Why America is FAILING

Saturday, March 27, 2010 by TG

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.

Why Capitalism? [Major Statement]

Friday, March 12, 2010 by TG

Capitalism is the best form of a social system as it collectively holds the most just ethics and effective economy. "Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned. The recognition of individual rights entails the banishment of physical force from human relationships: basically, rights can be violated only by means of force. In a capitalist society, no man or group may initiate the use of physical force against others [or their property]. The only function of the government, in such a society, is the task of protecting man’s rights, i.e., the task of protecting him from physical force; the government acts as the agent of man’s right of self-defense, and may use force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use; thus the government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of force under objective control." A social system is a standard for which laws are in place. Many different types of social systems exist, from Anarchy to Dictatorship; therefore, in order to maintain brevity, we will emphasize the superiority of capitalism mainly through comparing it with one of today’s most revered and popular social systems: democracy.

To begin with, ask your-self, “What should and should not be legal?” After you have a basic idea of what you think should and shouldn’t be legal, think about the foundation of your beliefs. What is the underlying premise that ties your laws together? Think about it, and then continue reading.

Was your premise “What is right should be legal, and what is wrong should be illegal”? If so, are you saying that you believe that you should be a dictator and make things legal or illegal based off of your own opinion of what is right and wrong? If so, in what way you believe the dictator should be appointed? Kinship? Lottery? Majority vote? Do you believe that all dictators will hold valid opinions on what is right and wrong? Or do you not believe in dictatorship, but what should be legal and illegal should come from what the majority believes is right and wrong? This is democracy.

Firstly, the ethical foundation of the social system of Capitalism is far superior to that of democracy. 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 to be right 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 who was appalled by the concept of democracy. 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 than those of democracy. 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 as under capitalism, the government’s only function is to protect a inalienable set of objective individual rights; these allow all individuals to live as they please, as long as they do not 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 or physical violence 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 rights (imposes force upon them unwillingly).

Capitalism makes sure that individual rights are inalienable and that the majority opinion cannot strip anyone of their freedoms. Capitalism ensures that each individual is in charge of his or her own happiness. The greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people (the foundation of democracy and utilitarianism) doesn’t matter – what matters is that each individual has the freedom to have his or her increased effort, industry, and skill be rewarded accordingly (foundation of capitalism). Every individual deserves to have the freedom to use what he or she earns in whichever way he or she chooses, unless it imposes force upon another. Happiness is different for every individual, and a beauty of Capitalism is that it allows each individual to pursue his or her own happiness as long as it doesn’t impose force on another. Capitalism ensures that all individuals are free to pursue their own self-interests and are treated equally under the law: Capitalism’s ruling principle is justice.

Aside from capitalism’s superior ethical foundation, it also holds an economic system that dominates that of democracy. We will again first observe the economic result of democracy, and then compare it to the economic result of capitalism.

To begin with, lets observe a model. Consider a difficult American history class. In the class, there are 30 students: 4 students achieve A-grades, 5 students achieve B-grades, 11 students achieve C-grades, 6 students achieve D-grades, and 4 students achieve F-grades. The teacher holds a vote where the students have the option to select whether each student should receive the individual grade that he or she achieves, or that the average class grade should be distributed evenly amongst all students. All students who achieved A’s and B’s (9 students) vote that all students receive the grades which they achieve, but all students with C’s, D’s, and F’s (21 students) vote that all of the points be distributed until all grades are equal. The majority vote was for the second option, therefore now an average grade is distributed to everyone in the class regardless of each individual’s personal success. 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 average grade (lets say a C). Now, what would be the incentive 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? Every student's individual effort and grade will drop, therefore the class average will drop from a C, to a D, and so on. This type of grading system, which stemmed from a democratic vote, inevitably doomed this class to failure. This example is a microcosm of the concept of democracy.

In 1787, founding father John Adams said, “Suppose a nation, rich and poor, high and low, ten millions in number, all assembled together; not more than one or two millions will have lands, houses, or any personal property; if we take into the account the women and children, or even if we leave them out of the question, a great majority of every nation is wholly destitute of property, except a small quantity of clothes, and a few trifles of other movables. Would Mr. Nedham be responsible that, if all were to be decided by a vote of the majority, the eight or nine millions who have no property would not think of usurping over the rights of the one or two millions who have? Property is surely a right of mankind as really as liberty. Perhaps, at first, prejudice, habit, shame or fear, principle or religion, would restrain the poor from attacking the rich, and the idle from usurping on the industrious; but the time would not be long before courage and enterprise would come, and pretexts be invented by degrees, to countenance the majority in dividing all the property among them, or at least, in sharing it equally with its present possessors. Debts would be abolished first; taxes laid heavy on the rich, and not at all on the others; and at last a downright equal division of every thing be demanded, and voted. What would be the consequence of this? The idle, the vicious, the intemperate, would rush into the utmost extravagance of debauchery, sell and spend all their share, and then demand a new division of those who purchased from them. The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If ‘Thou shalt not covet,’ and ‘Thou shalt not steal,’ were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society, before it can be civilized or made free.”

In democracy, politicians aim for power by appealing to the short-term interests of the majority. Politicians boast their promises to provide the majority with benefits that allow them to work less hard and receive more benefits: some examples include providing free healthcare, free education, and an overall larger safety net, usually consisting of the redistribution of wealth. It is inevitable that democracy will gateway into a socialistic economy: one where property and wealth are controlled by the government and are distributed relatively evenly. This fosters an economic environment where the improvements to the quality of life come to a halt.

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. Socialism rewards individuals for accomplishing nothing rather than being productive hard workers who benefit others and make the nation and world a better place. 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. Sure, there are those minute few who are naturally driven to produce because of sheer curiosity, self-satisfaction, or desire to help others, but alone they could not be responsible for virtually any percentage of the technological and medical advancements in the world today. Just as Henry Ford created the automobile because of the opportunity for reward, the same is true for the vast majority of all other innovations.

Overall success of a nation stems from, as Thomas Jefferson put it, “the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.” meaning the protection of the ability for all individuals to be naturally rewarded by the free market and to have control over their rewards. An amazing aspect of capitalism is that it naturally rewards individuals according to how much they benefit others. Capitalism also creates economic competition, which causes all parties to try to become even more beneficial to others (i.e. provide higher quality at cheaper prices). It is common sense to understand that a nation with an economic system that rewards every individual based on his or her benefit to others will progress much more rapidly than one that rewards every individual regardless of how beneficial he or she is to others. It is not a coincidence that the vast majority of innovations that help millions of individuals around the world were born in capitalistic economies.

“Capitalism obviously doesn’t work. Just look at America’s history.”

America is not a complete capitalist nation; it has a capitalistic mixed economy. Initially, there was not an evident philosophy supporting the system, which therefore allowed the foundation of the constitutional republic to be compromised, and consequently destroyed. Because there was no evident philosophy behind the system, it was eventually made possible for the government to be able to change the constitution (the standard of judging legality), destroying the foundation of the system and the concept of inalienable rights. Once a standard is contradicted, a new standard erodes the old: in this case, once the capitalism standard (do as you wish as long as you don’t impose force onto another) was initially contradicted by suddenly allowing certain rights to be voted away, there was no concrete reason why other rights now couldn’t be voted on as well. Once the standard is contradicted, it becomes ineffective. This led to the state having the power of allowing people to be able to vote on certain individual rights of others. It is evident that this initial blow to the foundation of the USA’s socioeconomic system has initialized our trip towards socialism. From this example, it is evident that compromises to the standard of freedom cannot exist. Once a standard is contradicted, a new standard is set. No other can measure up to the positive effects of capitalism. Freedom cannot be sacrificed; any contradictions to this standard will initiate a new and unjust standard to be set.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
- Abraham Lincoln

A Response to Stephen Mack's Pro-Socialism Post

by TG

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.

The Tiger Woods Scandal is Sexist

Thursday, March 4, 2010 by TG


News that Tiger Woods had allegedly been having an affair with New York club hostess, Rachel Uchitel, had sprung up November 25, the day before thanksgiving.

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.