"There is no such thing as collective or racial achievement. There are only individual minds and individual achievements - and a culture is not the anonymous product of undifferentiated masses, but the sum of the intellectual achievements of individual men," Ayn Rand (The Virture of Selfishness, 148).
Ayn Rand makes a very strong statement about collective achievements not existing, but is something that requires a group of people a collective achievement or an individual achievement? Is war a collective achievement?
War is not a collective achievement; war is the sum of the individual achievements of individual men. To win a war, one must have individuals fighting on the ground, individuals relaying messages and information, and individuals planning out the attacks and defenses. All of these individuals are fighting to protect their individual rights and individual lives. Individuals can join forces against a common enemey, but that does not make them a collective and it does not make them sacrifice their individuality.
What about the founding of the United States of America? A group of citizens banded together to create their own country and overthrow the tyranny of Great Britain, surely that must be a collective acheivement. Great Britain oppressed the individual, all individuals, and the individuals stood up against that oppression.
The Constitution does not form a collecive; the Constitution is an agreement between individuals with similar moral values. Ayn Rand states, "Individualism holds that a civilized society, or any form of association, cooperation or peaceful coexistence among men, can be achieved only on the basis of the recognition of individual rights - and that a group, as such, has no rights other than the individual rights of its members" (150). Without individual rights, there would be no United States, there would be no Constitution. Communism and socialism aim to promote and sustain the common good through collective achievements. If your neighbor slacks off at work and you break your bakc, you will get a raise but so will your neighbor. A collective achievement would reward everyone equally, even though not everyone contributed equally. If the United States' military wins a war, we all get to be on the winning side, but not everyone receives a medal.
Let's scale things down a bit and examine the light bulb. Is the light bulb a collective achievement? Edison did not invent the light bulb on his own, he had people helping him. Unfortunately, we are going to have to simplify the story of the invention of the light bulb because Edison did not invent the first light bulb, but he did invent the first practical light bulb. Is Edison's invention a collective achievement if others helped him? Is my blog post a collective achievement? I did not invent or manufacture the computer I am typing on, I did not invent the internet nor do I maintain any servers, and yet not many people would argue that this blog post is my individual achievement.
The light bulb is the individual achievement of Edison, but it is also the individual achievement of the rest of his team. Edison paid his team, and each one of his team members can be proud of their individual achievement. The success of the light bulb depended on the talents of several individuals, individuals that cooperated under the banner of a dream that was shared, but also a dream that belonged to the individuals, not the group.
Your American dream may not match my American dream, and yet we both have an American dream. As individuals, we are free to pursue our own dreams to better ourselves. Often these pursuits lead to the betterment of our way of life, but the goal is not to better the lives of everyone, but to better the life of ourselves, whether it be through a monetary betterment (through product/service sales) or a convenience betterment (a letter opener instead of using your fingers). People may think they are acting to realize a collective achievement, but they are really acting to realize their own individual achievement. A sniper shoots an enemy combatant to save the lives of the rest of his unit, but the reason he wants to save their lives is because his life may depend on the individuals in his unit being able to do their jobs.
The reason collective achievements do not exist is because individuals act for selfish reasons and individuals should act for selfish reasons. Edison did not invent the first practical light bulb to make his team rich, but he was willing to pay the individuals for their worthy contributions. In war it is individuals fighting individuals; it is no different than Edison and his ligh bulb. The general enlists the infantry to help him realize his goal and he rewards them accordingly. The individuals are fighting for their own selfish reasons; maybe they want money, maybe they want to defend their individual freedoms, or maybe they enjoy killing. Whatever the reason, they are there because they want to be there. If they did not want to participate, they would find a way to dodge service or dodge the draft.
Collective achievements do not exist because the common good does not exist. The individual good does exist and therefore only individual achievements can exist. Anyone enlisting you to aid in a collective achievement is hoping to convince you to sacrifice your individual rights in order to achieve their individual goal. The definition of collective achievement is the "anonymous product of undifferentiated masses." Collective achievements are the same as slavery.
© 2010 Nate Phillipps
Saturday, September 25, 2010
Saturday, September 11, 2010
9 Years Ago
This is for the 2,977 Americans who lost their lives on September 11, 2001.
On this day 9 years ago I was in high school. In my first class of the day I heard one of my fellow classmates talking about a dumb pilot who crashed into a building. It didn't sound serious. My next class was social studies, and the teacher had a TV in the room and told us that instead of our regular lesson plan, we were going to watch the news. It was then that I saw that it was no small plane that hit. The first tower was smoking, and the news anchors were trying to figure out what happened. As they were talking, a second plane came in a hit the other tower. 2,977 Americans were murdered that day.
The chaos, the rubble, people running through the streets. The worst thing I've witnessed in my life is those towers collapsing. Lives snuffed out in an instant. I can't imagine what those people felt. I cannot possibly know what it felt like to be at work, and suddenly have a plane hit the building. Even if you survived the initial crash, trying to get out amidst the panic. Would any of them been aware enough to realize the building was going to collapse upon them? 2,977 Americans.
19 terrorists died that day. Those 19, and those who have since been killed, are not enough to make up for what they did that day. I am glad we went after the terrorists, but I am not glad that we haven't followed through to the full extent. Starting with Vietnam, we have been trying to fight politically correct wars. The trouble with that is that there is no way to win a war with political correctness. Innocent people will die, innocent people did die, including 2,977 Americans.
What determines innocence? What determines guilt? The hijackers are guilty of murder and terrorism. The terrorists who planned and organized it are guilty. And, those people that stood by and let terrorists thrive in their country are guilty. If the terrorists are hiding in hospitals and mosques in hopes that our armed forces won't bomb them for fear of harming the 'innocent,' we should bomb the hell out of those places (only if we know terrorists are hiding in them). Is that a bit harsh and cold? Not only is it not as harsh as killing 2,977 Americans for no reason, but it is justified.
If the citizens of Afghanistan weren't aware how evil terrorists are and allowed them to stay in their country, they must be taught. Every action has a reaction. If you allow your country to foster terrorism, and that terrorism costs the lives of innocents, you are partly to blame. The only people in the world who understand this principle are Americans. Americans wanted no part of the repressive and evil nature of the King of England, so we took on the biggest army in the world. You know what England learned? They learned that the greatest power in the world is not how big your army is, but that the greatest power in the world is freedom. A freedom which was taken from 2,977 Americans on September 11, 2001.
The people of the middle, after hearing the news of the attacks, were not appalled and they did not immediately try to purge their region of evil. Some leaders condemned the attacks, but others said that America got what it deserved. Some fired their weapons in the air to celebrate, and some danced in the streets. Every human has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. 2,977 Americans were denied that right.
In order to make sure something this terrible never happens again on American soil, we have to show no mercy. Political correctness is all about mercy and tolerance. Political correctness is our modus operandi. We don't need to bomb them until they can't be bombed anymore, we need to bomb them until they understand never to attack us again. If you have any qualms about my stance, I encourage you to watch United 93 (2006, Paul Greengrass). It is such a powerful film that I only watched it once, in theaters. I own it, but I'm not sure I could handle watching it again. It is the most emotional film I have ever seen. People were sobbing in the theater, I was sobbing in the theater. 2,977 Americans weren't alive to sob in the theater.
I remember where I was, where were you when 2,977 Americans were murdered? As Americans, as people, as humans, we cannot forget what happened on this day 9 years ago. We must defend our unalienable rights. We cannot allow evil to survive. We must be strong.
© 2010 Nate Phillipps
On this day 9 years ago I was in high school. In my first class of the day I heard one of my fellow classmates talking about a dumb pilot who crashed into a building. It didn't sound serious. My next class was social studies, and the teacher had a TV in the room and told us that instead of our regular lesson plan, we were going to watch the news. It was then that I saw that it was no small plane that hit. The first tower was smoking, and the news anchors were trying to figure out what happened. As they were talking, a second plane came in a hit the other tower. 2,977 Americans were murdered that day.
The chaos, the rubble, people running through the streets. The worst thing I've witnessed in my life is those towers collapsing. Lives snuffed out in an instant. I can't imagine what those people felt. I cannot possibly know what it felt like to be at work, and suddenly have a plane hit the building. Even if you survived the initial crash, trying to get out amidst the panic. Would any of them been aware enough to realize the building was going to collapse upon them? 2,977 Americans.
19 terrorists died that day. Those 19, and those who have since been killed, are not enough to make up for what they did that day. I am glad we went after the terrorists, but I am not glad that we haven't followed through to the full extent. Starting with Vietnam, we have been trying to fight politically correct wars. The trouble with that is that there is no way to win a war with political correctness. Innocent people will die, innocent people did die, including 2,977 Americans.
What determines innocence? What determines guilt? The hijackers are guilty of murder and terrorism. The terrorists who planned and organized it are guilty. And, those people that stood by and let terrorists thrive in their country are guilty. If the terrorists are hiding in hospitals and mosques in hopes that our armed forces won't bomb them for fear of harming the 'innocent,' we should bomb the hell out of those places (only if we know terrorists are hiding in them). Is that a bit harsh and cold? Not only is it not as harsh as killing 2,977 Americans for no reason, but it is justified.
If the citizens of Afghanistan weren't aware how evil terrorists are and allowed them to stay in their country, they must be taught. Every action has a reaction. If you allow your country to foster terrorism, and that terrorism costs the lives of innocents, you are partly to blame. The only people in the world who understand this principle are Americans. Americans wanted no part of the repressive and evil nature of the King of England, so we took on the biggest army in the world. You know what England learned? They learned that the greatest power in the world is not how big your army is, but that the greatest power in the world is freedom. A freedom which was taken from 2,977 Americans on September 11, 2001.
The people of the middle, after hearing the news of the attacks, were not appalled and they did not immediately try to purge their region of evil. Some leaders condemned the attacks, but others said that America got what it deserved. Some fired their weapons in the air to celebrate, and some danced in the streets. Every human has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. 2,977 Americans were denied that right.
In order to make sure something this terrible never happens again on American soil, we have to show no mercy. Political correctness is all about mercy and tolerance. Political correctness is our modus operandi. We don't need to bomb them until they can't be bombed anymore, we need to bomb them until they understand never to attack us again. If you have any qualms about my stance, I encourage you to watch United 93 (2006, Paul Greengrass). It is such a powerful film that I only watched it once, in theaters. I own it, but I'm not sure I could handle watching it again. It is the most emotional film I have ever seen. People were sobbing in the theater, I was sobbing in the theater. 2,977 Americans weren't alive to sob in the theater.
I remember where I was, where were you when 2,977 Americans were murdered? As Americans, as people, as humans, we cannot forget what happened on this day 9 years ago. We must defend our unalienable rights. We cannot allow evil to survive. We must be strong.
© 2010 Nate Phillipps
Friday, September 10, 2010
And Justice For All
*The content of Faith Through Fear is intended for general information purposes only, and is not legal advice. Legal advice depends on the specific facts and circumstances of each individual's situation. Those seeking specific legal advice or assistance should contact an attorney.*
Does everybody have the same rights? Sometimes it seems like certain people or groups have more rights than another. We all have heard of habeas corpus, which protects us from unlawful detention. Due process protects individuals from the government, at the state level and the federal level. What about the rights of an offender versus the rights of a victim?
Did you know that as landowner you have a duty of care to all who are on your property? Some states classify users into three different groups: trespasser, licensee, and invitee. Without going into too much detail, a licensee or invitee is somebody that you are aware is using your property, whereas a trespasser is somebody who is using unbeknownst to you. Furthermore, trespassers are split into two groups: an unanticipated trespasser, and an anticipated trespasser. The group that receives the most protection is the invitee, then the licensee. An anticipated trespasser has more protection than an unanticipated trespasser, but the amazing thing is, that the unanticipated trespasser still has rights under the law.
According to a law firm's blog, "A landowner does not owe a duty to trespassers to keep the premises in a safe condition. Rather, the landowner owes only a minimal duty to avoid willfully or wantonly injuring the trespasser." They go on to say, "An anticipated trespasser is one who the landlord knows or has reason to anticipate would come onto the property. The landlord has a duty to protect anticipated trespassers from dangerous activities or hidden perils on the premises." With the way that is worded, willful could be defined by any number of actions. Also, another firm mentions that some states have gotten away from the classification of entrants and that, "some have adopted a rule that provides that an owner or occupier of land has a duty of reasonable care under all circumstances, and the status of the entrant is merely a relevant factor in determining whether the injury was foreseeable and the landowner negligent." This firm further stipulates between discovered and undiscovered trespassers, "If a property owner discovers a trespasser on the property, he or she has a duty to use ordinary care to warn the trespasser or, to make safe, artificial conditions that the property owner knows involve a risk of death or serious bodily injury that the trespasser is not likely to discover," and goes on to say that a landowner owes no duty to undiscovered trespassers.
I'm sure many of you have heard the story of the high school student stealing lights off of the top of the high school when he fell through a skylight and sued the school. The alleged case is Bodine v. Enterprise High School, but I could not find any proof of its existence. I did find a news story about a burglar suing the homeowner who shot him, but no word on if it succeeded in a court of law. However, across the pond, I did find a published news story about an 18 year old boy trespassing, falling off a roof, and successfully suing for £567,000. As of 2003, they were trying to change the law to protect homeowners.
It depends on what country you live in, what state you live in, and how good of a lawyer the criminal can find, but ultimately most of the criminal-suing-the-victim stories are false. However, that doesn't mean that a decent attorney won't find a loophole and throw you under the bus. So remember, if you plan on shooting a trespasser, make sure you clearly state, in 2" high letters, "Trespassers will be shot."
*The content of Faith Through Fear is intended for general information purposes only, and is not legal advice. Legal advice depends on the specific facts and circumstances of each individual's situation. Those seeking specific legal advice or assistance should contact an attorney.*
© 2010 Nate Phillipps
Does everybody have the same rights? Sometimes it seems like certain people or groups have more rights than another. We all have heard of habeas corpus, which protects us from unlawful detention. Due process protects individuals from the government, at the state level and the federal level. What about the rights of an offender versus the rights of a victim?
Did you know that as landowner you have a duty of care to all who are on your property? Some states classify users into three different groups: trespasser, licensee, and invitee. Without going into too much detail, a licensee or invitee is somebody that you are aware is using your property, whereas a trespasser is somebody who is using unbeknownst to you. Furthermore, trespassers are split into two groups: an unanticipated trespasser, and an anticipated trespasser. The group that receives the most protection is the invitee, then the licensee. An anticipated trespasser has more protection than an unanticipated trespasser, but the amazing thing is, that the unanticipated trespasser still has rights under the law.
According to a law firm's blog, "A landowner does not owe a duty to trespassers to keep the premises in a safe condition. Rather, the landowner owes only a minimal duty to avoid willfully or wantonly injuring the trespasser." They go on to say, "An anticipated trespasser is one who the landlord knows or has reason to anticipate would come onto the property. The landlord has a duty to protect anticipated trespassers from dangerous activities or hidden perils on the premises." With the way that is worded, willful could be defined by any number of actions. Also, another firm mentions that some states have gotten away from the classification of entrants and that, "some have adopted a rule that provides that an owner or occupier of land has a duty of reasonable care under all circumstances, and the status of the entrant is merely a relevant factor in determining whether the injury was foreseeable and the landowner negligent." This firm further stipulates between discovered and undiscovered trespassers, "If a property owner discovers a trespasser on the property, he or she has a duty to use ordinary care to warn the trespasser or, to make safe, artificial conditions that the property owner knows involve a risk of death or serious bodily injury that the trespasser is not likely to discover," and goes on to say that a landowner owes no duty to undiscovered trespassers.
I'm sure many of you have heard the story of the high school student stealing lights off of the top of the high school when he fell through a skylight and sued the school. The alleged case is Bodine v. Enterprise High School, but I could not find any proof of its existence. I did find a news story about a burglar suing the homeowner who shot him, but no word on if it succeeded in a court of law. However, across the pond, I did find a published news story about an 18 year old boy trespassing, falling off a roof, and successfully suing for £567,000. As of 2003, they were trying to change the law to protect homeowners.
It depends on what country you live in, what state you live in, and how good of a lawyer the criminal can find, but ultimately most of the criminal-suing-the-victim stories are false. However, that doesn't mean that a decent attorney won't find a loophole and throw you under the bus. So remember, if you plan on shooting a trespasser, make sure you clearly state, in 2" high letters, "Trespassers will be shot."
*The content of Faith Through Fear is intended for general information purposes only, and is not legal advice. Legal advice depends on the specific facts and circumstances of each individual's situation. Those seeking specific legal advice or assistance should contact an attorney.*
© 2010 Nate Phillipps
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
So Sue Me
With the proliferation of lawsuits in recent years, it is difficult to imagine an issue one isn't able to sue over. The frivolous lawsuit was not starting in 1994, but it was given a push from a rare occurrence to an everyday undertaking. The lawsuit I am talking about is Liebeck v. McDonald's, where a woman successfully sued McDonald's because their coffee was served hot. Today, we have warning labels on everything, from coffee cups and lids, to scissors. The jury determined that Liebeck was only 20% at fault for the incident, and that McDonald's was 80% to blame.
Just like a trend or clothing fad, the act of engaging in frivolous lawsuits, against companies whose only fault is they sold their product to morons, caught on like wildfire. When I was a kid, we got into the habit of saying, "So sue me," every time we did something our friends didn't like. As a kid, I never really thought about why we were saying that, but now as an adult I understand. What frightens me is that most adults don't understand, and continue to sue for ridiculous things. Why are frivolous lawsuits so appealing?
Despite many people saying we are currently in the Information Age, I believe we are in the Entitlement Age. With Social Security, amnesty for illegals, welfare, mandatory health care, affirmative action, bailouts and an array of other government sponsored benefits, it's easy to see why everybody has a sense of entitlement. Nobody is willing to work for money, or to earn anything. They expect to be given things based solely on the fact that they aren't earning anything. Need is not something one can exchange for value. Unfortunately most of the government and population have bought into entitlement 100%, after all, it's 'free' money.
Not everyone has bought in though. I was sitting in on a trial in court, and it was a divorce proceeding, and the prosecuting was telling the judge that she was entitled to the defendant's financial records, going back as far as she liked, even before the marriage. The judge was an older man and said, "I'm here to tell you that you are not entitled to those records." So there are judges out there who still posses common sense, although I get the feeling that they are far and few between.
What can we do to stop the flow of frivolous lawsuits? I would suggest encouraging your friends to use their brains and to remind them that when they order hot coffee that it usually comes hot.
© 2010 Nate Phillipps
Just like a trend or clothing fad, the act of engaging in frivolous lawsuits, against companies whose only fault is they sold their product to morons, caught on like wildfire. When I was a kid, we got into the habit of saying, "So sue me," every time we did something our friends didn't like. As a kid, I never really thought about why we were saying that, but now as an adult I understand. What frightens me is that most adults don't understand, and continue to sue for ridiculous things. Why are frivolous lawsuits so appealing?
Despite many people saying we are currently in the Information Age, I believe we are in the Entitlement Age. With Social Security, amnesty for illegals, welfare, mandatory health care, affirmative action, bailouts and an array of other government sponsored benefits, it's easy to see why everybody has a sense of entitlement. Nobody is willing to work for money, or to earn anything. They expect to be given things based solely on the fact that they aren't earning anything. Need is not something one can exchange for value. Unfortunately most of the government and population have bought into entitlement 100%, after all, it's 'free' money.
Not everyone has bought in though. I was sitting in on a trial in court, and it was a divorce proceeding, and the prosecuting was telling the judge that she was entitled to the defendant's financial records, going back as far as she liked, even before the marriage. The judge was an older man and said, "I'm here to tell you that you are not entitled to those records." So there are judges out there who still posses common sense, although I get the feeling that they are far and few between.
What can we do to stop the flow of frivolous lawsuits? I would suggest encouraging your friends to use their brains and to remind them that when they order hot coffee that it usually comes hot.
© 2010 Nate Phillipps
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Take Responsibility, Take Control
A recent poll states that 60% of the population is fed up with congress. Most people I've talked to have complained about the current direction of government. What bothers me, and others like me, is that people are willing to complain and speak about what is wrong, but when asked what we can do to fix it, look like a deer in headlights.
The first thing we should do is vote for independent parties. Every time. In 2008 I pledged to never vote for a republican or democrat again. I have stuck with it. I voted yesterday in Minnesota's primary election, and voted a straight independent ticket. The first thing people say to me when I tell them this is, "But you're throwing your vote away and giving it to the democrats." I am not throwing my vote away. My vote is mine to give. No one party has a claim on it or a right to it. If republicans and democrats do not represent my views, I would be doing a huge dishonor to my morals and values by giving them my vote.
What a lot of people don't understand is that the republicans and democrats have had control over the US government for over 200 years. Sure, their names changed, but ultimately, these two parties have a monopoly on government. They play themselves to the public as opponents on opposite ends of the spectrum, but that is not their true ideology. Their one and only goal is to stay in power. To accomplish that, they will work together. In the 2008 election the republicans and democrats banded together to keep third parties out of the debates. Anyone running for president has the right to participate in the debates, but they didn't let Bob Barr participate.
A recent article states that the Tea Party is winning in elections, but that they are costing republicans Senate seats. This is the republican and democratic media teaming up against independent parties. Republicans have no right to Senate seats. Democrats have no right to Senate seats. The only people who have a right to Senate seats are those we elect.
As citizens, we should be able to vote for whomever we choose. Any candidate running for president should be on the ballot. In 2008, the republicans and democrats joined hands once more to keep Bob Barr off of the ballot in five states. Bob Barr was only on 45 state ballots. I'm not endorsing Bob Barr, or saying he is the answer to all of our problems, I am pointing out how destructive the republicans and democrats are to our voting process and our freedom.
The second thing people say to me when I tell them that I vote for independents is, "An independent will never win." That may or may not be true. With our electoral college it is completely possible that no matter who we vote for as citizens, somebody else will be elected by the electors. If everyone decided to vote independent, the electors may very well decided to put a democrat in office. We won't know until it happens. The primary reason for voting independent is to send a message to the republicans and democrats. That message is, "You no longer represent America."
Can you imagine the uproar America would be in if the popular vote elected an independent, but the electors put in a democrat or republican? Can you imagine the reaction of the republicans and democrats if they found out more and more votes were going to independents? Do you think they might change their game-plan? I am of the opinion that the republicans and democrats are too far gone to try and save. I want America to open up their political system and let the citizens have more than two choices each election.
Competition is good. Competition leads to progress, real, measurable progress. Progress that doesn't raise taxes, progress that doesn't give handouts to the undeserving. Politics is a none-competitive venture right now. The health care vote passed. I believe both parties wanted it passed, even though there was 'strong' republican opposition. The only reason the republicans opposed it is so that the average American says, "Wow, the republicans opposed the health care bill. I'll vote for them next election." In reality, the republicans wanted the health care bill passed as much as the democrats did. Why? Because they want more power. They don't have to worry about competitors, so they get bored and want more power. They see themselves as kinds, gods even.
I did not vote for Obama, but we all elected him. 60% of us are upset with him, and yet he was elected. I knew before the election that he was a socialist. None of my friends believed me. They do now. As Americans, we need to take responsibility for this mess. We elected him. We have allowed them to take our freedoms away, we have allowed them to tax us, we have allowed them to rule us. Our problem is not democrats. Our problem is not republicans. Our problem is democrats AND republicans.
Take responsibility. Learn about candidates before going to the polls. If you are tired of the direction our country has been going in since the Great Depression, vote independent, don't vote republican or democrat. Republicans and democrats have taken us to where we are today, they will not save us. Do you research, please be an informed voter. If you are not informed, you are part of the problem. Turn off CNN. Turn off FOX. They are both evil. Think for yourself. Vote independent. Take responsibility. Take control.
© 2010 Nate Phillipps
The first thing we should do is vote for independent parties. Every time. In 2008 I pledged to never vote for a republican or democrat again. I have stuck with it. I voted yesterday in Minnesota's primary election, and voted a straight independent ticket. The first thing people say to me when I tell them this is, "But you're throwing your vote away and giving it to the democrats." I am not throwing my vote away. My vote is mine to give. No one party has a claim on it or a right to it. If republicans and democrats do not represent my views, I would be doing a huge dishonor to my morals and values by giving them my vote.
What a lot of people don't understand is that the republicans and democrats have had control over the US government for over 200 years. Sure, their names changed, but ultimately, these two parties have a monopoly on government. They play themselves to the public as opponents on opposite ends of the spectrum, but that is not their true ideology. Their one and only goal is to stay in power. To accomplish that, they will work together. In the 2008 election the republicans and democrats banded together to keep third parties out of the debates. Anyone running for president has the right to participate in the debates, but they didn't let Bob Barr participate.
A recent article states that the Tea Party is winning in elections, but that they are costing republicans Senate seats. This is the republican and democratic media teaming up against independent parties. Republicans have no right to Senate seats. Democrats have no right to Senate seats. The only people who have a right to Senate seats are those we elect.
As citizens, we should be able to vote for whomever we choose. Any candidate running for president should be on the ballot. In 2008, the republicans and democrats joined hands once more to keep Bob Barr off of the ballot in five states. Bob Barr was only on 45 state ballots. I'm not endorsing Bob Barr, or saying he is the answer to all of our problems, I am pointing out how destructive the republicans and democrats are to our voting process and our freedom.
The second thing people say to me when I tell them that I vote for independents is, "An independent will never win." That may or may not be true. With our electoral college it is completely possible that no matter who we vote for as citizens, somebody else will be elected by the electors. If everyone decided to vote independent, the electors may very well decided to put a democrat in office. We won't know until it happens. The primary reason for voting independent is to send a message to the republicans and democrats. That message is, "You no longer represent America."
Can you imagine the uproar America would be in if the popular vote elected an independent, but the electors put in a democrat or republican? Can you imagine the reaction of the republicans and democrats if they found out more and more votes were going to independents? Do you think they might change their game-plan? I am of the opinion that the republicans and democrats are too far gone to try and save. I want America to open up their political system and let the citizens have more than two choices each election.
Competition is good. Competition leads to progress, real, measurable progress. Progress that doesn't raise taxes, progress that doesn't give handouts to the undeserving. Politics is a none-competitive venture right now. The health care vote passed. I believe both parties wanted it passed, even though there was 'strong' republican opposition. The only reason the republicans opposed it is so that the average American says, "Wow, the republicans opposed the health care bill. I'll vote for them next election." In reality, the republicans wanted the health care bill passed as much as the democrats did. Why? Because they want more power. They don't have to worry about competitors, so they get bored and want more power. They see themselves as kinds, gods even.
I did not vote for Obama, but we all elected him. 60% of us are upset with him, and yet he was elected. I knew before the election that he was a socialist. None of my friends believed me. They do now. As Americans, we need to take responsibility for this mess. We elected him. We have allowed them to take our freedoms away, we have allowed them to tax us, we have allowed them to rule us. Our problem is not democrats. Our problem is not republicans. Our problem is democrats AND republicans.
Take responsibility. Learn about candidates before going to the polls. If you are tired of the direction our country has been going in since the Great Depression, vote independent, don't vote republican or democrat. Republicans and democrats have taken us to where we are today, they will not save us. Do you research, please be an informed voter. If you are not informed, you are part of the problem. Turn off CNN. Turn off FOX. They are both evil. Think for yourself. Vote independent. Take responsibility. Take control.
© 2010 Nate Phillipps
Sunday, August 8, 2010
Chicken Dinner
So... I almost got into a fight on Friday night, or really early Saturday morning, depending on how you look at it. Just so you know, this was my first attempt at gambling. I played blackjack with my brother and his girlfriend. Armed with $20 in $1 chips, we sat down at a $3 table. After watching for a bit, I started gambling. The table was mostly full, and everyone was roughly my age or my brother's age. We were all enjoying ourselves, laughing and joking. Even our dealer, Toon, was great.
One of the players won on a $3 bet and said, "Winner winner, chicken dinner." Toon replied, "You can't buy a chicken dinner with $3, maybe a chicken sandwich." And that's how most of the night went. Normally I'm not interested in gambling, but my brother enjoys it and I wanted to see what it was like. It's not something I'd do often, but it can be enjoyable, if you're smart about it. But this isn't a gambling blog, this is a political blog.
Near the end of the night, alright, around 4am, a guy came and sat down at the table. He was drunk, a little older than me, and apparently full of bad luck that night. He sat right next to me, on my right. We were going along fine when he started saying, "What are you guys doing?! You stay on 12! 2 is the best card!" He repeated this several times, much to the table's annoyance. The next hand, I had 12 and the dealer had a 4 showing, which means odds are he has 14. I hit. This drove the guy nuts. He was practically yelling, "You STAY on 12. If you stay on 12, everyone wins."
Unfortunately for him, I don't care if everybody wins. I only care if I win. The other players are not my opponents, at least not directly, but I receive no benefit from them winning if I lose. My playing strategy for the night, and incedently for my life, was to play to win. That strategy has no room for the consideration of other players. With that said, I am not going to try and cheat them, or try to be mean to them, but I certainly will not play with the objective of them winning at my expense. Would I like to see everybody win? I don't measure myself by other people's wins and losses, so I don't really care. We all sat down at that table knowing some might win and some might lose.
This guy just wasn't getting it, so I said, "You play how you want and we'll play how we want."
"Just listen to what I'm telling you..."
"I don't care," I said, cutting him off.
"No, just listen."
"I don't care," I repeated.
"Do you have an issue with me? Are we going to have a problem?" he asked angrily.
"No, it's $3 blackjack, I'm just here to have fun," I said firmly.
I thought he was going to ask me to step outside, but instead he shut up. I later found out that at least two of the other people sitting at the table would have had my back, if things did end up out in the parking lot. The guy kept mumbling, "Every fucking table," so apparently his 'tips' didn't go over so well at other tables either.
If I'm playing, I'm in it to win. I am a good sport, but a fierce competitor. Winning is my objective. Winning is the objective of life. How you measure that could by money, a family, friends, your job, or several other factors. You cannot win at blackjack or life by putting other people first. If I cared about the outcome of the other players, I would not have been able to take my $20 and turn it into $50, but I did. I did it by hitting on 12, and now I can enjoy two chicken dinners, or ten chicken sandwiches.
© 2010 Nate Phillipps
One of the players won on a $3 bet and said, "Winner winner, chicken dinner." Toon replied, "You can't buy a chicken dinner with $3, maybe a chicken sandwich." And that's how most of the night went. Normally I'm not interested in gambling, but my brother enjoys it and I wanted to see what it was like. It's not something I'd do often, but it can be enjoyable, if you're smart about it. But this isn't a gambling blog, this is a political blog.
Near the end of the night, alright, around 4am, a guy came and sat down at the table. He was drunk, a little older than me, and apparently full of bad luck that night. He sat right next to me, on my right. We were going along fine when he started saying, "What are you guys doing?! You stay on 12! 2 is the best card!" He repeated this several times, much to the table's annoyance. The next hand, I had 12 and the dealer had a 4 showing, which means odds are he has 14. I hit. This drove the guy nuts. He was practically yelling, "You STAY on 12. If you stay on 12, everyone wins."
Unfortunately for him, I don't care if everybody wins. I only care if I win. The other players are not my opponents, at least not directly, but I receive no benefit from them winning if I lose. My playing strategy for the night, and incedently for my life, was to play to win. That strategy has no room for the consideration of other players. With that said, I am not going to try and cheat them, or try to be mean to them, but I certainly will not play with the objective of them winning at my expense. Would I like to see everybody win? I don't measure myself by other people's wins and losses, so I don't really care. We all sat down at that table knowing some might win and some might lose.
This guy just wasn't getting it, so I said, "You play how you want and we'll play how we want."
"Just listen to what I'm telling you..."
"I don't care," I said, cutting him off.
"No, just listen."
"I don't care," I repeated.
"Do you have an issue with me? Are we going to have a problem?" he asked angrily.
"No, it's $3 blackjack, I'm just here to have fun," I said firmly.
I thought he was going to ask me to step outside, but instead he shut up. I later found out that at least two of the other people sitting at the table would have had my back, if things did end up out in the parking lot. The guy kept mumbling, "Every fucking table," so apparently his 'tips' didn't go over so well at other tables either.
If I'm playing, I'm in it to win. I am a good sport, but a fierce competitor. Winning is my objective. Winning is the objective of life. How you measure that could by money, a family, friends, your job, or several other factors. You cannot win at blackjack or life by putting other people first. If I cared about the outcome of the other players, I would not have been able to take my $20 and turn it into $50, but I did. I did it by hitting on 12, and now I can enjoy two chicken dinners, or ten chicken sandwiches.
© 2010 Nate Phillipps
The Rule Of Gold
I was asked, "Objectivsm is basically common sense. Why do you think so many people fail to use it, or understand it? Why is it not taught more? What would be the state of our country, if more people realized that their happiness is their obligation, and not mine?"
Objectivism is basically what it takes most people all their lives to figure out: that the only person you can rely on in life is yourself. Being successful, or winning, feels good because it is right. There is nothing to be ashamed of if you are better than someone else. If you fail there is nothing to be ashamed of as long as you learned something. People fail to use it, or understand it for several reasons; the first being that most people are lazy and stupid. The second reason is that our public schools are run by the government, and the government desires citizens who are lazy and stupid. If the population is lazy and stupid, then the government has free reign to tax, pass laws, etc. No Child Left Behind was designed to make every child as dumb as the dumbest student. The third reason is religion. Christianity states, "Love your neighbor as you love yourself." The Bahá'í Faith states, "Blessed is he who preferreth his brother before himself." Judaism, "The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as one of your citizens; you shall love him as yourself." Taoism, "Regard your neighbor's gain as your own gain, and your neighbor's loss as your own loss." As you can see, the them of putting other people's interests before your own is a common theme in religion.
Some people claim that these religious edicts are alterations of the golden rule. The golden rule is to treat others as you want to be treated. Nowhere in there does it say put others before yourself. Objectivism takes that one step further and brings in a component of value. Only items or services that have a value for you are to be sought, and something of value will be given in exchange. People who aren't fair or valuable need not be dealt with. An object's value derives from within you. A certain book may not be worth much to others, but it might be worth over $100 to me. If you don't like the book, you are under no obligation to buy it. This is where the government and religion take the counterpoint role to Objectivism.
According to the government and religion, poor people are the responsibility of the wealthy. According to Objectivism, the poor are their own responsibility just as the wealthy are only responsible for themselves. Now, if you receive a value from helping poor people, be it monetary or pride, then it is a noble cause. To pass a law or preach a doctrine that if you don't help poor people you are the scum of society, is completely wrong. Objectivism is about doing what you want for reasons that you understand. Slavery is about doing what other people want for reasons you do not understand. The government, the schools, and the religious institutions want slaves. No, they're not going to break out the whips and chains. They do not want physical slaves, they want mental slaves. They want control of our brains, our thoughts, and our feelings. This is why more people do not see the value of Objectivism. From birth they are told to love others more than they love themselves, that being selfish is evil, and that if you trust in God, the government, or any authority figure, you need or want will be provided.
Entitlement is for the weak, the lazy, the uninformed, the selfless. If everyone realized their happiness was their own responsibility, we would live in a completely different society. All this would take is for everyone to realize that their actions lead to consequences. These consequences could be good or bad, but every action leads to some other action. If you steal, you might be arrested. If you work hard, you may be rewarded. If people took responsibility for their own lives, there would be less whining, and I would have to buy less Advil. Under the current system, this will never happen.
Right now I work for money and you work for money. However, we are not being paid money. We are being paid with fancy pieces of paper that are backed by nothing other than the word of the goverment. The government tells us, "These pieces of paper are worth something, we promise." The truth is they are worth nothing. Our money is not backed by gold, silver, bronze, stainless steel, aluminum, rubies, diamonds, or even sand. Our money is backed by the word of our government. The International Monetary Fund ensured that no other currency would be backed by gold, forcing countries wanting to join the IMF to sell their gold and silver.
If our government collapsed, everyone would be broke. If our money was backed by gold, our money would still have a value even without the government, as we could trade our dollars in for gold, which we could use to trade for goods and services from anybody in the world. If we were an objectivist nation, we would have currency backed by gold (or something else of value), we would not have government run programs (other than the military, the police, and the court system), we would have low taxes (more like a annual membership fee), we would be allowed to succeed on our own, and we would be responsible only for ourselves. Sure there would still be lazy people, but they would not be in a position of power, they would be destitute.
We are a nation of non-earners. Those who earn are forced to give their earnings to the government. Non-earners receive money, from the government, for the sole reason that they earn nothing. Objectivism does not reward anyone, rather, those who are earners earn rewards and those who are non-earners do not earn anything. Objectivism's rule of gold is, "Those with value receive value, those without value receive no value." Note that value is not defined. Value is anything that the individual places worth upon. It could be money, gold, pride, friendship, or any number of other items.
The first step to creating an Objectivist country is to understand that the only person you should love as yourself, is yourself. Nobody else even comes close.
© 2010 Nate Phillipps
Objectivism is basically what it takes most people all their lives to figure out: that the only person you can rely on in life is yourself. Being successful, or winning, feels good because it is right. There is nothing to be ashamed of if you are better than someone else. If you fail there is nothing to be ashamed of as long as you learned something. People fail to use it, or understand it for several reasons; the first being that most people are lazy and stupid. The second reason is that our public schools are run by the government, and the government desires citizens who are lazy and stupid. If the population is lazy and stupid, then the government has free reign to tax, pass laws, etc. No Child Left Behind was designed to make every child as dumb as the dumbest student. The third reason is religion. Christianity states, "Love your neighbor as you love yourself." The Bahá'í Faith states, "Blessed is he who preferreth his brother before himself." Judaism, "The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as one of your citizens; you shall love him as yourself." Taoism, "Regard your neighbor's gain as your own gain, and your neighbor's loss as your own loss." As you can see, the them of putting other people's interests before your own is a common theme in religion.
Some people claim that these religious edicts are alterations of the golden rule. The golden rule is to treat others as you want to be treated. Nowhere in there does it say put others before yourself. Objectivism takes that one step further and brings in a component of value. Only items or services that have a value for you are to be sought, and something of value will be given in exchange. People who aren't fair or valuable need not be dealt with. An object's value derives from within you. A certain book may not be worth much to others, but it might be worth over $100 to me. If you don't like the book, you are under no obligation to buy it. This is where the government and religion take the counterpoint role to Objectivism.
According to the government and religion, poor people are the responsibility of the wealthy. According to Objectivism, the poor are their own responsibility just as the wealthy are only responsible for themselves. Now, if you receive a value from helping poor people, be it monetary or pride, then it is a noble cause. To pass a law or preach a doctrine that if you don't help poor people you are the scum of society, is completely wrong. Objectivism is about doing what you want for reasons that you understand. Slavery is about doing what other people want for reasons you do not understand. The government, the schools, and the religious institutions want slaves. No, they're not going to break out the whips and chains. They do not want physical slaves, they want mental slaves. They want control of our brains, our thoughts, and our feelings. This is why more people do not see the value of Objectivism. From birth they are told to love others more than they love themselves, that being selfish is evil, and that if you trust in God, the government, or any authority figure, you need or want will be provided.
Entitlement is for the weak, the lazy, the uninformed, the selfless. If everyone realized their happiness was their own responsibility, we would live in a completely different society. All this would take is for everyone to realize that their actions lead to consequences. These consequences could be good or bad, but every action leads to some other action. If you steal, you might be arrested. If you work hard, you may be rewarded. If people took responsibility for their own lives, there would be less whining, and I would have to buy less Advil. Under the current system, this will never happen.
Right now I work for money and you work for money. However, we are not being paid money. We are being paid with fancy pieces of paper that are backed by nothing other than the word of the goverment. The government tells us, "These pieces of paper are worth something, we promise." The truth is they are worth nothing. Our money is not backed by gold, silver, bronze, stainless steel, aluminum, rubies, diamonds, or even sand. Our money is backed by the word of our government. The International Monetary Fund ensured that no other currency would be backed by gold, forcing countries wanting to join the IMF to sell their gold and silver.
If our government collapsed, everyone would be broke. If our money was backed by gold, our money would still have a value even without the government, as we could trade our dollars in for gold, which we could use to trade for goods and services from anybody in the world. If we were an objectivist nation, we would have currency backed by gold (or something else of value), we would not have government run programs (other than the military, the police, and the court system), we would have low taxes (more like a annual membership fee), we would be allowed to succeed on our own, and we would be responsible only for ourselves. Sure there would still be lazy people, but they would not be in a position of power, they would be destitute.
We are a nation of non-earners. Those who earn are forced to give their earnings to the government. Non-earners receive money, from the government, for the sole reason that they earn nothing. Objectivism does not reward anyone, rather, those who are earners earn rewards and those who are non-earners do not earn anything. Objectivism's rule of gold is, "Those with value receive value, those without value receive no value." Note that value is not defined. Value is anything that the individual places worth upon. It could be money, gold, pride, friendship, or any number of other items.
The first step to creating an Objectivist country is to understand that the only person you should love as yourself, is yourself. Nobody else even comes close.
© 2010 Nate Phillipps
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)