Simply Blogical

The only thing creationism accomplishes is destruction.

Every 10 years, the Texas Board of Education votes on how to change the state’s school curriculum. The Texas Board of Education is comprised of 15 elected members, and as you could have probably guessed, the vast majority of them are right-wing Christians. Among the many propositions that were voted on, one was the addition of creationism into Texas’s public school curriculum. Creationism is the literal belief in the account of creation given in the Book of Genesis. Creationism denies the theory of the evolution of species. The teaching of creationism in public schools is wrong on many levels.

Firstly, the “theory” of creationism is scientifically incorrect. Countless scientific errors can be drawn from Genesis (not to mention the bible in general), which can be understood due to the advancement of scientific discovery since the bible was created. Lets observe a few scientifically unsatisfactory concepts from Genesis. Genesis states that God created light 3 days before the sun and the stars. This is impossible because daylight is caused by the energy emissions from the sun (a star). The bible also states that earth was created before the stars. This is incorrect because earth is billions of years younger than many stars. While earth is scientifically concluded to be about 4.7 billion years old, astrologists have discovered light from many stars that have been analyzed to be up to 14 billion years old. The bible also states that the earth was created in 6 days and humans and animals in less than 1 day, whereas science concludes that the earth and all life has evolved over billions of years. Regardless of the innumerable additional scientific inconsistencies that can be found in Genesis, teaching creationism in schools is not only intellectually harmful, but it is also psychologically damaging.

By teaching developing minds to accept the literal interpretation of the bible, students will be damaged mentally and emotionally. First, students will learn to accept ideas despite the lack of any factual backing, which will handicap their intellectual ability. Many will get the idea that solely because many other people believe something, regardless of how fallacious it is, it must be true. Next, students will get the impression that if some parts of the bible should be literally interpreted, then why shouldn’t others be? The bible also states that homosexuals, fortunetellers, people who don’t listen to priests, people who hit their father, non-believers, followers of other religions, people who work on the Sabbath, and many more innocent people must be killed, so why shouldn't this also be taken literally? Also, the bible commands many acts of self-sacrifice necessary in order to go to heaven after death. By obeying the literal messages of the bible, it may force the individual to live life in a way that he or she does not want, in hopes to enjoy an unproven and unrealistic afterlife instead of enjoying reality in whichever way makes the person happy.

Despite all of the harmful effects of teaching creationism, these are not the underlying factors of why creationism should not be taught in public schools. Anyone who wishes to accept, teach, or learn about creationism should be able to -- if someone wants to be self-destructive, they should be able to do so as long as it does not impose physical harm onto anyone else. One should not have his or her money forcefully taken and given toward something that he or she does not want. Texas is proposing to use the money forcefully taken from all Texas residents and to use it toward teaching creationism, which is wrong as it forces a number of individuals to spend their money toward something against their wishes. As Thomas Jefferson agrees, the foundation of individual rights and the key to a successful nation is "the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

Legalize it!

The organizers of the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010 have now collected enough signatures in order for the legalization of marijuana to be placed on the 2010 California ballot along with the choice with the state’s governor. The use of marijuana, and in fact all drugs should be legal, as the benefits are outmatched.

Firstly, legalizing drugs would make communities safer. It was reported in “Heroin: The Shocking Story” that drugs are connected to 40% of all crimes, and in Wharton Econometrics for the US Customs Service that police blame drugs for 25% of car thefts, 40% of robberies and assaults, and 50% of burglaries and thefts. When such an addictively demanded product is very expensive, cravings and fixes make individuals steal and ignore rational judgment, which accounts for a large portion of the percentages listed above. After the sale and use of drugs would be decriminalized, the price would fall dramatically due to the law of supply and demand (supply increases, price falls). When the price massively decreases, people will not have to go through such drastic measures to purchase the drugs they want; they will no longer have to steal to satisfy their habits. A study done by Lester P. Silverman, a former associate director for the National Academy of Sciences’ Assembly of Behavior and Social Sciences, shows the clear correlation between drug price and crime rates: a 10 percent increase in the price of heroin caused a 3.1 percent increase in property crimes, armed robbery by 6.4 percent, and simple assault by 5.6 percent in a nonwhite neighborhood in Detroit.

Another way that legalizing drugs could make our communities safer is that it would improve our police. Currently, studies show that from 33% to 50% of all police resources are used for drug activity and drug related crimes. If drugs were legalized, this huge amount of these resources would be freed to put to use towards other more imperative crimes.

Legalizing drugs could also sharply decrease organized crime. If drugs were to be legalized, the legal market would acquire most of the customers from the black market, as their products would be much more trusted, have higher quality, and be cheaper. Profit margins would decrease for gangs to the point that their power and threat would decrease immensely.

The legalization of drugs would make the product much safer than if it’s sale was left to the black market. Currently, most drugs go through multiple sources, which the buyer usually knows nothing about. These sources often lace and tamper with the drugs. Also, many drugs like heroin and cocaine are diluted with substances, which are unknown to the consumer and can be very harmful, and even deadly. If drugs were legalized, due to the free market, consumers would purchase the products from a reliable source. If you were to purchase any product, would you rather buy a name brand from a grocery store or from a guy who knows a guy who knows a guy who gets it from a cousin internationally?

I can go on, explaining many more of different beneficial impacts of the legalization of drugs from the reduction of prison overcrowding to the reduction of the spread of AIDS, but these are only side effects to the main reason why all drugs should be legal: every individual should have the right to do what he or she wishes with his or her own body.

**Statistics from bmstahoe.com

The United States of America is a non-Constitutional Republic.

America is currently failing because it has failed to comply with the constitution. How has this happened? Well it originally was caused by the mistakes of the founding fathers! How do we cure the nation? Educate with the logical analysis of problems from the root level.

The United States of America was founded on the principal of the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This simply means that all individuals have the right to live, to have no force used upon them, and to be free to pursue their interests (as long as it does not contradict the right to life or liberty of others). This right to the pursuit of happiness means that all individuals are free to act in whichever way they want, unless it imposes force onto another; it is a right to the freedom of action.

The right to the pursuit of happiness is commonly misunderstood. People commonly mistake the pursuit of happiness for happiness itself, meaning they believe that the constitution promises happiness (goods and/or services) for “free” (i.e. healthcare). What they do not understand is that the constitution does not allow laws to contradict, and that being given goods/services for free by the government in fact contradicts the constitutional right to the liberty of others.

Nothing is “free”. Goods must be paid for in one way or another, so when you get something for “free” through the government, others are forced to pay for your goods through taxation. The property of others is being forcefully stolen. Taxation violates the constitution as it contradicts the right to liberty.

Once it becomes governmentally acceptable to contradict the constitution, there is no basis to stopping additional unconstitutional acts from occurring – the constitution becomes futile. For example, once it is made possible to impose taxes for certain things, there is no basis for stopping more taxes from occurring. The USA’s constitutional republic has become a non-constitutional republic, and now legality is determined by governmental figures and without limitations. This will inevitably cause democracy (tyranny of the majority), corruption (alternative motives of government officials), and will result in the overall failure of a nation. Just look at America now.

This all traces back to the failure of the founding fathers. Although their ideas seemed revolutionary and noble, they implemented it in a way with weak philosophical backing, inconsistencies, and loopholes, which caused it to become futile. For example, the founding fathers contradicted their own system when they introduced taxes, allowed slavery, and the list goes on, which immediately paved the way for the constitution to erode.

A new constitution with a similar, but more specific underlying philosophy must be set, but will only be effective if there the loopholes are sealed and it is properly implemented. Perhaps the only way this can happen is to educate American citizens, so that when America falls, people will understand the fundamental problem and solution.

Stephen Mack, Blogger and Professor at the University of Southern California, made a post on his blog about how monetary equality is key to the success of a nation. He states “It is economic inequality, not overall wealth or cultural differences, that fosters societal breakdown, they argue, by boosting insecurity and anxiety, which leads to divisive prejudice between the classes, rampant consumerism, and all manner of mental and physical suffering. Though Sweden and Japan have low levels of economic inequality for different reasons - the former redistributes wealth, while in the latter case, the playing field is more level from the start, with a smaller range of incomes - both have relatively low crime rates and happier, healthier citizens.” I personally disagree with this statement, and will explain why from a few different points.

Firstly, Professor Mack, let’s imagine an example of this system of equality which you commend. You distribute an average grade to everyone in your class regardless each individual’s personal success. The points of all students are distributed evenly regardless of their individual scores. For example, those students who had earned an A, must now distribute their points to those with B’s, C’s, D’s, and F’s, and the B students must distribute their points to the C, D, and F students, and so on, until all students have an equal grade (lets say a C). Now, what would the incentive be for a student to try to get an A if he or she is going to end up with the same grade as everyone else anyways? But it doesn’t end here. Now over time, the amount of students who achieve the higher grades will be vastly diminished, and more people’s grades are going to be lower, therefore the average will move downwards, from a C to a D and so on. This type of grading system inevitably dooms this class to failure… it is also a microcosmical replica of the concept of socialism.

Being “productive” in an economy holds an equivalent meaning as “benefitting others”: providing something that others demand. When individuals are not rewarded for being productive, the incentive to be productive reduces, and therefore the amount that people benefit others sharply decreases. If humans were enslaved by a socialist system from the beginning of human existence, we would most likely still be living like cavemen –surely without technology like electricity, automobiles and penicillin. Socialism rewards individuals for being lazy and unproductive (which is destructive to a nation) rather than being productive hard workers who benefit others and make the nation and world a better place. Societal breakdown does not stem from economic freedom (which Mack calls “economic inequality”), but rather economic equality.

“But that is too extreme! Socialistic systems must be made in moderation!”

Ok, now imagine instead of all C-grades, there will be a distribution of B’s, C’s, and D’s. Once again, as process repeats, the grades are going to drop and the overall average will continue to decrease. The only difference of between suppressed socialistic system and a complete socialistic system is that the former prolongs the process of failure.

Next, the passage also implies that Mack judges the “success” of a social system based on “low crime rates and happier, healthier citizens”. While I agree that these characteristics are beneficial to a social system, they are not the primary factor of judging its success. Firstly, “low crime rates” do not mean that a nation is successful. A country like North Korea with extremely harsh punishments faces very low crime rates.

Next, judging success based on how happy citizens are cannot be measured unless measured by the majority or a specific party, which is consistent with utilitarianism and democracy. As I have touched upon before, just because something would make the majority happier does not mean that it is right. If the majority would be happier with slaves, and therefore slavery was permitted, does this mean that the nation is successful?

Lastly, judging success based off of the rate of healthy citizens does not have to do with the success of the social system. If a nation were to ban all fast foods, trans fats, smoking, etc, and impose harsh punishments upon violation, the health of the majority would increase. Additionally, the possibility for increased health for people across the world comes from the technology and medicine created from capitalistic economies because of its freedom to allow individuals to be freely (or somewhat freely) rewarded for their productivity.

Overall success of a nation stems from its protection of the ability for all individuals to be naturally rewarded by the free market and to have control over their rewards. This actually brings about increased safety, better medicine, and would increase the overall quality of life for everyone. Sadly, our current socio-economic state isn’t run this way, although it is evident that the similarities cause much of the success of America.

On thanksgiving night at around 2:25 am, Woods had apparently backed out of his Orlando home driveway and had been “distracted” and accidently crashed into a fire hydrant and his neighbor’s tree. Supposedly, when his wife, Elin Nordegren, heard the car crash she decided to grab a golf club so she could break the back window in order to save him, and then pulled him out and laid him on the ground, when cops came and saw her franticly hovering over him. Woods suffered facial lacerations and was in and out of consciousness.

Soon after, it was reported that prior to the car crash, Woods and Nordegren had gotten into a fight after she confronted him about his alleged mistress; it was actually she who had given him the facial lacerations before chasing him out of the house with a golf club, smashing his car as he attempted to drive away, and causing him to be distracted and crash. The police dispute this scenario.

This incident shows a clear example of sexism. Let’s imagine that Woods and Nordegren had played opposite roles in this scenario: It had been reported that Woods had gotten into a fight with Nordegren about her alleged affair, giving her facial lacerations, and then chasing her out of the house with a golf club, smashing her car as she attempted to drive away, and causing her to crash into a fire hydrant and a tree, hospitalizing her and leaving her in and out of consciousness. In this event, the law and the public would be swarming Woods, and according to Florida’s strict domestic-violence laws, Woods would be arrested, even if his wife protested it.

Society’s action against men who abuse women and its oblivion to women abusing men is a double standard. Justice calls for equality under the law for all individuals, regardless of gender, race, income, creed, etc. Regardless if a man infringes upon the rights of a woman or a woman infringes upon the rights of a man, they both deserve equivalent punishment. The fact that the police dispute the evident scenario shows really how just our system is continuing to become.

P.S. Imagine the public reaction that this video would have caused if it made light of the Rihanna/Chris Brown incident.

Discrimination is the “unequal treatment of persons, for a reason which has nothing to do with legal rights or ability”. Discrimination takes on many forms, whether it is discrimination in speech, employment, educational opportunity, and the list goes on. Due to the large amount of areas that discrimination can take place, in this post I will mainly focus my attention on discrimination in the workplace. Currently, the U.S. Equal Opportunity Commission has established federal laws, which “seek to prevent discrimination based on race, sex, religion, national origin, physical disability, and age by employers.” In this post I will argue why discrimination in the workplace should be legal, and will afterwards discuss the flaws of probable common opposing views.

The proper function of the government is to protect individual rights. Equal Opportunity is not an individual right. Therefore the proper function of the government does not include the establishment of equal opportunity laws.

The proper function of the government is to protect individual rights. By doing so, it is made sure that individual rights are inalienable and that the majority opinion (or opinion from any party) cannot strip anyone of their freedoms. Capitalism ensures that all individuals are free to stay true to their innate instinct to pursue their own self-interests (without infringing upon the rights of another) and are treated equally under the law: Capitalism’s ruling principle is justice.

Equal Opportunity is not an individual right, because in order for individual rights to work, they must not contradict with each other; Equal Opportunity contradicts the individual right to control one’s own property. Just as everyone should have the right to do whatever they wish with their possessions (as long as it does not infringe upon the individual rights of others), this same principle should remain true with their privately owned businesses. Consider a woman who owns her own home and privately owned business (both are owned entirely by her). She had spent $100 thousand of her hard earned pay on each of these. Should it be legal for her to not allow a neo-Nazi to enter her own home? If so, then it is no different then to not allow a Jewish person into her home. Also, it would be no different then to deny the person access into her own home then into her own business. Equal Opportunity laws force individuals to do something with their property against their will, thus violating their right to control their own property; therefore Equal Opportunity is not an individual right. An employer should always have their right to control their own property, and the principle of Equal Opportunity completely contradicts this. It is a right to be able to discriminate on one’s own property.

Once the principle of an individual’s right to property is destroyed, the foundation of all individual rights is destroyed. Now there is no uniform standard or rational basis for judging legality. Rights are now determined by something other than the objective standard of individual rights, and are subject to be determined by an biased party (whether it’s the majority, a dictator, etc), and will inevitably be exploited, causing the quality of life for all to plummet. For this reason, individual rights cannot be sacrificed.

A common belief about discrimination is, “It seems only fair that we do not discriminate against people because of inherent traits. Everyone has the right to pursue a career based on their hard work and merit and should not be prevented from doing so because of characteristics they can not control and did not choose.” (TA Sattler).

What is unfair is to deny anyone his or her property rights and give certain individuals more rights than others. Regardless if one is white, black, purple, pregnant, handicapped, etc., violating someone else’s property should be illegal. Sure, everyone has the right to pursue a career, but that does not mean that they have the right to forcefully violate the property rights of the employer. It is discriminatory to not allow employers to have their right to discriminate, but to allow potential employees to have the right to discriminate against the potential employer. Also, on a side note, this statement argues that it should be illegal to hire a black actor even if he is a worse actor for the role of Martin Luther King.

Another common view about why discrimination should be illegal is because “Businesses understand the importance of obtaining a diverse labor force, and part of that diversity comes from a healthy balance of employees of each gender. Diversity stimulates higher efficiencies and a stronger company moral, both of which result in a better bottom line.”

While I completely agree that it usually the case that diversity is in the best interest businesses, it is not the governments proper function to interfere with one’s business (no pun intended), even if it is to help the business. This is the reason for America’s current Corporatism system, where the government chooses the businesses that it wants to be winners. A beauty of capitalism is that it naturally discredits discrimination, as it is in the best interest of businesses to make additional profits; Money is money, regardless of the physical characteristics of the person that it comes from. Because it is in the best interest of a business to make money, the current anti-discrimination regulations make hiring more diverse employees potentially costly, and therefore decrease the amount of diverse employees in the workplace.

A common view about maternity discrimination is, “…before any sort of regulation, many companies would simply lay off or require the resignation of women who were pregnant, leaving them without pay and without a job. Is that really better than the current unethical and illegal discrimination?”

It is unethical to deny a business owner the right to his or her property. The employer should not be punished just because an employee chooses to have (or accidentally has) a baby. Let’s run through a thought experiment: You run your own business. You have no siblings or a living father. Your mother is deathly sick, immobile outside of the country. The only way that she can survive is if you pay for her treatment with the money that you are currently making from your business – but you must also stay with your mother outside of the country to support her while she recovers. In order for your mother to survive, you must make enough money to pay for the treatments, but the problem is that you wont be able to run your company from china, so you have to promote someone while you are gone. You have two top candidates: a 30-year-old single male college graduate and a 34-year-old newly wed female with an even higher level of education (you have also noticed baby magazines on her desk lately). Remember: your mother’s life depends upon the profits of the company. Do you think you should have the right to “discriminate”?

Another common view is, “it is essential to remember that these regulations have been put into place because these classes have already been discriminated against, and for a country that is rooted up the principles of equality and the opportunity to work hard and earn an honest living, it is unjust to allow for businesses to discriminate.”

Firstly, the United States of America was not “rooted up in the principles of equality”, but rather the principles of freedom. The only equality that the founding fathers approved of was equal individual rights for all. Congressman Ron Paul stated, "It was not the founding fathers' job to manage the economy, or make American businesses competitive. That was up to the free market and American businesses." Justice is equality under the law. It is unjust to not allow business owners their right to property. It is also unjust to only allow non-business owners their right to discriminate, and revoke this right for business owners.

Today, many government regulations exist in order to help the needy. Some examples of these regulations include anti-discrimination laws, maternity leave, and the minimum wage. Something that is often overlooked is that many of these regulations are actually more harmful than beneficial to the people that these regulations seek to aid. In this post, we will observe the government regulations exemplified above, and see how they in fact do more harm than good.

Currently in the United States, federal and state laws prohibit discrimination in “employment, availability of housing, rates of pay, right to promotion, educational opportunity, civil rights, and use of facilities based on race, nationality, creed, color, age, sex, or sexual orientation.” This actually causes business employers to avoid interviewing the people who this law is supposed to benefit most, as there is a potential cost of being sued if they do not get the job. As an example, according to a study from MIT, as a result of the Americans with Disabilities act, which prohibits discrimination under circumstances of people with disabilities, employment “dropped sharply”.

Today, a large percentage of discrimination against women in the workplace stems from their ability to take a “maternity leave”. A maternity leave is when an employer must grant the employee up to a total of 12 unpaid workweeks during any 12-month period: one of the reasons being for the birth and care of the newborn child of the employee. Due to the potential costs of having an employee take a 12-week break and, as stated above, the legal costs in response to being sued for discriminating in the workplace, many employers choose to not take the risk, and stay away from even interviewing these potential costs.

Today, throughout the United States, there is a minimum wage law that prohibits any employers from paying any employee below a certain amount. It is illegal for an employee and an employer to consensually agree on an hourly rate below the minimum wage. Dr. Milton Friedman, Nobel Memorial Prize winner in economics, has stated that while this regulation aims to help poor people who need money, it in fact assures that people whose skills are not sufficient enough to justify the current minimum wage are unemployed.

The purpose of observing these few examples of government regulations that seek to aid those in need is to show that they are inefficient and are actually harmful. These examples of government regulations that infringe upon individual rights can serve as a microcosm of even larger regulations which currently exist and which have the potential of existing depending in the future.

I will be discussing why I believe that Capitalism is the best form of a social system in a three-part post. These three posts will demonstrate why Capitalism collectively holds the best ethics, foundation, and economy.

In this post, I will illustrate why Capitalism is the most ethical and just form of social systems. In order to best illustrate the beauty of the ethics of Capitalism, I will first point out the ethical flaws of Democracy, and will then compare both social systems.

Under democracy, the function of the government periodically changes, as the majority holds state-power. Democracy has one major flaw in its system: Just because the majority believes something does not make it right. Once rights become influence-able by the majority, the potential for unethical acts to occur increases infinitely, as the amount of rights that the majority has the power to strip become endless.

As founding father Benjamin Franklin once said, “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.” Franklin was not the only founding father to understand this concept. Thomas Jefferson said, "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%." and John Adams said, "That the desires of the majority of the people are often for injustice and inhumanity against the minority, is demonstrated by every page of the history of the world." Democracy opens the door for minorities to be stripped of their individual rights and to be made into involuntarily self-sacrificial slaves. Consider the following: If the majority of the people in a nation voted that African-Americans should not be able to have a complete set of rights, do you believe that they should have the power to make this so?

Some may say that the reason why such decisions should be left up to the majority is because there is no way that they could make such a preposterous decision – but this is not the case. Today, the majority in most states of the United States believes that homosexual couples should not have the right to marry; therefore, today, homosexual couples in these states do not have the freedom to marry. The case of homosexual marriage is just one case out of many where the rights of minorities are being unethically stripped because of the opinion of the majority. The rights of individuals, which do not infringe upon the rights of others, should not be influenced by the personal preference of the majority.

As stated above, under Democracy, the concept of inalienable rights is completely destroyed and the amount of individual rights that the majority has the power to strip becomes endless. Democracy is a subjective, unjust, and minorit-ist social system.

On the other hand, Capitalism is the fairest type of social system possible, where the boundaries of potential unethical acts to take place are extremely smaller then those of democracy. Under capitalism, the government’s only function is to protect a concrete set of objective individual rights; these allow all individuals to live as they please, as long as they don't infringe upon the rights of others (using force upon others or their property).

Acts such as homosexual marriage would be acceptable, regardless of the majority view, as they do not infringe upon anyone’s rights. Acts such as stealing would not be permissible (regardless of whether it is carried out by a human or by the government), as it would infringe upon an individual’s property rights. Capitalism recognizes that every individual deserves to have the freedom to use what he or she earns in whichever way he or she chooses. The boundary of “unethical” acts that can legally take place under Capitalism is the passive act of not giving, whereas with Democracy, the boundary is endless. Capitalism protects all individuals from becoming involuntarily self-sacrificial.

Capitalism makes sure that individual rights are inalienable and that the majority opinion cannot strip anyone of their freedoms. Capitalism ensures that all individuals are free to pursue their own self-interests (without infringing upon the rights of another) and are treated equally under the law: Capitalism’s ruling principle is justice.

P.S. To those who may find this important: Capitalism naturally rewards individuals based on the degree in which they benefit others.

How is the welfare state slavery?

Stephen Mack at The New Democratic Review wrote a post about the relation between religion and democratic politics. He states that the two are like “alienated kindred vying for the same space in the human imagination”. He also draws connections on how each emits a feeling of empowerment in its followers from being able to make decisions based on the morals and ideas instilled in the individual and how both offer something bigger to be a part of. From observing Mack’s interesting point, I have pondered the similarities between religion and democratic politics.

English writer, journalist, Oxford graduate, and public intellectual, Christopher Hitchens, is widely recognized for his involvement in the modern expansion of atheism. Hitchens has recently released his newest book titled god is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. Not only has he captured the eyes of the public through his books, but also through his appearances on talk shows, lecture circuits, and his columns on many publications such as Vanity Fair and World Affairs. Hitchens’ stance on the topic of religion is evident after observing the name of his book.