Giftmas is a term that has been used to take the Christ out of Christmas as it were. It's been derided as the ultimate commercialization of the holy Christmas holiday season and as such, a distasteful greedy expression of the worst capitalism has ever stood for.
But for me the commercialization of Christmas is the reason to celebrate...
Think about it.
We spend our lives working, trying as hard as we can to achieve something. Whether that achievement is some measure of fame, fortune or some other expression of our happiness, our life, our purpose.
The commercialization of Christmas is a yearly expression of our success, of our achievement throughout the rest of the year, of our happiness. We spend our money and our precious time buying things for our loved ones, and enjoying their company, feasting and partying and making merry.
The products we buy are the product of the labour and creation of all those people around us. They are in effect the essence and cause of our neighbours, friends and coworkers celebrations as well as our own. The arguable platitude that "tis better to give than to receive" is not so altruistic if you consider that we give our productive effort each and every day, but our giving is more than an expression of devotion, love or respect, it is an expression of our own pride, our own productiveness.
So don't lament the commercialization of Christmas, give, eat, drink and be merry because not only did you all earn it, you all created it.
Showing posts with label Altruism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Altruism. Show all posts
Thursday, December 22, 2011
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Not Neutral... Ambivalent. Not Compassionate... Evil
I will never donate another penny to the Red Cross.
The Red Cross' treatment of the Taliban in Afghanistan exemplifies the predominant philosophy of our age writ large. The Red Cross is exhibiting its altruistic roots, it is supporting people who would see it and every other vestige of "western society" completely destroyed. How wonderfully selfless.
Ayn Rand once said that "Pity for the guilty is treason to the innocent." and she was right.
That answer to the Red Cross' implicit philosophy draws some fire from "compassionate humanists" though...
"The Red Cross is just being neutral" they say just like in WW2 when they dealt with German POW's in Prison camps.
That is a good point and I hadn't thought of it before but their assistance to the Taliban now is no different than their assistance to Nazi's in WW2.
I see now that the Red Cross is not immoral for doing this but rather that it is amoral. It is designed as an organization to be unable to distinguish between right and wrong, good from evil. Which in my book puts it directly alongside the evil it is unable to recognize.
"But the Red Cross is just like Switzerland..." they cry "Neutral!"
But they miss a very important distinction between the Swiss neutrality and the Red Cross'.
The Swiss neither help nor hinder any side. They keep their hands to themselves in all matters. This isn't amoral, they have decided that it is in their self-interest as a nation to stay out of it all altogether.
The Red Cross is not neutral it is ambivalent. It doesn't care who it helps. It makes every one of the good guys fighting for the moral and right reasons, the exact same as every misogynistic, racist, ignorant, socially backward, religious fanatic and bugger Taliban on the battlefield.
In short, the Red Cross equates MMV winners, guys like Tpr Shane Dolmovic and our leaders, like General Hillier with the scum-bags who throw acid on schoolgirls and stone women to death for the crime of adultery when they have actually been raped.
There is a moral choice facing the Red Cross, it is as clear as white and black, and they are evil for failing to make that choice.
Then comes the next philosophical head fake...
"The Taliban were raised to believe what they do, their society is structured that way, their religion has taught them that they are right. So who are we to say what is moral? "
To answer a question of morality I would ask what is the purpose of existence and what position among all the positions of all religions, ideologies and cultures best upholds that purpose?
For me the purpose of existence is life, my life and my living of it. In other words living in a rationally self-interested way.
Now this does not mean living as a range of the moment hedonist. Tiger Woods was not operating in his self-interest when he was out whoring around, as evidenced by how much those actions have cost him personally and professionally.
Nor is it a blank cheque to treat people as sub-human, as disposable and worthless. After all it does not further my life to live in a society where I would need to treat every other person as a danger rather than a possible source of value to enhance and enrich my life.
It also doesn't benefit me to treat this life like a shadow of something more "beyond the grave". Reality and the facts of it all point to this being the only existence we are going to get. Dismissing reality is the first cardinal sin against living a good, long, successful and happy life.
It also means that altruistic sacrifice (the relinquishment of a greater benefit for a lesser one) is contrary to living in this life.*
* A note here, our soldiers do not sacrifice themselves for a lesser value. They have either made a conscious decision that what they are fighting for is worth the possibility of death or they have weighed the risks and believe themselves to be skilled enough to survive where others will not. Neither of these is sacrifice.
So to get back to the deciding of what is moral or not; using these few points and many others that it would take too long to list I can, and you can, determine what is moral and what isn't, and we should.
More than that I believe that this world would be much better off if people would use the standard of their own lives to determine their morality instead of accepting someone else's definition, ideology or superstition.
Like Rand said. "The moral principle to adopt is Judge and be prepared to be Judged."
Actions can not be separated from their results, no matter if you claim compassion, humanity or neutrality as your excuse. No matter if you are an individual or a multi-national organization.
I have judged the Red Cross by their actions and I find them to be immoral, and evil.
*H/T Chris
The Red Cross' treatment of the Taliban in Afghanistan exemplifies the predominant philosophy of our age writ large. The Red Cross is exhibiting its altruistic roots, it is supporting people who would see it and every other vestige of "western society" completely destroyed. How wonderfully selfless.
Ayn Rand once said that "Pity for the guilty is treason to the innocent." and she was right.
That answer to the Red Cross' implicit philosophy draws some fire from "compassionate humanists" though...
"The Red Cross is just being neutral" they say just like in WW2 when they dealt with German POW's in Prison camps.
That is a good point and I hadn't thought of it before but their assistance to the Taliban now is no different than their assistance to Nazi's in WW2.
I see now that the Red Cross is not immoral for doing this but rather that it is amoral. It is designed as an organization to be unable to distinguish between right and wrong, good from evil. Which in my book puts it directly alongside the evil it is unable to recognize.
"But the Red Cross is just like Switzerland..." they cry "Neutral!"
But they miss a very important distinction between the Swiss neutrality and the Red Cross'.
The Swiss neither help nor hinder any side. They keep their hands to themselves in all matters. This isn't amoral, they have decided that it is in their self-interest as a nation to stay out of it all altogether.
The Red Cross is not neutral it is ambivalent. It doesn't care who it helps. It makes every one of the good guys fighting for the moral and right reasons, the exact same as every misogynistic, racist, ignorant, socially backward, religious fanatic and bugger Taliban on the battlefield.
In short, the Red Cross equates MMV winners, guys like Tpr Shane Dolmovic and our leaders, like General Hillier with the scum-bags who throw acid on schoolgirls and stone women to death for the crime of adultery when they have actually been raped.
There is a moral choice facing the Red Cross, it is as clear as white and black, and they are evil for failing to make that choice.
Then comes the next philosophical head fake...
"The Taliban were raised to believe what they do, their society is structured that way, their religion has taught them that they are right. So who are we to say what is moral? "
To answer a question of morality I would ask what is the purpose of existence and what position among all the positions of all religions, ideologies and cultures best upholds that purpose?
For me the purpose of existence is life, my life and my living of it. In other words living in a rationally self-interested way.
Now this does not mean living as a range of the moment hedonist. Tiger Woods was not operating in his self-interest when he was out whoring around, as evidenced by how much those actions have cost him personally and professionally.
Nor is it a blank cheque to treat people as sub-human, as disposable and worthless. After all it does not further my life to live in a society where I would need to treat every other person as a danger rather than a possible source of value to enhance and enrich my life.
It also doesn't benefit me to treat this life like a shadow of something more "beyond the grave". Reality and the facts of it all point to this being the only existence we are going to get. Dismissing reality is the first cardinal sin against living a good, long, successful and happy life.
It also means that altruistic sacrifice (the relinquishment of a greater benefit for a lesser one) is contrary to living in this life.*
* A note here, our soldiers do not sacrifice themselves for a lesser value. They have either made a conscious decision that what they are fighting for is worth the possibility of death or they have weighed the risks and believe themselves to be skilled enough to survive where others will not. Neither of these is sacrifice.
So to get back to the deciding of what is moral or not; using these few points and many others that it would take too long to list I can, and you can, determine what is moral and what isn't, and we should.
More than that I believe that this world would be much better off if people would use the standard of their own lives to determine their morality instead of accepting someone else's definition, ideology or superstition.
Like Rand said. "The moral principle to adopt is Judge and be prepared to be Judged."
Actions can not be separated from their results, no matter if you claim compassion, humanity or neutrality as your excuse. No matter if you are an individual or a multi-national organization.
I have judged the Red Cross by their actions and I find them to be immoral, and evil.
*H/T Chris
Thursday, December 3, 2009
The Charitable State.
Invariably when arguing for complete laissez-faire policies and the dismantling of the welfare state the question that the statist asks is...
"What are we to do with the people who can't fend for themselves as well as others and who need assistance in order to survive in society?"
The Objectivist response is that the individual can do whatever he wishes to do, but that he can not claim the right to force others. That he can not take his personal penchant for charity and with the loaded gun of government force others to be charitable.
There are two man-centric ideologies at work here, represented by the welfare state, and the charitable state.
The welfare state is ruled by conflicting premises.
On one hand is the claim that we men are caring creatures and that we are not "wired" or "evolved" in such a way to act as self-centered, egoists and individualists. The claim is that each and every one of us needs the community, the collective and as a result men overwhelmingly realize that the collective is greater than the sum of its parts. This reasoning is used to indicate that men should help one another, that we ought to be charitable, altruistic toward our fellow men.
The other (and contradictory) premise, which leads the welfare state to use its ill gotten force is that men are nasty, selfish, ignorant brutes who would never stop to help their fellow men and therefore must be forced to support all sorts of initiatives and progams to alleviate the suffering and hardship of those less fortunate.
Yes, the claim is that we are simultaneously "hard wired" to be altruistic and yet need to be forced to think of anyone but ourselves. This is a contradiction of epic proportions.
The Objectivist stance on the less fortunate is simple. Let each and every individual choose whether he is going to be charitable or not, depending on his preference and his ideals, his values and his own situation. There is no need to force charity.
Without government forcing the charitable to pay for every politician's pet project or well connected pressure group's personal agenda the amount of disposable income available for charity would be immense.
The benefits to the contributors would similarly be valuable to them. "Contribute to a home for the homeless? Sure! It might reduce crime, it would certainly make the city look better. Donate to the family down the street in their time of need, but of course..."
Funny isn't it that it is the selfish egoist's that are certain that individual, honest, uncoerced charity can function as required, and that the altruistic, collectivist humanists see the need to point a gun at your head and demand your money for their life.
"What are we to do with the people who can't fend for themselves as well as others and who need assistance in order to survive in society?"
The Objectivist response is that the individual can do whatever he wishes to do, but that he can not claim the right to force others. That he can not take his personal penchant for charity and with the loaded gun of government force others to be charitable.
There are two man-centric ideologies at work here, represented by the welfare state, and the charitable state.
The welfare state is ruled by conflicting premises.
On one hand is the claim that we men are caring creatures and that we are not "wired" or "evolved" in such a way to act as self-centered, egoists and individualists. The claim is that each and every one of us needs the community, the collective and as a result men overwhelmingly realize that the collective is greater than the sum of its parts. This reasoning is used to indicate that men should help one another, that we ought to be charitable, altruistic toward our fellow men.
The other (and contradictory) premise, which leads the welfare state to use its ill gotten force is that men are nasty, selfish, ignorant brutes who would never stop to help their fellow men and therefore must be forced to support all sorts of initiatives and progams to alleviate the suffering and hardship of those less fortunate.
Yes, the claim is that we are simultaneously "hard wired" to be altruistic and yet need to be forced to think of anyone but ourselves. This is a contradiction of epic proportions.
The Objectivist stance on the less fortunate is simple. Let each and every individual choose whether he is going to be charitable or not, depending on his preference and his ideals, his values and his own situation. There is no need to force charity.
Without government forcing the charitable to pay for every politician's pet project or well connected pressure group's personal agenda the amount of disposable income available for charity would be immense.
The benefits to the contributors would similarly be valuable to them. "Contribute to a home for the homeless? Sure! It might reduce crime, it would certainly make the city look better. Donate to the family down the street in their time of need, but of course..."
Funny isn't it that it is the selfish egoist's that are certain that individual, honest, uncoerced charity can function as required, and that the altruistic, collectivist humanists see the need to point a gun at your head and demand your money for their life.
Friday, August 21, 2009
Don’t Call It Moral.
The Scottish Judge who released Terrorist bomber Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi the killer of 270 people over Lockerbie Scotland said in an interview with CNN that;
“Equally, we have values that we seek to live by, even if those who perpetrate crimes against us have not respected us or shown any compassion. Here is a dying man. He didn't show compassion to the victims, American or Scottish. That does not mean that we should lower ourselves, debase ourselves, or abandon our values.
He was justly convicted, but we're allowing him some mercy to return home to die.”
This statement by the judge implies the application of a moral standard, but morals are defined as; of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong;
The last part is central to my point. Under Christian religious morality one should always find it in their heart to forgive a transgressor, no matter what it is that they have done wrong. This is the central tenant of Christian “morality”.
The problem is that it isn’t moral; it is specifically and implicitly amoral. It discards all concept of right and wrong and replaces it with the vilest abdication of thought imaginable. Christianity tries to make the devout follower indifferent to questions of right or wrong and wholly dependent and subservient to some mystical whim which is itself contradicted in Christian religious writings (including anecdotal evidence of god’s actions).
So here is your choice. You can believe in the Christian morality and try to walk your religious tightrope which lists a multitude of things as evil but also states that you should forgive any transgression no matter how vile, or you can apply the morality encapsulated in the sentence “In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit.”
Quickly… Choose. Choose to compromise on any and all moral decisions, to abandon any principal based on the whim of a deity who himself fails to apply what he teaches, or you can take the hard line, the resolute stance to believe in right and wrong regardless of circumstance, immovable by whim, immutable by the mystic babbling of an invisible unknowable and completely inconsistent god.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
3 Months To Live
Megrahi was sentenced to life in prison in 2001 for taking part in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 on Dec. 21, 1988, and was to serve at least 27 years behind bars.
However, he was diagnosed with terminal prostate cancer last year and doctors have said he has less than three months to live.
Well isn't that special. I wonder how much of that three months this terrorist mass murderer will spend laughing at the weakness of the west's version of "justice".
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Altruism At The Movies: Two Thumbs Down
It was standard movie fare. A great cataclysm was about to strike, the Army was putting people onto trucks to take them to safety. The last two spots were taken by the heroine and her male companion (who has already been characterized as being something of an asshole). Suddenly out in the crowd a heavy woman, clutching a baby with another child in tow cries out to be saved.
A soldier says that there is no more room...
"But you have to save my babies" cries the woman.
There is safety 10 miles away says the soldier, you will have to walk.
But we can't walk 10 miles she cries... Save my children!
At this point the heroine jumps off of the truck. "You can have my spot" she says, in the purest spirit of altruism, giving up her safety and security for a total stranger.
The heroine then looks back at her male companion. "Come on she says..."
And that is where it happens, the companion, rightfully concerned with his own welfare refuses to give up his seat.
The result (condemnation) is nurtured in the watcher, from the earlier characterization of this companion as a coward and a jerk. So the reaction of my wife when she muttered "jerk" under her breath came as little surprise.
I looked at her and realized that she hadn't thought about the elicited reaction. So I asked her. "If you were already safe in the shelter would you want me to give up my life for some complete stranger? Is that woman's life worth more to you than mine? Think about it... I'd gladly give up my seat for you or our kids but for a stranger? What makes her life more valuable than mine?
There was no answer.
Now being as smart (and normally) as rational as my wife is I don't often win an argument with one point like that, but it was so simple this time...
Why? Because the ideal of altruism is so often shown in this way, as a remote "lifeboat scenario" with the situation completely detached from those observing it, where the hero/heroine always eventually survives and the selfish jerk almost always dies. But that isn't true to nature. It is the people who do everything that they can to save their own lives that end up surviving, not the ones that give their safety away to a stranger.
Why is the stranger important? What possible reason could there be to sacrifice your life for a complete stranger? Some might point to animals using altruistic behaviour in the wild as an admonishment that we Humans should be at least as "good" but look at what they are comparing us to.
A monkey or a beaver can not reason and operates on instinct in a range of the moment existence. There are no value judgments being made, the animal is not sacrificing itself it is operating the autopilot of instinct.
So next time you see this cinematic or literary trick used take a moment to think. Raise yourself above the level of a Rhesus monkey or Beaver and ask the important question.
What do you value, what is being asked for in sacrifice?
A soldier says that there is no more room...
"But you have to save my babies" cries the woman.
There is safety 10 miles away says the soldier, you will have to walk.
But we can't walk 10 miles she cries... Save my children!
At this point the heroine jumps off of the truck. "You can have my spot" she says, in the purest spirit of altruism, giving up her safety and security for a total stranger.
The heroine then looks back at her male companion. "Come on she says..."
And that is where it happens, the companion, rightfully concerned with his own welfare refuses to give up his seat.
The result (condemnation) is nurtured in the watcher, from the earlier characterization of this companion as a coward and a jerk. So the reaction of my wife when she muttered "jerk" under her breath came as little surprise.
I looked at her and realized that she hadn't thought about the elicited reaction. So I asked her. "If you were already safe in the shelter would you want me to give up my life for some complete stranger? Is that woman's life worth more to you than mine? Think about it... I'd gladly give up my seat for you or our kids but for a stranger? What makes her life more valuable than mine?
There was no answer.
Now being as smart (and normally) as rational as my wife is I don't often win an argument with one point like that, but it was so simple this time...
Why? Because the ideal of altruism is so often shown in this way, as a remote "lifeboat scenario" with the situation completely detached from those observing it, where the hero/heroine always eventually survives and the selfish jerk almost always dies. But that isn't true to nature. It is the people who do everything that they can to save their own lives that end up surviving, not the ones that give their safety away to a stranger.
Why is the stranger important? What possible reason could there be to sacrifice your life for a complete stranger? Some might point to animals using altruistic behaviour in the wild as an admonishment that we Humans should be at least as "good" but look at what they are comparing us to.
A monkey or a beaver can not reason and operates on instinct in a range of the moment existence. There are no value judgments being made, the animal is not sacrificing itself it is operating the autopilot of instinct.
So next time you see this cinematic or literary trick used take a moment to think. Raise yourself above the level of a Rhesus monkey or Beaver and ask the important question.
What do you value, what is being asked for in sacrifice?
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Robbing Harper - Steals From You to Give To Them
So now my money is going to be given out to Kids in the Caribbean so that they can go to university in Canada paid for by my taxes?
WTF?
I might sound insensitive here but perhaps these countries should be putting their own students through fricking university and my money should be left in my pocket so I can put MY two kids through university.
I find myself looking forward to the next election, and wondering if these guys have a candidate in my riding...
WTF?
I might sound insensitive here but perhaps these countries should be putting their own students through fricking university and my money should be left in my pocket so I can put MY two kids through university.
I find myself looking forward to the next election, and wondering if these guys have a candidate in my riding...
Friday, March 27, 2009
America The Dutiful
Barrack Obama spoke about it during his run for the presidency. At the time many people had the same "Sorry? Did he just imply what I think he implied?" kind of reaction. Well, yes he did and its gone much farther than that now.
The comparison of this new "national service" with its call for...
My question is, with this explosion of free labour "helping people" to do things that they would ordinarily have to pay someone to do isn't that going to put more people out of work? Isn't that going to cause people to spend less? In short, considering the economic realities of today isn't that going to hurt much more than it helps?
But then the light goes on. You see its all part of the plan to expand government. With people forced to serve, and that service creating an environment poisonous to capitalism, more people will be forced to turn to the state for work and assistance.
Join me if you will for a small trip into the future...
It's 2011 and you and everyone else in America are forced to spend X amount of time "serving the nation" while receiveing your "service learning" (indoctrination). Your children start before they are old enough to understand the difference between the volunteer and the conscript.
So you spend your 14 days, working for the government. During this period of forced selflessness you are paid, fed and clothed (in patriotic Red White and Blue coveralls).
You meet people from all walks of life, you socialize, talk, work and laugh. It's a good time.
Your "service learning" is designed to teach you that this service is the greatest thing that you can do, for your country, for your friends for your future! For this you are called heroes, you are celebrated, the feeling is wonderful!
Then, suddenly your "voluntary" service is done. You return to your life. You return to the unemployment line, to the harsh economic realities of the world.
You look back ever so fondly to your time of national service as a productive, happy time...
Yet you never, ever draw a correlation between your unemployment and the uniformed masses of the "Americorps" bustling around you, helping you...
Stifling you...
The comparison of this new "national service" with its call for...
“campuses” that serve as “operational headquarters,” complete with “superintendents” and “uniforms” for all participants.
and
“youth engagement zones” in which “service learning” is “a mandatory part of the curriculum in all of the secondary schools served by the local educational agency.”to an organization like the Hitler Youth or the Soviet Unions "Young Pioneers" is all too easy, albeit apt.
My question is, with this explosion of free labour "helping people" to do things that they would ordinarily have to pay someone to do isn't that going to put more people out of work? Isn't that going to cause people to spend less? In short, considering the economic realities of today isn't that going to hurt much more than it helps?
But then the light goes on. You see its all part of the plan to expand government. With people forced to serve, and that service creating an environment poisonous to capitalism, more people will be forced to turn to the state for work and assistance.
Join me if you will for a small trip into the future...
It's 2011 and you and everyone else in America are forced to spend X amount of time "serving the nation" while receiveing your "service learning" (indoctrination). Your children start before they are old enough to understand the difference between the volunteer and the conscript.
So you spend your 14 days, working for the government. During this period of forced selflessness you are paid, fed and clothed (in patriotic Red White and Blue coveralls).
You meet people from all walks of life, you socialize, talk, work and laugh. It's a good time.
Your "service learning" is designed to teach you that this service is the greatest thing that you can do, for your country, for your friends for your future! For this you are called heroes, you are celebrated, the feeling is wonderful!
Then, suddenly your "voluntary" service is done. You return to your life. You return to the unemployment line, to the harsh economic realities of the world.
You look back ever so fondly to your time of national service as a productive, happy time...
Yet you never, ever draw a correlation between your unemployment and the uniformed masses of the "Americorps" bustling around you, helping you...
Stifling you...
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Let the Shrugging Begin...
Dear Mr. Liddy...
Think about it...
The very idea that led to his betrayal by his company and his government in the first place is the idea that his success, his effort and his skill is an embarrassment!
The concept being snuck into this equation is that because he is skilled, driven and successful he owes "those suffering from the global economic downturn"! Because he is able, successful, smart, productive and driven his entire life is mortgaged!!!
What a travesty.
He should have given the whole lot a single finger salute and moved himself and his entire family to some Caribbean tax haven till the US comes back to it's senses, capitalism, the constitution and the rule of law.
"I take this action after 11 years of dedicated, honorable service to A.I.G. I can no longer effectively perform my duties in this dysfunctional environment, nor am I being paid to do so. Like you, I was asked to work for an annual salary of $1, and I agreed out of a sense of duty to the company and to the public officials who have come to its aid. Having now been let down by both, I can no longer justify spending 10, 12, 14 hours a day away from my family for the benefit of those who have let me down."That's depressing, but the most depressing thing was that this guy berates Libby for not standing up to Congress and then folds like a cheap suit saying he'll donate all his hard earned pay to charity.
Think about it...
The very idea that led to his betrayal by his company and his government in the first place is the idea that his success, his effort and his skill is an embarrassment!
The concept being snuck into this equation is that because he is skilled, driven and successful he owes "those suffering from the global economic downturn"! Because he is able, successful, smart, productive and driven his entire life is mortgaged!!!
What a travesty.
He should have given the whole lot a single finger salute and moved himself and his entire family to some Caribbean tax haven till the US comes back to it's senses, capitalism, the constitution and the rule of law.
Friday, November 7, 2008
Pope Signs Death sentence
Apparently the meaning of the word donation is more important than saving a persons life.
"buying and selling of organs ... would go against the meaning of donation"
In Canada according to this article 46% of patients waiting for a Kidney died in the average 2.4 years they were followed for the study. This is in spite of the fact that a person can live with just one kidney.
The article is chock full of tidbits like this...
Meh, it doesn't really matter, because once again, the church proves it is all about suffering, it's more interested in some ethereal piety and altruistic nonsense than it is in you, your life, the ones you love and your/their continued existence.
My hat is off to the propagandists of the church though... That they continue to be able to convince people that it is better to die than to pay for a service is amazing. The two Joe's (Joseph Goebbels and Joseph Stalin) must be prostrating themselves in the grave at the thought of it.
"buying and selling of organs ... would go against the meaning of donation"
In Canada according to this article 46% of patients waiting for a Kidney died in the average 2.4 years they were followed for the study. This is in spite of the fact that a person can live with just one kidney.
The article is chock full of tidbits like this...
"A relatively small proportion of patients received a transplant: 10.6 per cent for those receiving a kidney from a deceased donor and 5.8 per cent for live donors."I wonder, how many people would voluntarily exchange a kidney for a suitable cash payment...
Meh, it doesn't really matter, because once again, the church proves it is all about suffering, it's more interested in some ethereal piety and altruistic nonsense than it is in you, your life, the ones you love and your/their continued existence.
My hat is off to the propagandists of the church though... That they continue to be able to convince people that it is better to die than to pay for a service is amazing. The two Joe's (Joseph Goebbels and Joseph Stalin) must be prostrating themselves in the grave at the thought of it.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Pulling a Ragnar Danneskjöld
Instapundit recently published a blog post asking if it is time for Americans to pull a "John Gault" and go on strike against a prospective Obama administration and Congressional Democratic supermajority. For the few readers who may not understand the allusion; John Galt withdraws from a socialist society and convinces other thinkers and doers to do the same. The United States is crippled not only because of the redistributive policies followed by the various State and Federal governments, but because the very people who's productivity and effort provides the funds and motive power to the State are no longer there.
A REVERSE-JOHN-GALT? Tom Spaulding writes: "So, if Obama actually wins this election and delivers on even half of his promises, I'm vacillating on whether to pull a reverse John Galt and plug IN to the system. . . . So I mean to look into every government assistance program Obama/Pelosi/Reid provides or funds. Even if I don't sign up, at least I'll have an idea where my money is going to. But if I do take an occasional sip from the public teat, consider it my own way of 'spreading the wealth' back around to me."
Ragnar Danneskjold is one of the strikers, who takes more positive action, rather than passively withdrawing from society, he becomes a pirate and actively destroys "gift ships" that the United States sends to the various People's States around the world (although he makes a point of avoiding confrontations with the United States Navy and Coast Guard, since they are performing their proper roles). This is direct action against the philosophy of "spreading the wealth" by preventing it from being used to subsidize or otherwise support other "looter" regimes. In on of the great scenes of the novel, Ragnar Danneskjold seeks out one of the non strikers; Hank Rearden, and offers him some comfort as the looming forces of the State increase the pressure on him. As partial restitution for the hardship and suffering Rearden has suffered at the hands of the State, Danneskjold offers repayment in gold of Rearden's income taxes.
We can do the same. If governments or the State want to "spread the wealth", it is quite reasonable to ask; "why not to us?" Readers are urged to think of the example of Ragnar Danneskjold and use the various mechanisms the State has or will offer to request your income tax back. If the State offers funds to start a new business or hire employees, plug into that program for the amount of your income tax. Rebates for going green? How green can you go (up to the maximum amount of your taxes). American readers will have somewhat different calculations to make, income taxes might not rise initially under an Obama administration, but withholdings like FICA will go up, and probably by dramatic amounts.
Here is how another correspondent puts it:
A REVERSE-JOHN-GALT? Tom Spaulding writes: "So, if Obama actually wins this election and delivers on even half of his promises, I'm vacillating on whether to pull a reverse John Galt and plug IN to the system. . . . So I mean to look into every government assistance program Obama/Pelosi/Reid provides or funds. Even if I don't sign up, at least I'll have an idea where my money is going to. But if I do take an occasional sip from the public teat, consider it my own way of 'spreading the wealth' back around to me."
Piracy may be profitable and fun during the Obama administration. With luck, we can strike the "Black Flag" in 2012.
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Signs of the Collectivist Apocalypse (SOTCA)
It is obvious to anyone who reads Atlas Shrugged, that throughout it, the policies and programs undertaken by the ubiquitous Thompson government and the so called Like the canary in the mineshaft I seek to warn you all that we may be looking at the same fate somewhere down the road.
So just to keep tabs on the situation I introduce a recurring theme to Uncommon Sense, a chirp here and there which I will call…
Signs of the Collectivist Apocalypse (SOTCA)
My first entry is about the US Treasury and a sweeping power grab by its new Head
The regulatory blueprint proposes eventually vesting new powers in the Federal Reserve as a "market stability regulator" -- effectively formalizing a role the central bank already has adopted recently by expanding the list of financial firms which can borrow directly.
It would give the Fed authority to demand that all financial system participants supply it with full information on their activities and grant the Fed a right to collaborate with other regulators in setting rules for their behavior.
Woosh!!! Super Finance Cop to the rescue!
Hold on a sec... Weren't these the same guys that were at least partially responsible for the sub-prime fiasco? Foxes in Hen houses anyone?
The great Cash and Cars Giveaway
WINDSOR, Ont. - Ford of Canada will use a $17-million investment from the Ontario government as part of a $168-million plan to reopen the Essex engine plant in southwestern Ontario, but the company warned Monday it will not expand the project further without direct participation from the federal government.
Excellent Dalton McSquirmy throwing good money after bad, just to be threatened by the Ford company that it will all be for naught if they don't get more!!!
It's almost like he wants to be the Premier of a have not province...
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Participatory Economics
Some people have no sense of history. I recently came across a post on the London Fog which attributed the idea of Participatory Economics to a Michael Albert. A quick perusal of the post and the related article on Wikipedia (I know, but it is a fast and easy first reference) gave me enough information to know that I had seen this idea before, and to predict the ultimate denouement of any society foolish enough to adopt it.
Participatory Economics, or Parecon as is is sometimes called, is one of the bizzare offshoots of Socialism. It seems most closely related to Communitarianism, or maybe an extension of the Cooperative movement's ideologies. The tangled logic that Michael Albert and his supporters use to explain the theoretical advantages of Parecon is worth reading if only to hone your own skills in debate. Don't let the fact that human nature, economic incentives and historical evidence is completely ignored or discounted by Parecon theorists dissuade you; it is important to know and understand how the other side thinks and frame their arguments. Incidentally, the very premise of Parecon and its socialist cousins is that people are not free agents, and cannot take actions to change their circumstances inside the framework of free market democracies. One only has to listen to the musical stylings ofDavid Allan Coe to undercut that argument.
Now I could go into a long post and describe the various ins and outs of the theory, and rip holes in the flimsy fabric with arguments drawn from classical economics and history, but this has already been done for us, and much better. I knew I had seen the basic premise of Parecon and its ultimate denouement before; Ayn Rand laid it out in her 1957 novel "Atlas Shrugged" in the story of Starnesville and the destruction of 20th Century Motors . Novelists apparently have a better understanding of history and real life than economists.
Participatory Economics, or Parecon as is is sometimes called, is one of the bizzare offshoots of Socialism. It seems most closely related to Communitarianism, or maybe an extension of the Cooperative movement's ideologies. The tangled logic that Michael Albert and his supporters use to explain the theoretical advantages of Parecon is worth reading if only to hone your own skills in debate. Don't let the fact that human nature, economic incentives and historical evidence is completely ignored or discounted by Parecon theorists dissuade you; it is important to know and understand how the other side thinks and frame their arguments. Incidentally, the very premise of Parecon and its socialist cousins is that people are not free agents, and cannot take actions to change their circumstances inside the framework of free market democracies. One only has to listen to the musical stylings ofDavid Allan Coe to undercut that argument.
Now I could go into a long post and describe the various ins and outs of the theory, and rip holes in the flimsy fabric with arguments drawn from classical economics and history, but this has already been done for us, and much better. I knew I had seen the basic premise of Parecon and its ultimate denouement before; Ayn Rand laid it out in her 1957 novel "Atlas Shrugged" in the story of Starnesville and the destruction of 20th Century Motors . Novelists apparently have a better understanding of history and real life than economists.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Lies, Damn Lies and Artists
So, my daughter wants to be an artist , no, not that kind of artist, a graphic artist. You know the kind that is actually interested in making money.
Months ago she sent out applications to 4 Universities/colleges that have degree programs in Graphic Arts. Each of these schools required a portfolio which my Daughter dutifully and painstakingly produced from her sketchbooks and paintings. She also had to include “artist’s statements” on her work and write an essay as to why she wanted to become a commercial graphic artist.
Having written the essay she brought it to me to proofread. I had only gotten about one paragraph into the essay when I stopped. It was full of statements about her “making a difference through her art” and extolling the virtue of art to change society.
“Do you really believe all this?” I asked.
“No, but that’s what the schools want.” She said.
“So telling them that you want to make lots of money so that you can be a functioning and productive member of society is out of the question?”
“Yes.”
So I read the rest of the essay, and corrected only for grammar and not content. The socialist mantra my daughter had espoused was a means to an end, I was happy about that at least.
But the incident bothered me, and still does.
Why is it necessary for us to hide the healthy, rational and logical reasons for our desire to work?
Why is it necessary for my daughter to lie and refer to the social ramifications of art and artists when all she wants to do is earn a decent living off of something that she enjoys and is good at?
But this tendancy is not new, when I joined the Army and was asked why, I would often say that I did it to serve my country, but slowly I began to realize that my reason, the real reason I joined the Army was to make a living. I was a mercenary, pure and simple.
I would not have spent 22 years soldiering if I had not been well paid for my service. Yes I served my country but making a living was THE reason behind it, not the other way round.
Sadly though altruism trumps honesty, integrity and rationality in the socialist age.
Until we as individuals learn to reject the altruistic lie and tell the whole truth about why we do something as fundamental to our way of life as work, we will continue to win the battle but loose the war with socialist thought.
Months ago she sent out applications to 4 Universities/colleges that have degree programs in Graphic Arts. Each of these schools required a portfolio which my Daughter dutifully and painstakingly produced from her sketchbooks and paintings. She also had to include “artist’s statements” on her work and write an essay as to why she wanted to become a commercial graphic artist.
Having written the essay she brought it to me to proofread. I had only gotten about one paragraph into the essay when I stopped. It was full of statements about her “making a difference through her art” and extolling the virtue of art to change society.
“Do you really believe all this?” I asked.
“No, but that’s what the schools want.” She said.
“So telling them that you want to make lots of money so that you can be a functioning and productive member of society is out of the question?”
“Yes.”
So I read the rest of the essay, and corrected only for grammar and not content. The socialist mantra my daughter had espoused was a means to an end, I was happy about that at least.
But the incident bothered me, and still does.
Why is it necessary for us to hide the healthy, rational and logical reasons for our desire to work?
Why is it necessary for my daughter to lie and refer to the social ramifications of art and artists when all she wants to do is earn a decent living off of something that she enjoys and is good at?
But this tendancy is not new, when I joined the Army and was asked why, I would often say that I did it to serve my country, but slowly I began to realize that my reason, the real reason I joined the Army was to make a living. I was a mercenary, pure and simple.
I would not have spent 22 years soldiering if I had not been well paid for my service. Yes I served my country but making a living was THE reason behind it, not the other way round.
Sadly though altruism trumps honesty, integrity and rationality in the socialist age.
Until we as individuals learn to reject the altruistic lie and tell the whole truth about why we do something as fundamental to our way of life as work, we will continue to win the battle but loose the war with socialist thought.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
