Lady Gaga on National Defense

Lady Gaga insists senators "do their job," repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell, and permit closet homosexuals in the military to identify themselves. Further, she believes the prohibition of openly gay soldiers in the military "infringes on of civil rights."

This story is from the front page of CNN.

I wonder why more pop singers aren't making their contribution to these crucial matters of national defense policy. I, for one, see no reason why Nora Jones hasn't used her success in music to change politics for the better, specifically, to compel officers and generals to disclose their sexual orientation and those of members of their battalions. Indeed, is the whole music industry derelict in their responsibility to advance the public good by ignoring these important matters! After all, we're the world's last superpower. You'd think one member of Cake could give a shout out for the closeted fairy in Company B. What has this world come to when our most talented American icons are helpless to wield the legislative pen?

How are our politicians supposed to know what the hell to do without sages like Gaga telling them what the populous thinks? Have we descended so far into anarchy that the words of a woman so well-known, so in-your-face, can do nothing to shape the future of our military policy?

Let us all breathe a sigh of relief that Gaga will not be ignored. Yes, her words, and the exposure of the National Media will persuade, cajole, and outright stuff the ballot box to ensure the mob of the majority usurps reason at every opportunity.

I am not afraid that gay men will soon be permitted to identify potential sexual partners in their barracks, and even have incentive to join the military in order to do so.

Interpreting Triangle Top: Moral Philosophy

My hope is that Triangle Top: The Tale of a Troubled Tribe is a book that works on multiple levels. I wanted to provide children a colorful, entertaining story, and deliver parents a depth of meaning that can be applied to many different aspects of the real world (business, politics, economics, society, philosophy, etc.). It is an analysis of a community of highly-specialized creatures dependent on each other to go about their daily lives. I think this is rather similar to our actual, real-world condition. If any truth exists in the story, it will accurately represent one or more aspects of our experience as members of a family/company/state/society or any group situation. Since moral philosophy pertains to all situations that involve groups, the following analysis outlines principles central to its conception and meaning...

Trumples represent any material thing desired by mankind universally. The closest approximation would be money.

Trumples = Money

Trylicans are severely handicapped monsters dependent on routine and resistant to change.

They always walk in the same direction instinctively. They have specialized skills that allow them to survive by working together. They cooperate out of necessity using the virtual limits of their abilities. John Stuart Mill, the utilitarian thinker says the following of individuals who might be described as "Trylican-like."

"He who lets the world, or his own portion of it, choose his plan of life for him, has no need of any other faculty than the ape-like one of imitation." -John Stuart Mill

Trylicans live perfectly happy lives by depending on routine, tradition, and imitation.

The manner in which the tribe attains the trumples is most definitely utilitarian. First, the Tweeble (the big hopping eye) kidnaps a Twarfer (the walking mouth) and binds him to a tree without his consent. This is a violation of the Twarfer's individual rights. The twarfer responds by twarfing (i.e. screaming). His screams do not fall on deaf ears...

Trollephants (walking ears with arms) are listening. They hear the twarfing and know that Twarfers twarf when they are tied to trumple trees. They are not tall enough to reach the trumples themselves, so they find a Titan (probably by listening for its footsteps) and push the Titan toward the twarfing. The Titan "taps the trunk," and "trumples topple for all the tribe."

In this way, they get quite a lot of utility by binding the Twarfer against his will, depriving him of what some consider his inalienable right to liberty. This makes the Twarfer a slave for the good of the whole. Yet, the tribe could not attain trumples without his twarfing, and compensates for the injustice by feeding (paying) the Twarfer bits of trumple.
Let's discuss whether the Tweeble's actions are justified. First, remember, the Tweeble himself is not free. His (and the tribe's) dependence on the tradition of violating the Twarfer's rights had purpose. It is required to acquire trumples. The Tweeble might argue he was bound to the obligation to tie the Twarfer as much as the Twarfer was bound to the obligation to be tied.

What's the difference? The Twarfer had no choice in the matter. The Tweeble's choice is to tie the Twarfer or do nothing and die of starvation as a result, along with the other Trylicans. Do the ends justify the means?

John Stuart Mill thinks so. Mill believes that not only is the Tweeble justified to tie up the Twarfer, but that he has a moral obligation to do so.

"A person may cause evil to others not only by his actions but by his inaction, and in either case he is justly accountable to them for the injury." -John Stuart Mill

Mill believes the Tweeble would be accountable for the Twarfer's starvation if he did not take action and tie him to the tree. Mill believes the Twarfer's rights are secondary, and the trumply consequences are primary, more than justifying the violation of rights.

Immanuel Kant disagrees with Mill...

"In law a man is guilty when he violates the rights of others. In ethics he is guilty if he only thinks of doing so." Immanuel Kant

For Kant, there is no question the Tweeble would be guilty by law. And, in ethics, the Tweeble would possibly be guilty.

What makes the Tweeble guilty?

He is ethically guilty if he thinks of violating the rights of the Twarfer.

But, remember, Trylicans depend on routine, tradition, and imitation. The Tweeble is not guilty, ethically, if he acts without thinking...in other words, if he acts according to tradition or imitation alone, and is truly unaware of the violation.

Thoughtless adherence to tradition, for Kant, provides somewhat of an ethical safety bubble. Provided one remains in a state of ignorance, utilizing nothing more than their faculty of imitation, they cannot be held ethically accountable. (A blind person cannot be held accountable for committing a crime that requires sight. Manslaughter, if completely incidental and unintentional, is morally neutral).

What if the Tweeble recognizes the ethical problem with his actions? Does he have a practical incentive to change his behavior? No, he has only disincentive. To change his behavior would be a confession of guilt, as his life had been devoted to the abhorrent practice of tying Twarfers. Furthermore, if he is capable of understanding the rights violation, he is also capable of understanding the conditions of his innocence: The answer to the question: "why did you do that?" - no matter how heinous - can always be answered: "because that is the way it has always been done." His simple innocence is plausible.

This is a powerful incentive not to think too much. It is, in fact, much more than that. It is an incentive to arrange one's life so that nothing must be done that has never been done before - to live according to precedence rather than reason. Living in a state of perpetual, thoughtless routine would require unchanging conditions like those the Trylicans enjoyed for their entire experience on Triangle Top. The benefits are profound. This is a recipe for peace, justice, blamelessness, and mutual reward. One might reasonably argue there is a moral obligation to bind one's sense of duty to proven traditions and routine over dangerous and unnecessary new experiences in order to preserve a state of moral purity unattainable any other way.

Conditions, however, are subject to change...

Travis is just like all the other Tweebles, with one exception. He happens to be the first one to identify the cliff (troubling terrain) over which the entire tribe is about to tumble.

He is suddenly, for the first time, unable to appeal to tradition. He observes the physical properties of the cliff and the direction of the tribe's advance. Through reason, which he cannot ignore or deny, he is necessarily bound to the reality that tribe's adherence to tradition will send them tumbling to their deaths. His former rule, that of not thinking, will no longer protect him. He is suddenly compelled to action, which would be justified by two moral theories that are often in conflict:

• Deontological (Kant): Based on the action's adherence to duty, recognizing individuals never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end.
  
• Consequential (Mill): Based on action that produces a good outcome, or consequence, recognizing individuals as a means to the greatest good for the greatest number.
  

Deontological Reasoning:
Travis' duty is to "turn the tribe from total termination" if he is able. Rescuing the tribe is likely something Kant would consider congruent with the categorical imperative.

"A categorical imperative would be one which represented an action as objectively necessary in itself, without reference to any other purpose." -Kant

But, the Categorical Imperitive has more conditions. Travis must:

"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." -Kant (If another Tweeble saw this, they ought to do the same.)

And...

"Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means to an end." -Kant (Respect the rights of every Trylican, treating them always as ends, and not killing-off any for the good of the whole).

And...

"Every rational being must so act as if he were through his maxim always a legislating member in the universal kingdom of ends." -Kant

Basically, Travis must do everything he is capable of doing to rescue each individual in the tribe out of reverence to duty and for no other reason. He also must do so as if his every action, in his circumstance, he would will to be universal law. And, he must do so with regard for the rights of every Trylican. Tough gig.

Consequential Reasoning
The greatest good for the greatest number depends on Travis doing something. (See Mill's earlier quote on inaction). Travis must prevent great harm, and is quite justified by the harm principle in acting:

"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant." -Mill

Since every member of the tribe is doing harm to one another, and they can be prevented from doing more harm, Travis has "sufficient warrant" to exercise power over any individual in the tribe against his will.

Incidentally, the former Travis, who was bound to tradition and imitation, has now converted to a thinking creature, which Mill respects and encourages...

"He who chooses his plan for himself, employs all his faculties. He must use observation to see, reasoning and judgment to foresee, activity to gather materials for decision, discrimination to decide, and when he has decided, firmness and self-control to hold to his deliberate decision." -Mill

While one might argue that Travis is obligated to use his faculties, he does choose his plan for himself. Like his earlier choice to continue tying Twarfers after recognizing the violation, he once again chooses against the suicidal option to do nothing. He does have a purely selfish utilitarian justification, as he cannot get trumples without at least one Twarfer, one Trollephant, and one Titan. His own life is also at stake here as it was before.

But, telling the tribe anything is taxing for a Tweeble. Travis, in desperation, ties a Twarfer to a Titan. He is unfamiliar with the responsibility of new knowledge, and ill-prepared to act according to reason. His purpose is communication. He wishes to "transmit the tale" of the tribe's tumultuous trajectory.
He courageously acts, but learns he not only lacks the mouth to communicate, but that the Titan has no way of perceiving the message he is attempting to transmit. He essentially discovers that effective communication with the Titan is not possible. He learns the benefit of trial and error; that we learn from failure.

This action has significance. Since this act does not have precedence, Travis acts outside of the safety bubble of tradition entirely, and thus unequivocally violates the Twarfer's rights intentionally. According to Kant, this action is certainly a moral crime. It would be a crime according the law as well.

Mill also seems to reject the moral worth of this action, since its consequences seem not to be helping.

It seems that we have agreement here: Tying the Twarfer to the Titan was not the right thing to do...

The chaos of the entanglement demonstrates the shock and confusion of many traditional beings simultaneously being exposed to something different. Anything other than tradition, for a Trylican, is a dangerous force separating them from their treasured trumples. They instinctively clump together, expecting, in vain, to acquire trumples from one another. The productivity and advancement of the tribe is slowed. (The slowing down the tribe was a detail that had to be cut from the text of the printed book.)

Those who interpret the story as espousing only the merits of cooperation did not observe how misled cooperation motivated them to participate in the fruitless pursuit of extracting trumples from each other in a senseless mob. The simple message, "cooperation is good," is also contrary to Travis' next heroic individual effort of dragging a Twarfer to a distant trumple tree...

Realizing he has no means to communicate with the tribe directly, he thinks of an original plan to rescue them. He aims to turn the tribe by using faculties that other members of the tribe actually do possess. He aims to produce twarfing from a trumple tree far away from the cliff. He hopes the twarfing will attract the attention of the Trollephants who will push Titans away from the cliff, thus turning the trajectory of the tribe.

Travis has learned that all original actions must be justified by reason; without precedence, they are not only morally suspect, but potentially disastrous. Reason demands that he respect certain conditions in order to effectively execute his plan. He must act according to the tradition/law/precedence (even if the law is corrupt). He knows that the consequence of rescuing the tribe by acting contrary to tradition would have the effect of justifying action other than acquiring trumples. The tribe depends on acquiring trumples for its sustenance, and also depends on imitation and tradition. Whatever Travis does, he suspects it will be imitated. As a Tweeble, he has only one choice. He must turn the tribe by tying Twarfers to trumple trees. There can be no alternative but death.

This is the first time in the story any Trylican does anything autonomously, that could be sincerely willed to be universal law, and treats others also as ends in themselves. According to Kant, Travis' trek to the distant trumple is the first truly moral act perpetuated by any Trylican.

Travis' course of action is also a moral act according to Mill, assuming rescuing the tribe is an end worth pursuing, and passes the test of whether the means justify it:

"All action is for the sake of some end, and rules of action, it seems natural to suppose, must take their whole character and colour from the end to which they are subservient. When we engage in a pursuit, a clear and precise conception of what we are pursuing would seem to be the first thing we need, instead of the last we are to look forward to. A test of right and wrong must be the means, one would think, of ascertaining what is right or wrong, and not a consequence of having already ascertained it." -Mill Utilitarianism

Travis uses imitation to his advantage. Since his actions are consistent with the tradition of tying Twarers, other Tweebles (those not paralyzed with despair) are comfortable coming to his aid. There is a possibility the imitating Tweebles comprehend the significance, and if so, could be acting morally as well.

Despair takes hold of Tweebles as they tie the twarfers. They cry, causing a great big mess.
Neither Mill nor Kant make a case that crying is an indication of moral worth. Folks are regularly affected to tears for trivialities, vain reasons, or possibly no reason whatsoever. (Of course, for the gravest reasons as well). I added this based on my observation that crying in the face of danger adds to despair, making conditions more hopeless, which adds to more tears. The self-destructive cycle is tragic, harmful, and universal (as we are all susceptible to it). However, to the degree it is a necessary end in itself, and with respect to empathy and emotion that would be willed to be universal law under the circumstances, I do not reject the possibility it is sometimes a categorical imperative. If the flood is interpreted this way, I would not object.

Now the plot thickens. The tribe dangles over the side of the cliff. The action that was previously immoral on both accounts (the tying of Tweebles to Titans) has the consequence of preserving the lives of many Trylicans.

The tears burst over the side in a waterfall, draining the flood, which allows the Tweebles to continue effectively tying Twarfers. Both of these events are completely unintended, incidental, consequences of Travis' plan.

For fun, Trylicans who had been expecting trumples are suddenly bewildered by their unfamiliar condition.

What is unfolding is a series of events that could not have been planned or predicted. Finally, after a tumultuous effort, one Trollephant finally hears the Twarfing and pushes one Titan toward Travis' Tweebles.
The Trollephant is acting according to tradition, but happens to be doing the right thing. Is the moral worth of his action dependent upon whether he can comprehend the nature of the events surrounding him correctly? Is this necessary for the Trollephant's action to have moral worth? We know that it is not enough that the act is consistent with duty, and that it must be carried out in the name of fulfilling a duty. But, he may have sincerely believed that he was fulfilling his duty while getting trumples for the tribe before, even as he was pushing them over a cliff. This suggests that in order for an action to have moral worth, it must be in the name of fulfilling the primary duty (rather than a means to something else), and comprehending the reasons, means, and possible ends for such duty, along with the alternatives. It suggests that reason, thought, and consciousness are required for morality. This contradicts the earlier claim, that thoughtlessness and "binding one's sense of duty to proven traditions and routine...[is necessary to]...preserving a state of moral purity."

Kant calls actions that are means to some end hypothetical imperatives. Therefore, anything done as a means to something else, even actions that aid in turning the tribe from total termination, are hypothetical imperatives that can be judged by their consequences. An action consistent with the categorical imperative is necessary and regarded as an end in itself and not merely a means; it has moral worth regardless of its consequences.

Despite the efforts of the Trollephants and Tweebles to retract the dangling tribe, the "Titans thrashed terribly" and "tens of Trylicans tumbled into the trough of tears below." This is an unintended consequence. Even the best efforts of the Tweebles, Trollephants, and Twarfers couldn't stop the helpless, dangling Titans from excusing themselves and their companions from the safety of the tribe. They act without precedence and not according to reason, but, in this case, panic and fear. They fall into the trough of tears that providence has provided them, incidental to the Trylicans' efforts. The torrent of tears happened to save the unfortunate Trylicans from death.

Remaining Trylicans are pulled to safety, and the tribe toddles toward tremendous tracts of trumples beyond.

The consequence of this tragedy is the loss of some Trylicans into the trough of tears below, and the turning of the tribe away from the cliff. The concluding text points out that "since telling tales was not tradition, all Trylican truths trickled into twilight, never to be twarfed again." In other words, when they eventually reach the cliff on the other side of the Triangle Top, they will probably suffer the same fate because they had not recorded and learned from history. (Tradition does have merit when fused with reason, and learning from history is arguably the most meritorious tradition humans have).

There is significance to the fact that "Travis was tossed into the trough of tears" (although, this is a bit esoteric). The individual who acts according to reason and opposes a popular tradition is an outlaw, and accepts full accountability for the results of their actions (good or bad, they cannot appeal to precedence). The Tweebles' way-of-life is challenged by Travis. Therefore, Travis is tossed into the trough (presumably by the other Tweebles). One could suspect the reasoning for this is utilitarian and two-fold, with one reason exposed and the other secret:

• The exposed reason is that Tweebles need trumple, and generally believe it cannot be acquired without tying Twarfers. Travis' act of tying Twarfers to Titans is contrary to their goals (generally) and not to be imitated in the future. While not exactly a crime, they use this as a scape goat to punish him as an example to the others in order to preserve their trumple-acquiring tradition.
  
• Secretly, they are also threatened by this "tenacious Tweeble" who thinks autonomously. They know they kidnap and assault Twarfers in order to acquire trumples. They fear they will starve without doing so. Yet, rather than defending these actions as necessary, they opt to toss Travis into the trough.

This suggests a popular willingness to kill an innocent Trylican in favor of defending a way-of-life that cannot be justified by reason. It reveals that the Tweebles will not only kidnap and assault to acquire trumples, but also murder (or attempt to murder) even the one who himself turned the tribe from total termination.

While the story had to be ended somewhere (and it's already complicated enough for children), there are finer points that could have rounded-out the message. Given more pages, I might have indicated that all the Tweebles contributed to the tossing of Travis. While any tradition that depends on murder is suspect, the unanimous agreement to toss Travis completely invalidates the last remaining justification for the Tweebles' way-of-life. Their last hope of justification was appealing to the blind, innocent, 'ape-like' imitation that prompted Tweebles to tie Twarfers. Yet, any innocent, imitating Tweeble would certainly not suddenly break tradition to participate in murder. This reveals that Tweebles are not thoughtless, and not dependent entirely upon imitation, but certainly capable of thinking for themselves. As such, if they do think for themselves, and prefer to kill rather than allow their traditions to be subject to scrutiny, they must not believe their traditions are justified.

This scenario should have saved the Tweebles and Twarfers the trouble and allowed them to have a greater sense of trust with one another (proving that, indeed, all Tweebles think). It should have dispelled the fallacy that Tryicans were bound to imitation and lacked reason. It should have been a profound reason to expect wonderful things from fellow Trylicans and emancipated the Twarfers.

Alas, they are Trylicans, not humans, and live in a depraved state of knowing, reasoning, but not having the faculty of communication. Therefore, they will be bound to their hopeless condition forever, only recognizing the fact that the others have reason upon facing calamity.

The story is essentially a critique of strict, traditional fundamentalism and moral absolutism, and I am always happy to discuss it further. Thanks for reading! -Mark

Incredible

in·cred·i·ble

Pronunciation: \(ˌ)in-ˈkre-də-bəl\

1 : too extraordinary and improbable to be believed

2 : Amazing, Extraordinary (incredible skill) (incredible appetite) (incredible woman)

When I first pondered this word a few weeks ago I suspected it may have derived from the root "cred," as in "Lil Wayne and Slim Thug have ascertained street cred with their new tune turn my swag on." Many of us are familiar with the other form that means the same thing: "credible."

It was not a far jump to assume that something described as incredible would simply be not credible.

• cred
• credit: cred
  
• credible: having cred
• incredible: not having cred
  

After all the in added to the beginning of a word often changes its meaning to the opposite:

• visible/invisible
  
• valid/invalid
  
• consistent/inconsistent

Perhaps "inconsistent" comes to mind because I suspect the word "incredible" is inconsistent with the remainder of the English language.

Let's look deeper at the word "credible." (It turns out it's a little more specific than "cred"):

1 : offering reasonable grounds for being believed

The key word is "reason." If something is credible it is always reasonable to believe. Now, what is considered "reasonable" varies from one person to the next, but regardless, one might logically surmise that something incredible is always unreasonable to believe. This is not the case, as we can all agree that:

• Widgets in cans of Guinness infuse the malt beverage with nitrogen when opened...both incredible and reasonable to believe.
  
• We all live on a large sphere that orbits an even larger ball of fusion...both incredible and reasonable.
  
• This essay might be read by any one of billions across the world immediately after posting...incredible and reasonable.
  

As I have just proved, what is incredible can also be reasonable. Yes, as reasonable as something that is credible. We, the human race, have forsaken the antonym of the word credible altogether. I might describe this as "amazing" or "extraordinary," but I would never dare defile my native tongue by calling this incredible, since, as I hath shewn, it is nothing of the sort...it is completely, unequivocally, credible.

Therefore, a word that indicates something has absolutely no credit really does not exist.

• Uncredible? Not a word.
  
• Creditless? Nope.
• Credifaux? No.
  

I find this ironic, as roughly 80 percent of communication falls into this category, and constitutes 100 percent of content originating from the Internet and mass media. It's almost as if the world's collective marketing forces, and all communities dependent on deception, lobbied Webster to ensure "incredible" was not, in any way, available for use as a word opposite from credible...that would be way too easy to use.

The global assault on the word "incredible" is a conspiracy of vast proportions. It's goal is to discredit all words that can be used to describe the opposite of what is true, reasonable, and correct, in order to make all falsehoods increasingly believable...not based on merit, but on the grounds that nobody knows the right word to describe them. The goal is the eventual destruction of all such words, so that reality itself is not subject to anything "false" or "erroneous," but so all things popular enough to be spoken of can only be described as being true and correct.

On their agenda:

• "Unbelievable" shall be interpreted as that which can likely be believed.
  
• "Undeniable" shall be interpreted as that which is probably deniable.
• "incorruptible" shall be interpreted as that which can probably be corrupted.
  

The eventual goal, of course, is to reverse these terms entirely so they are all out possible, as they have already done with incredible:

• "unbelievable" - that which is entirely believable.
  
• "undeniable" - that which is entirely deniable.
• "incorruptible" - that which can definitely be corrupted.
  

Our masters have already succeeded in many other cases:

• "stimulus" - (pertaining to economies) that which depresses.
  
• "reinvestment" - (pertaining to communities) that which divests.
• "reserve" - (pertaining to the federal) that which emits.
  

Backed into a corner, we have been forced to contrive a colloquial term meaning the opposite of credible...one resilient to the abuses of the establishment. There is only one such example, which has been a rampart for the cause, and which I now submit:

bullshit

This word has stood up to the firestorm of cultural destruction with grace and aplomb, foiling all attempts to suppress it, which has no doubt been tried in many a back room...

"Mr. President, our product has been compared to bullshit. This is not positive for our image, and therefore, something must be done. Our technicians are in the fields now collecting samples from a local herd. Count on us, sir. Before long, every product will be honored to be described as "bullshit." We are confident that within a few short months, consumers will be up to their eyebrows in bullshit and loving every minute of it."

While those mighty stewards of civilization may be able to surgically and graciously relieve us of our wealth by redefining words, there is only so much a people can tolerate. Yes, they may be able to get away with the plunder of our labor, time, and resources. They may be able to convince us that we need to pay their bonuses and support their decisions until they have changed the meaning of every word in the English language.

But, there is a wall that cannot be penetrated. There is one last bastion of truth that can be counted on when every last shred of credibility has been removed from society. When all language has been redefined and all our prosperity has been plundered and wasted, there is one stall wort resource that cannot be polished, spun, or repackaged. It all comes to a head when...

those wizards sit down in front of an actual piece of manure...

when that global committee congregates around a long table staring at that large, steaming pile of cow shit, rubbing their chins...

they will only have one word to describe it...

incredible

Horton

Horton heard a Who tonight, and among the zany animated characters and a theater full of small children, two philosophies clashed head-on. Yes, as the world of Whovill floated toward a horrific scalding death I wondered what obligation Horton or any of the jungle community had toward the Whos'.

Spoiler alert....

I mean, I agree, if I suddenly found myself the sole protector of a small world of invisible English speaking people, I might feel some sense of obligation as well. If I developed a relationship with them, I might put myself in danger too. But, does "a person's a person, no matter how small" suggest we must risk our reputation, health, and life on something merely because we identify with it in some intangible way? Is it proper, or morally correct to do such a thing?

Horton must have lived a simple life. He must never have been scorned by another Whoville colony who, upon risking his life to save, killed his family for amusement afterwards. Will the next Whoville be just as innocuous? Perhaps they are small, and that makes them harmless. The Spanish Flu virus was also small. It killed between 20 and 40 million people. Good thing it wasn't as charming as Steve Carell.

There are many wonderful themes in this story...

• "I meant what I said and I said what I meant, an elephant's faithful, one hundred percent." Horton is a benevolent, honest, courageous and determined nonconformist.
• The town wants to continue the celebration, which illustrates the tyranny of the majority.
• When the burden of proof besets both of them, they each produce hard evidence.
• Even a small voice, left to follow its dreams, can tip the scale.
• Unthinking monkeys travel in mobs and perpetuate violence indiscriminately.
  

I like that they showed the children blindly following Horton, carrying their own clover. It reminds us of the obligation we have to keep our mouths shut when we can't explain ourselves well enough or produce any proof. That sometimes people we care about will follow for no reason at all other than the fact we are older or seem wiser. Seeming is being in some ways I guess.

I think the film is directed to the person who does know something important, whatever that is, and asks that care is taken to ensure it is handled properly. Speaking of handling it properly, perhaps if the mayor had achieved his position on his own merits, his reputation would have allowed him to convince everyone that Whovill was virtually doomed. (A nice little argument for a meritocracy.) If Horton had kept Whoville to himself until he could prove its existence, he wouldn't have saved a lot of trouble and wouldn't have needed the baby kangaroo to snatch it milliseconds from its boiling grave.

What are the two philosophies? Well, the movie seems to suggest an inherent duty toward fellow man, universal human worth, and unconditional forgiveness. I can think of at least one prominent 20th century philosopher who would argue against at least two of those points. A lot of weight for an animated film, but at least it should get kids thinking.

The plan

If there was a shred of dignity in politics I might not be appalled enough to concern myself. But, I am constantly reminded why I have every reason to despise it.

Attention Republicans: In case you haven't heard yet, if you really want to help the Republican Party, you are instructed to appear at Democratic primaries to vote for Hillary. If you can become a delegate for Hillary, bonus.

Apparently, this has been going on for a while. Republicans have been trying to push for Hillary because they suspect she is unelectable. Now that McCain is the official nominee, they can swing over to the other side to help out the Democrat's weakest opponent.

The Republicans hatched a similar plan around 1913. Confident the states would never go so far as to ratify a bill changing the Constitution to allow for an income tax, they drafted one up.

What happened? It passed. The result? Here is the original income tax table...in 1913 dollars. Wouldn't that be nice.

Republicans, you need a reality check. Just because you think she is genuinely disliked by most of the electorate (as I do), pulling the levers has significant risks. Seriously, be careful what you wish for.

Maybe it's time for Republicans to admit that this presidential race is between Hillary and Obama. By pulling for the weaker Democratic candidate, you may end up getting the weaker next president. And, although that might be a painful thing for the Democrats in 2012, its a dishonorable thing for our country. At least be able to honestly say...

I didn't vote for him [her] but he's [she's] my president, and I hope he [she] does a good job.
-John Wayne

Peaceful Easy Feeling

Today's purpose from our overlords..."stimulate" the economy.

They way I see it, this is not a tyranny by a dictator or even the majority. This is the tyranny of the irresponsible minority who risked everything on real estate for a quick buck. Now, those of us who work for a living are doing what we always do...paying their bills.

I got the letter a few days ago. I will be reimbursed $600, a small portion of the many thousands I paid last year in taxes.

I'm glad we will get a nugget. I fear it is a small consolation for the impending monetary collapse. (Holy crap Bear Stearns was bankrupt!) Perhaps that $600 should be spent quickly or used to buy gold...before it is worthless. Let's cross our fingers that doesn't happen.

I'm not an economist, but I feel like the dominoes are crashing into one another. This is just another piece falling over...us, the normal folks (the people) being asked to grease the wheels for a few moments while the interested parties tinker with their machine, trying to force consequences on the innocent rather than the irresponsible...trying to slow the domino pyramid cascading before their eyes.

This may turn into one of those moments in history where those of us with the least to lose also have the least to fear. Or, maybe that was always the case, and only now will it become obvious. Funny how everything seems related somehow.
Reminds me of a song...

I like the way your sparkling earrings lay, against your skin, it's so brown
and I wanna sleep with you in the desert tonight with a billion stars all around

'cause I gotta peaceful easy feeling
and I know you won't let me down
'cause I'm already standing on the ground

And I found out a long time ago what a woman can do to your soul
Ah, but she can't take you anyway You don't already know how to go

and I gotta peaceful, easy feeling
and I know you won't let me down
'cause I'm already standing on the ground

I get this feeling I may know you as a lover and a friend
but this voice keeps whispering in my other ear, tells me I may never see you again

'cause I get a peaceful, easy feeling
and I know you won't let me down
'cause I'm already standing ...
I'm already standing...
Yes, I'm already standing...
I'm already standing... - on the ground

Peaceful, Easy Feeling
The Eagles

The Real Green Revolution

It's unfortunate potheads are always stoned.

The ones I know are some of the most intelligent and interesting folks I've ever met. Excuse me for referring to them collectively, but I have noticed a correlation in behavior that I believe warrants discussion given our turbulent political environment.

If there was a viable political candidate who strongly endorsed the legalization of marijuana, would the collective pothead's ass ascend from the bean bag long enough to cast a ballot?

Probably not. Why? I have reason to believe it isn't straight up laziness.

I don't know this guy personally...but if I did...he's one of the most entrepreneurial guys I know. Legend reports a dense jungle of green bud overflowing his humble residence; an indoor rain forest of KB.

This isn't just a few house plants...this is an irrigated hydroponic laboratory with thousands of dollars of lighting equipment, according to the myth. As a homebrewer I have the highest regard for someone so fiercely dedicated to their hobby. He doesn't sell. He uses it in the privacy his own home. No harm done. Right?

Wrong.

Between meticulously sprinkling water on Goliath The Green Giant and puffing on one of his lush appendages, I'm afraid our accomplished horticulturist simply doesn't have time to defend his hobby with his vote, or, even mild concern about the presidential candidate who is thumping for stoner rights. This gentleman is doing everything in his power to end the war on drugs, legalize our hero's prized plumage, and liberate all who choose to partake in their dragon's share.

This candidate won 16% in the Minnesota Republican caucus straw poll.

Where was our hero when we needed him most? Not present. For that matter, where are the parading anti-establishment peaceniks from the 60s when you really need them? I don't see the tie died shirts at the rallies. I didn't detect the slightest floral waft from the packed Northrup auditorium on February 4th.

Has pot transformed from a symbol of liberation and peaceful protest to an opponent of civil dissent? Is pot now acting on behalf of the establishment, giving them free reign to perpetuate any crime against the Constitution among a green public haze of complacency?

I want to see a pot smoker's march on Washington, and although I don't partake myself, I will happily help organize such an event. Rise my half-baked friends and conquer the beast that insists you purchase your dime from Timmy on the high school tennis courts. The future is yours, all you have to do it take it.

May a green cloud descend on our capitol my friends. The revolution is in your hands.

Wake Up!

Well, that mysterious bonus hour from last fall has come back to bite us. The pain of time stings extra hard one day out of the year, and this is that day...an hour shaved from a precious weekend.

In all fairness, couldn't our time bandits have added one hour during a weekend, and then taken one hour off a Monday? For all the trouble it seems like they could have at least given us that.

But, maybe I'm missing the point. I know the original idea was proposed by Benjamin Franklin as a way for the people to save energy in a world powered by expensive lamp oil derived painstakingly from whales. So, if I'm getting this right, was he suggesting time itself conform to our needs rather than the other way around? Sounds like a thoughtful and brave proposition. Are you suggesting we place more light, less need for oil, and therefore, more prosperity and independence in the hands of everyone?

This sounds like a trap. And it's spoken by a diplomat. Aha! I see the problem Mr. Franklin...Are you suggesting we deprive the whalers and oil merchants of their earnings?

How dare you sabotage our bustling economy Mr. Franklin! What about the hard working whalers? What about the shop keeper trying to sell lamp oil. What will happen to them? May the cries of their starving children echo in your skull Mr. Franklin.

Now that we've easily dispatched that fallacy, let's look at a real solution...If you want to do some good, I suggest a simpler change...One that will charge the economy with a flood of wealth and activity. One without the need for any sort of biannual incremental shift. One so elegant in design and application that, after moments of thought, its merits are without question.

Simply switch AM and PM.

In such a world lanterns would burn throughout the night, every night! Thousands more would flock to the lucrative whaling business. Jobs would be plentiful as workers were hired to transport, store, and sell the much needed liquid gold. All who desired would share in the great demand...the overwhelming opportunities of a new renaissance!

As the sun set you would awaken to a bustle of activity with horses and carriages marching down the well-lit street with rows of lanterns ablaze on either side. Ordinances would be passed so all public buildings met the luminosity threshold throughout the dark hours.

An annual "Festival of Light" would be required in every town featuring giant flaming statues. Rivers, topped upstream with surplus fuel, would flow ablaze in the much anticipated conclusion to the ceremonies.

As the first hints of dawn approached on the horizon the curtains would be drawn and all the children would be tucked in for the daily winter's nap.

But, alas, the colonists were deprived of such an opportunity. Such prosperity was forsaken for the small reward of working during the same set of hours instead of the others...for the small advantage of some extra light from this glowing orb. They submitted to the ubiquitous golden monopoly in the sky at everyone's expense.

Shame on them and shame on us for blindly perpetuating these antiquated traditions. Those of us who "see the dark" understand that daylight is our perpetual nemesis. I hold my fist high and shake it at you, the day trader, The Sun magazine, DAY CARE! Yes, they even neglect the children.

Perhaps one day the thoughtless resistance of a simple, trivial change will not get in the way of unprecedented prosperity for every American. Perhaps one day we will hold our torches high and praise the great leader who brought the blessings of night to the doorstep of every man, woman, and child in this great country.

Until then I will awaken at dusk, strike a match, and light my lantern in ceremonial reverence for the opponents of Mr. Franklin and his ilk. I will curse this "Daylight Savings Time" for its short-sightedness and hope that one day we can conquer public perception and become noble creatures of the night.

When you peer out your window in the wee hours to see the rivers ablaze do not be afraid. It simply means the well-meaning people of the world have conquered ignorance and the era of prosperity has begun.

Rushmore

Just saw the Rushmore. Excellent movie. It ends with an appropriate song, Ooh la la.

I wish I knew what I know now, when I was younger. -Ronnie Lane

It gets me thinking...I wish I knew what I'll know when I'm older, right now.

Is it just a fact of life that we are seldom prepared for what life throws at us until it's too late? There are all these subtle unfair situations that just seem to fly by without anyone noticing; things that can't be approached head on.

They probably require maturity, experience, and some other qualities well beyond my capabilities at the moment. One of life's evil tricks that we have the ability to identify things that are sad, unfortunate, and downright incorrect without having any idea what to do about it.

I want to withdraw some wisdom from my 65 year old self just once or twice damn it.

At any rate, what a great premise for a movie.

Beer and Shoes

The question: If you didn't have to pay taxes, would you give the extra to some sort of charity? Maybe just a little?

The answer: No you wouldn't. Hell no.

But, I don't mean a bit of minor tax relief, I mean no taxes; sales tax, income tax, social security, inflation tax, hidden taxes. You would bring home DOUBLE your salary over all. That's a lot. Come on, are you sure you wouldn't give just a little more? Maybe drop an extra penny in the jar.

no, No, NO you wouldn't! And you know it! Nobody would!

It's okay, you are not a cruel monster. On the contrary. You are a liberated citizen now keenly aware of your true worth. Damn, you earn quite a haul, don't you. Naturally, you value that money you have earned and can spend it however you wish. This is your very your standard of living, your children's future, your freedom, a ticket to possible happiness, your 15 gallon stainless steel pressure-sealed conical fermenter.

But, no, you don't get those things. Sorry. You can't keep half the money you earn. Let's take a closer look at what that money really is...

When the shoemaker offers the brewer a pair of shoes in exchange for a pony keg, the keg might be worth more than the shoes. So, to make up for the difference, the shoemaker needs to offer something else - something that is generally accepted, durable, and of stable value. Gold, currency, a foot massage, whatever the brewer accepts. Taxes are basically a redistribution of a portion of the transaction (beer and shoes) in order to protect everyone's right to engage in voluntary exchange of beer and shoes, to resolve disputes if the beer sucks, and to fight the guys trying to steal the beer and shoes. These things now take such a large portion of beer and shoes that everyone is hopping around with one shoe almost sober.

Why? Because we spend our own money more wisely than other people's.

It all comes down to...Who's money is more important? Yours, or someone else's? Many don't think their tax money is important because they already assume it is someone else's before they even see it. People's own worth has been stripped from their fingers without them even knowing. It's enough to make me damn depressed.

So, back to our fantasy...what to do with all that extra coin? Maybe you'll go scarf some sushi, buy better golf clubs, live in a new house, send your kid to private school with smaller class sizes, take the faster toll roads (if you live at the fringes), and maybe get better medical insurance.

You would probably buy some stocks. If you were a small business you would have to hire more people and raise your salaries to keep competitive. Work would be available to anyone who wanted it. Unemployment would be virtually zero.

But wait...what about all the folks on welfare? What would happen to them? Yes, they would suddenly be deprived of all their income. They would need to appeal to charity. Yes, that's right, anyone who couldn't make ends meet would have to take the hit to their pride and find a benevolent individual or organization caring enough to help them.

Oh, you don't believe we could actually care for the needy? Everyone who works would be twice as rich, and some people just get this thrill out of helping others indiscriminately (not really my thing, but they're out there). Most importantly, individuals would have a greater opportunity to succeed without the need for charity. But that's not really the point.

The point is, when government has cornered the market on virtue, we experience a net loss of it.

It's also futile from a practical perspective. People have an easier time stealing from government than they do from individuals (corporations and dead beats), and even the well intentioned politicians aren't capable of dealing properly with the economy (as we see now regarding the catch 22 at the Fed).

Oh man this had gotten boring. Such discussions require good beer and company or they are pretty dead in the water, but kudos if you made it to the bitter end.

Persuasion by Force

Should we allow government to dictate our behavior in matters that apply only to ourselves? Does government have the responsibility to pick up the slack when we are incapable of taking care of ourselves?

No. Not only does it not have the responsibility. It does not have the moral justification for doing so.

Why? Because in matters that pertain only to ourselves we are the only individual capable of defining "happiness." Even if we are unable to properly ascertain that happiness, no other group or individual has the right to interfere in our pursuit of it.

Others may persuade us to stop writing boring blog posts in order to preserve our dignity, but you cannot lawfully stop me (hahaha!). More to the point, you can advise any civilized person to keep off the ice, use a rubber, or clean the needle, and you can do so with whatever persuasive abilities you have at your disposal; anything short of coercion by force...if not for its complete futility, for its effect of tending to encourage the behavior (children and lawless barbarians who are not receptive to reason excluded, and I know that is most of you - go back to your pit and put the lotion on the skin).

I might go out on a limb and say that one also has the obligation to help friends, family, loved ones and even complete strangers to the degree their resources allow and in whatever manner they see justified. Is this going out on a limb?

So the question is...why can't we just commission government to help friends, family, loved ones and strangers on our behalf? After all, isn't that why we pay all these taxes? Unfortunately, your friendly congressman is just as likely to blow your tax dollars huffing gas as he is using it to effectively reward good teachers. Sniff more glue? YES WE CAN! At a national level, that means doing whatever your billionaire corporate campaign contributers demand. Take the hard earned money we could use to help our neighbors and instead build a bridge to nowhere? YES WE CAN! Eliminate individual sovereignty? YES WE CAN. Perpetuate anti-American sentiment globally? YES WE CAN! Bankrupt the country? YES WE CAN!

Because individuals are far greater at identifying legitimate need than government, they are more effective assessors and distributors of charity because they target the most true and desperate demand. The degree to which individuals are capable of keeping the fruits of their labor and distributing it as they see fit is the primary measure of success for a free society, and central to our personal capacity to respect human rights and help the needy. Only a cruel, heartless population would allow the hungry to starve and homeless to freeze, especially with so much personal prosperity available to help.

If you believe we are a society of such heartless individuals, then you might suspect mandatory theft of a portion of prosperity from everyone is necessary to ensure the protection of basic human rights for the destitute. You might assume we must use government to do it.

But, if we are a society built of such trash, are politicians immune from such an affliction? Or, would politicians be the most tenacious examples of shrewed and unsavory cleverness who managed to claw their way to the top?

Assuming the above is even partly the case, the redistribution of wealth through government would not be weighted on the side of the needy. In such a society, only the very minimum amount of wealth is distributed to the desperate. AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE is directed to the privileged few in the elite circle through rampant cronyism. It can be justified because these companies provide jobs, products, and services and it can be argued they are good for the economy. But, government advocacy is NOT the justification for any business - only market demand can validate a company's success. This cooperation between big corporations and government simply deprives small business, the poor, and especially the middle class.

If you believe we are a society of greedy monsters, and want to do something about it, you must starve the beast of government and allow the poor to keep ALL their earnings. You also must allow the middle-class - those who hang out with the poor more than the elite - to keep ALL their earnings so they have the means to help their neighbors and loved ones who run into hard times.

The greedy rich who hoard billions for themselves and their friends must not be allowed to use government to hoard billions more. This is what we allow to happen, and all while we still have enough power to stop them and restore the role of government to its rightful place - to protect OUR life, liberty, and property and not just the privileged few tugging the ropes. Why don't we do it? Oh yeah, because professional politicians spend lifetimes learning how to convince you otherwise for their billionaire friends and are much more convincing than me.

Why listen to the person who has the most to lose? Don't they have the most reason to lie to you? Then, if they are willing to lie, and discover you will let them take your money and liberty, what's stopping them?

To conclude, if the alternative is true, and we are a society of enlightened and charitable individuals, there is no need to take our prosperity in the first place. Personally, I suspect we are willing to accept the responsibilities of freedom already without requiring the outside of force from better men and women than ourselves. Do we need more persuasion to this effect? Absolutely, anything short of force will do.

Book Report: Grapes of Wrath

Well, movie report. I saw the Grapes of Wrath last night with Henry Fonda. I was in the retarded English class in high school so this was my first exposure to the story. Being set in the Great Depression, this one contrasts nicely with Lord of the Flies. It is similar in that it speculates on the nature of man, but is many orders of magnitude bolder in its approach - having the courage to propose our nature within a historical setting, which will inevitably be studied and understood with greater accuracy in the future. That shouldn't, however, distract from the desperate circumstances the Joads were exposed to, which, by all accounts, were understated by Steinbeck for the sake of clarity. What can we learn from the Grapes of Wrath story, and how do we interpret it today given the wealth of information available to us on the subject.

Tom Joad is released from prison on parole after four years (for manslaughter) and meets Jim Casy, a former preacher Tom remembers from his childhood. Unsure of himself and the circumstances Jim no longer feels qualified preach. Together they walk to Tom's childhood home a few miles away to discover it abandoned, so they continue to his uncle John's place a few miles away. Tom finds his family's farm has been ravaged by the dust bowl and repossessed. Forced off their land, the family has packed a truck with all their belongings. All of their hopes are staked on California, where they hear there is work for grape pickers.

Along the way they meet crowds of others forced of their land who are also seeking a better life in California, responding to the same advertisement. They hear the need for pickers is a myth - that too many adds were printed. Grandma and grandpa die on the way. Still, they have no choice but to continue.

Upon their arrival they find no work. Indeed, many others had seen similar adds and flooded California in desperation. With oversupply of labor, the corporate farmers are able to hire workers for pennies on the dollar. Conditions are terrible. When the workers form a union and strike, violence erupts causing Jim's death and Tom to kill again. Tom escapes, but is now an outlaw easily discernible by a scar on his face.

The family finds better conditions on a government resettlement camp, but it is underfunded and incapable of providing for all the needy. Being a fugitive, Tom is hunted by the law and must flee to protect the family. He promises to be a tireless advocate for the oppressed.

It the book, according to Wikipedia, Tom's pregnant sister breast feeds a starving man in the book's only non-futile act, showing hope in humanity. (This was not in the movie.)

Okay, so you get the jist. Fortunately, being a tireless advocate for the oppressed, many others have continued along Tom's path and we now know the cause of the Great Depression, and thus the main factors contributing to the oppression.

Whether you side with those giving the Monitarist explanation or the Austrian School's explanation, public debt and policies of the U.S. Government and Federal Reserve encouraged the recession to spiral into a depression. Roosevelt's New Deal prompted an increase in corporate taxes, which starved employers for cash, limiting employment and raising prices. Irresponsible borrowing followed by empty promises from well-intentioned but short-sighted (vote hungry) politicians turned a recession into massive economic turmoil. Of course, the result was an outcry from the people for help, followed by more action that had an even greater destructive effect.

It is possible that the Joad's were forced from their property from real "act of God" strife. A natural disaster such as the dust bowl can have serious consequences, and there is no doubt individuals suffered great hardships. But a nation-wide economic disaster was not a result of the dust bowl, nor was it a direct result of the stock market crash. It was the result of abuses of power, misguided economic meddling, and government involvement by individuals who couldn't have imagined the terrible consequences of their actions.

Regarding the Great Depression. You're right, we did it. We're very sorry. But thanks to you, we won't do it again.
-Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke to Milton Friedman on Friedman's 90th birthday

Fortunately, we now have a historical textbook case to demonstrate how an economy is destroyed. We also know Grapes of Wrath is a part of the curriculum of many school districts. In High Schools across America, I sincerely hope the book is discussed within its historical context, as a cautionary tale to our young people in order to prevent the conditions that opened the door for such oppression. There is reason to suspect otherwise.

As for Steinbeck, ending the book with the woman breast feeding a starving man is a relief to me (as I really like Steinbeck). It demonstrates the amazing capacity for individuals to help one another when given a chance to do so - even under the most awful conditions. As the book says, the people will go on. I believe we will, despite the invisible powers that continue to bleed us of our prosperity. We will not fail because of our inexhaustible compassion for one another as individuals.

Lord of the Flies 2

Hey Ryan. Wow. I am impressed that you mentioned Lord of the Flies at Jason's place as it is a fantastic illustration of the argument we were having. It warrants a much more, um, sober conversation than I could have conjured at the party, and I have really found a new respect for Golding. Here's my take - I'd like to start with a few questions.

1. Would you say man's natural state tends toward the honest, able, wise, and kind? (The Lord of the Flies seems to argue this is not the case. I assume your answer is no.)
   
2. Can you grant that if man's natural state did tend toward these things there would be little incentive to create and impose laws? That he could live thrive by consensus and voluntary agreement without government intervention? I think you would agree that he could, but that this is not a fair assessment of man's nature.
   
3. Now, we agree that every person is entitled to make decisions that suit themselves provided it does not prevent another person from doing the same. We agree that everyone has a right to their lives and their property. Right?
   
4. And, as a consequence of man's deviation from these qualities (innate or not), we are all threatened to some degree and must protect that which we all most value - life, property, and individual choice. Basic stuff, right?
   
5. And, government should be instituted to protect these things, and the government's powers must be derived only from the consent of the governed. Standard stuff, right?
   

So, if man's natural state tends toward the dishonest, unable, unwise, and unkind, as one might argue Lord of the Flies presumes; if we are inherently incapable of living without government, how can we expect such flawed individuals to govern us? How can we trust the dishonest nature of our friends, family, and community members to choose from a list of candidates with which we are even less familiar to protect our lives, property, and right to make decisions for ourselves? Where are these angels? But this argument is incomplete and humans are much too complicated to describe with this kind of blanket statement. The book is really about the subtle relationship between individuals and government.

First off, I want to clarify that while we agree that there are some evil tendencies of mankind, I think we disagree what those core tendencies are. I do agree that man's natural state is conducive to self-destruction, but I sincerely believe the cause is not a lack of government, but the pervasive nature of government itself. This puts me at odds with what some perceive as Golding's point; that people require government to save them from anarchy. But this is an incorrect interpretation. I propose his story was intended to illustrate a more sinister and visceral argument, and I believe it does so with chilling precision.

It all begins innocently enough with the boys trust of Jack. By telling the boys what they want to hear, Jack gains popularity. The boys find it easy to believe that which they find agreeable, and decide to follow him. He genuinely believes he is doing what's best for the group, and when they support him, this belief is reinforced. This is the double-edged sword which dooms the party. As much as Jack believes his decisions are best for the group, they are delusional and destructive. A thought vacuum in the minds of his followers prevents them from even realizing they are on a death march. At the point each boy decided to trust Jack, he replaced his own reasoning skills for trust of Jack's. Each was reinforced by the sheep like following of the other boys. At this point, there was no respect for any idea contrary to the will of Jack. Fear of the beast/terror also prevents them from challenging Jack. With complacent followers, a source of fear, and a scape goat (Ralphs tribe), his tyranny was complete. He slaughters the mother sow, initiates a precedence of killing with the death of Simon, then steals from Ralphs tribe.

It was the inability of the boys to discern between their own good, and the good that others saw for them. It was not a human tendency for evil that caused the children to devolve into savages, it was the very opposite - good intentions. Misguided good intentions with terrible consequences. Jack believed he was helping as he led his followers down the death spiral. It was the lack of skepticism and ability to stand up for themselves under pressure from their peers when they knew what was right. It was their weakness of mind to make the assumption that as long as others were doing it, it must be OK. Not only OK, but best for everyone.

Most of the harm in the world is done by good people, and not by accident, lapse, or omission. It is the result of their deliberate actions, long persevered in, which they hold to be motivated by high ideals toward virtuous ends… [I]n periods when millions are slaughtered, when torture is practiced, starvation enforced, oppression made a policy, as at present over a large part of the world, and as it has often been in the past, it must be at the behest of very many good people, and even by their direct action, for what they consider a worthy object. -Isabel Paterson

The worthy object in Jack's mind was fun. The boys wanted to believe him. They ended up devolving to savages.

At a given point, Jack's government became destructive to the good of the tribe and to the basic rights of the individuals. At this point, it was the responsibility and obligation of the boys to overthrow their oppressor. Some argue the boys did not have the historical knowledge to foresee the consequences of their complacency, and this is a valid excuse for their behavior and evidence humans are inherently destined for slavery under oppressive dictatorships. But this is not the message Golding intends to leave us with. He did not write this book to illustrate how ignorance is an excuse for human failure. The boys were seduced by Jack's empty promises. They were seduced despite their own better judgment which they chose to ignore. It is the scourge of their own laziness that sealed their fate, and they are held duly accountable as we see by their condition at the end of the book. While Golding's indictment may allude to the fact that knowledge of history and civilization can help us choose more wisely, I believe it is the lack of belief in our own individual sovereignty that condemns us to fail.

Mental laziness and complacency was the natural state of man that caused the tyranny and subsequent fall to savagery. Inability to stand up for his own rights, intolerance of ideas, oppressive use of fear, and a blind trust of well-intentioned but oppressive ideas. It is this well-intentioned enemy we must face.

They are believable because they believe in themselves. They are an able, effective, and powerful enemy - they who have an unwavering trust in their own judgment. We follow them at our own peril.

Yes, history has shown that man's tendency does lead to oppressive conditions - Stalin's Russia, Hitler's Europe, Mao's China. But these are not ill-intentioned individuals. They all thought their vision for humanity was just and, overall, best for mankind. It was their inability to trust the capabilities of each individual to live according to his own best interests. It was their inability to understand that humans are most capable of success when they have the right to deal with each other on an individual and voluntary basis. And for good reason. It was because individuals in each of these communities failed to demonstrate that they are not a mindless cowering heard of sheep destined for slaughter. That they will not live under a repressive and unrepresentative government. A government of hidden, will-sucking, compulsory taxes. A government where each individual carries a national ID. A government who's leader can designate any citizen an enemy combatant and detain and torture him without warrant.

No, I reject the notion that man's natural state is dishonest, unable, unwise, and unkind. I reject it because it implies that without government we are incapable of voluntary, mutually beneficial cooperation. This is exactly what the politicians want us to believe - that we cannot live without them. He or she will spend a lifetime trying to prove it. It is not only false, but contrary to reality. An oppressive state is the very institution which prevents man from being moral, honest, able, wise, and kind. In Lord of the Flies, it was Jack's monarchy. In reality, it's collectivism (socialism and fascism). Just look at the evidence. Observe the reasons why the country with the most respect for individual rights in history became the most successful and the most collective/socialist/fascist counties in history became the most poverty stricken, tyrannical and bloody. The reasons are always, in every case, because individuals were given the freedom to engage in productive behavior with little intervention by the state. The sad tyranny of collectivism oppressed its willing participants to such a degree that its standard of living was beneath our country's poverty line. It is these conditions which foster treachery by otherwise good and moral people, not lack of government. And, this is the trend that history prescribes for every nation with an increasingly powerful government, including us.

For now, we do control our destiny to a certain degree. We do not have the right to blame any other body for our failures, nor do we have the obligation to give credit to any other body for our successes. This will continue until our complacency has allowed others to strip these rights from us. This should only happen over our cold, dead bodies.

Life, faculties, production—in other words, individuality, liberty, property—this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts precede all human legislation, and are superior to it. Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place. -Frederic Bastiat.

Lord of the Flies

This post is for Ryan. I took your advise and am re-reading "Lord of the Flies." I'm sure it will help me understand your point and am looking forward to a discussion.
I'm trying to see how respecting the constitution and promoting individual liberty suggests all out anarchy? If a government's just powers derive from the consent of the governed, I think it's evident it's taken some liberties of it's own. Did any of us consent to the four months of paychecks we're giving the government each year? Did any of us really consent to throwing black people in prison for smoking pot? Banning public nudity?

As far as whether it's sane to depend on government to solve our problems...

"If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?" Frédéric Bastiat "The Law"