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.

The United States? Really?

Eight years ago today, we faced an unprecedented assault. And as a nation, we came together in a way that I had never witnessed in my lifetime. Even through the horror and loss, it seemed like the birth of something new, a patriotic fervor and pride that could wipe away the tarnish of our increasingly corrupt and bankrupt country.

On that day, who was not proud to be an American as we watched the firefighters giving their lives to try to save others? Who was not proud to be an American when they heard the story of flight 93, sacrificing themselves to prevent more deaths? Who was not proud to be an American when the Red Cross said they didn't need any more donors, because so many had stepped up?

On that day, I was sad at the loss. I was furious at the attackers. And I was proud of my country.

I don't think I've been proud of my country since then.

I know, I know - I have heard that if I don't love this country, I should just leave it. And that brings me to my post title. Are we really the United States? If so, what are we united about?

Pre Civil War, the States were considered sovereign, and signatories to a constitution resembling an alliance more than anything else (an oversimplification, of course). The literature consistently referred to these United States. Afterwards, with the solidification of centralized federal government, we were referred to as the United States. A subtle, but important difference.

But both Pre and Post Civil War, there were common things that united us as a nation. A love of liberty. A distrust of government power. A respect for individual accomplishment. A tradition of self-reliance. Stories of Johnny Appleseed, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin. A musical heritage that came later to include not just patriotic songs, but cowboy music, folk songs, dixieland, ragtime, and jazz. Easter. Christmas. Thanksgiving.

Now, what unites us? A quarter of this country celebrates Cinco De Mayo. The rest don't even know what that is. Thanksgiving and Christmas have become co-opted as commercial entities with no real meaning (if they're even mentioned. Easter has gone into hiding, except as a time to eat chocolate. Mmm... Cadburry eggs.

I can't think of a single thing that we agree on as a country. And just as telling, there's something that I think is more prevalent now than ever before; hate. It's not enough to disagree anymore. Now you have to have hatred for the opposition. You have to call them names. You have to imply that they are idiots for daring to disagree with you.

And you have to lump people into easy political categories whether they fit there or not. And if they're in the same category as you, you have to support them, whether or not you agree. If they're in a different category, you hate them. And everything they stand for.

Politically, I can't think of anything that unites California with Texas. Massachusetts with Alabama. New York with Montana.

So I ask you, in all honesty - what unites these states now? What do we have that we should be proud of right now that we all share? This isn't rhetorical - I'm searching for an answer here.

Now, to go back to something that I wrote earlier... If I don't love what this country has become, why don't I leave it? Because pride in my country is not the most important thing to me. My family lives in this country, and nothing tops that. I have a career in this country that I love, and the only thing that tops that is my family. And I have hope; hope that when the house of cards comes crashing down, we can rebuild something better. Something built on say, the Constitution of the United States.

But for now, are we united anymore?

The Limits of Power

I've been trying to mostly avoid the political issues, as they can get somewhat tiresome. But I just read an excellent essay by Anthony Gregory titled "Obama, Bush, and the limits of Power," and thought it worth passing along.

Two key paragraphs:

Constitutions alone cannot limit government. The overwhelming bulk of what the federal government is engaged in, from imperial wars to drug prohibition, from Social Security to Medicare, is unauthorized by the Constitution, and yet they persist. What matters ultimately is the Constitution in the hearts and minds of the people. So long as the American public supports unconstitutional actions, such actions will commence. Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty, as Jefferson noted. The Constitution spells out great limits on the government, but without the support of the people, the document loses its teeth.

and

...given the stark similarities between both political parties, at least in their leadership, as well as the nature of government itself, it will not do for folks to condemn Obama as Big Brother and a would-be dictator while simultaneously defending torture, more war, and the Bush administration; nor does it make sense to oppose Bush and all he stood for while virulently backing Obama, who's brandishing Bush's executive power grabs, continuing his foreign policy, bailing out the same financial interests and seeking to control more areas of our lives. Can a reorientation of the American public, along more coherent ideological lines, be achieved? If ever there was a time for us to make our case, now is it.

It is not a Republican vs. Democrat problem. It is not a Right vs. Left problem. It is a freedom vs. government power issue. It seems like more and more are waking up to this reality... But it is too early to see whether enough are coming to terms with this to make a difference.

Thought for the day...

I am not a conservative.

I am not a liberal.

I am not a moderate.

Why is it that these are my only societally approved choices? Why are all others considered ridiculous, fringe, kooky, or irrelevant?

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?

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.

Ten Politically Incorrect Truths

Came across this awhile back on "Psychology Today."

Why most suicide bombers are Muslim, beautiful people have more daughters, humans are naturally polygamous, sexual harassment isn't sexist, and blonds are more attractive.

By: Alan S. Miller Ph.D., Satoshi Kanazawa Ph.D.

An interesting read, though most of it seems pretty damn obvious to anyone who is willing to look at reality vs. politically correct utopian ideals.

If I said you had a beautiful body, would you hold it against me?

Now, any guy who has ever talked to a woman knows that complimenting her is a risky undertaking. Women are beyond pessimistic when it comes to compliments. Generally, she'll either:

1) Refuse to believe your sincerity,
2) Give you a long list of reasons why you're wrong, or
3) All of the above.

After pondering this for the last, I don't know, entire lifetime of mine, I've come to some speculations on why this might be so.

We all know women face a tough road when it comes to looks. Not so much from men, although we are a shallow bunch that loves to judge a book by its cover. No, where it really sucks to be a woman is in the view of other women. Women are ferocious, spiteful, and vicious to each other when it comes to looks. This is from her weight to her makeup to her hair to her outfit...

It is always amusing to me to hear women complain about how fake the female models in men's magazine's look. I have had enough female friends in my life that I've thumbed through a women's magazine or two. They have about ten million more ads than men's magazines, and in all of them, the models look like severely anorexic robots with clown makeup and sci-fi hair. It is everything that women judge, but taken to an impressive excess. What's fake about the women in men's magazines? They airbrush out the stretchmarks, and they usually have overly-large-yet-curiously-perky boobies. That's about it. But I digress.

Women are judged on their appearance from the day they're born, and after awhile, they grow very insecure about it. Who wouldn't? I guarantee, if men had to display their genitalia 24/7 for constant judgment, we'd be a lot more insecure, too. And probably a lot more anorexic; I think that sight would make me lose my appetite.

I don't know who has a tougher time in the long run, beautiful women, or plain/cute/average women.* In their youth, beautiful women don't have to develop a personality. Or brains. Or social skills of any variety. They're given a free pass on every facet of social interaction. I can't tell you how many times a night a 20-something hottie comes up to me onstage and asks to get her song played for free, and in front of all the songs people are tipping me $10 and $20 for. When I laugh and refuse, you can see the fuses blowing in what passes for a mind; she cannot compute being turned down. It's never happened to her before.

Unfortunately, 20-something hotties are usually not so hott a few years down the road. And then what do they do? The only currency they possess is their fast-fading looks, and it's an ever-falling exchange rate.

Average, cute, or plain women on the other hand often develop a sense of humor, an intellect, an ability to listen, and interact, and generally be a good person. And I can't tell you how many times I've seen an average looking girl get hotter and hotter in my eyes based solely on her personality. But she'll be insecure about her looks, I promise you. All her life, she's been judged and found wanting, through no fault of her own.

Yeah, it's a tough, tough world for women. Then throw in men, tossing out the compliments. Men usually do this for one of three reasons:

1) An attempt at manipulation (usually to try to get laid)
2) A feeling of obligation (usually an attempt to avoid drama while in a long-term relationship)
3) Sincerity

Let's look at number one first. Cause that's how I roll. (not with the manipulation, but with taking sequences sequentially)

Women are smarter than men think they are. They don't think the same way, and don't care about the same things, and often come across to men as intellectually inferior. Heh. Don't believe it for a second! Different does not always mean lesser, a lesson both sexes have yet to learn. I could go off on the different ways men and women think, but that's a topic for a whole blog of its own. Or perhaps a series. So what does this mean when it comes to complimenting women to try to get somewhere with them?

While you're thinking about how smooth you are, they're seeing right through you. When it comes to relationships, women are far more devious than any straight man could ever be. Their major weakness is often that they're so Byzantine in their plotting that they have trouble relating to the straight-forward nature of men. So why does complimenting women work to manipulate them so often?

Because they want it to. Trust me guys, you're not going to talk a girl into wanting you. She either does or doesn't, and has likely made up her mind long before you even start trying. You're not manipulating them, they're manipulating themselves. Let your ego deflate and go with it.

So number one? Useless.

Number two - also known as "Of course you look great in that dress, honey" - I've never reached that stage in a relationship, so I can't speak much about it. It seems the height of absurdity to me, but maybe I'll understand when I've been down that road a few miles.

Number three - ah, that's the crux. Complimenting a woman because you mean it.

See, here is the tragedy; I think men innately hold women in a higher regard than they're allowed to express. Women today have been raised to be bitchy, and men know it. Men are no longer raised to be assertive, aggressive, and self-confident. So telling a woman something that she's going to immediately either dismiss or get contrary over - that's not something most modern men can handle.

I intend to write a post later on the negative effects of modern male/female relations. But for now, I'm just going to say it's such a shame that men are in the position they're in on this topic, because I think a lot of men see women as beautiful overall, not just the rare girl who's been starved and made-up and cinched up to meet some artificial standard of beauty.

So men, take my cousin Ben's advice; reach down inside your pants. Feel that ballsack; hold it in your hand, and say to yourself "I am a MAN. I can DO this thing!"

Now that you have come to perhaps the most important realization you can have in this modern world, the next time you see a girl with pretty hair, walk up to her and say "Excuse me, ma'am. I just wanted to tell you you have pretty hair." Then walk off. Don't wait for a response; you don't need one. When you see a girl with a beautiful smile, say "Pardon me, but your smile just brightened my day a little bit." Then walk on. Don't do it for any gain on your part, and do it without fear. Women today need some encouragement; they're in a lonely place. Two thing will come of this; you are going to make some girl's day just a little bit better. And you're going to reclaim a little bit of the manhood that society has stolen from you.

And women; smile. I guarantee, you're far more lovely than you let yourself believe. No, this doesn't entitle you to jack shit. But neither should you worry about it so much. And I know you do.

Peace and shit,

Jester

*As with all generalities, there are abundant exceptions. I know several intoxicatingly gorgeous women who are possessed of the keenest of intellect and richest of humor. I also know average women who are just bitchy. And I've known some downright ugly women of both varieties. It happens.