about American social skills, either.

So if you want to say that homeschoolers can't socialize, just keep clinging to that belief. The emperor looks mighty fine in that outfit, huh? There are homeschoolers that can't, no doubt about it. Just like there are public school kids that can't, and probably for the exact same reasons.

Homeschooling is not the only option, of course. And public education is quite doable, and a worthy endeavour. But not with the current system.

I leave you with a quote by C. S. Lewis

"We all want progress, but if you're on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive."

Jester