How Large is your Penis?

Friday, June 25, 2010

Net Neutrality

I do not know what net neutrality is. Well I do know a little bit about it, not much, but enough to already come to a conclusion. It is another failed policy.

Whenever the government wants to do something, in general it will always make people scared that what they are doing needs to be done. This is all what social hysteria is about, this is what the war on terrorism and the war on drugs is about. The people are made to be frightened they are made to believe that if the government will not do anything there is going to be a colossal problem. That is how it works. First the fear then the policy.

Net neutrality is no exception. First the people need to be frightened that without net neutrality there are going to be serious problems with the internet. The fear that supporters of net neutrality spread is that if internet providers can choose which kind of content they send then they can limit or eliminate the content that people enjoy. For example, if we enjoy watching Fred on YouTube our access to Fred can be cut off from us by our providers, so we need the government to step in and prevent this from happening.

But such an argument is ridiculous. The material that is on the radios, or TV, or the internet reflects the demand of the people. If providers cut off or limit access to what the people want then they will lose that money to their competitors. This objection just makes no sense. If someone actually believes that this is a problem that we really need net neutrality then consider the following "problem". We need the government to have control over food stores in cities because perhaps there will be too few food stores or too many food stores. This is a ridiculous argument in favor of government regulation because the people, through the market, determine how many food stores need to be open in a city. This is all spontaneous order and should not be centrally planned. The except same situation occurs with internet content, so there is nothing to fear.

Net neutrality is just an excuse for the government to step into imposing regulations on the internet. The government hates it when there is something that goes on without their control. They need an excuse to have some control over the internet. They need a first step. That is net neutrality. They will preach how it will never be about control but in the future, if this gets passed, they will have an excuse to impose more regulations. This is the history of government regulations. They need a first step. Once they have a step then it is easier for them to impose regulations. I will not be surprised if in twenty years from now people will be required to have licenses before they can create their own sites. I will also not be surprised if in many many years from now porn will be censored from free internet access, just like it is censored from free TV today.

The internet has strived so well in absence of regulations. We had a free market of material on the internet. And we have no problems with the internet. It keeps on getting better and new ideas are continually developing. The internet is fine the way it is. Net neutrality cannot make anything better, the internet is fine, it can only make things worse, and it will, perhaps not immediately, but ultimately when the regulations start coming.

If the government wants to do anything here that would benefit us all it would be to abolish the FCC. We do not need an FCC. Let the market decide what material is shown on the radios and on TV programs. This means there should be free porn channels on TV if some companies want to broadcast that. Many people would be into free porn on TV, especially if there are different channels for different kinds of porn. These companies would be able to generate money with all of the ads on these porn channels. And do not worry the anti-porn people would have their own channels too. As long as there is a significant number of people who want to see family friendly material there will always be such content available. Just look at movies. How many movies are made with more family friendly material? A lot. Because companies reflect the demand of the people. But the TV should be left alone to market forces, likewise with the radios. Nothing bad will come from this and there is nothing to fear. If parents do not want their kids seeing free porn channels that is too bad, it is up to the parents to manage this not the government. The parents cannot take away the viewership of other people just because they do not like something. They have a TV and they can choose to limit it the way they think it is applicable or not have a TV at all, but they cannot legislate this demand on other people, that is non-sense.

The dumbest argument for support of net neutrality is that it will protect free speech. That is like going to war to have peace. Or having sex for virginity. It makes no sense. I explained what free speech is here, which basically means to say that speech is free from government control. The internet symbolizes free speech, well, first is symbolizes porn, but after porn, it symbolizes a marketplace of free speech. The internet should be left alone, TV should be left alone, and radio should be left alone, hopefully the FCC will be abolished, but I doubt this would happen. What will most likely happen is that the people will be scared by the social hysteria and net neutrality will be passed, what will happen then, after many years, regulations will be passed on the content which can be passed on the internet. I made this prediction not because I am some prophet but simply by looking at the past history and noticing how the same pattern follows. Net neutrality should be avoided entirely.

Thursday, June 24, 2010

Why Government is Inefficient

Empirically it is true that government is one big wasteful program and inefficient at getting stuff done either by wasting a lot of money or being extremely slow at what it does. We should ask ourselves the question "why is government inefficient?". Here are six reasons why government is inefficient. These are ideas that come from economists that I read and learned from, none of these are my own thoughts, I am just organizing of all these ideas into a single post.

Four Ways to Spend Money: In the spirit of the weekly Pirkei Avos, there are four ways to spend money. One who spends his own money on himself, is a normal person. One who spends his own money on someone else, is a charitable person. One who spends someone else's money on himself, is a thief. One who spends someone else's money on someone else, is a politician. These four cases are listed in order of how responsibly the money is being spend. The normal person is very careful with his money, he is spending his own money, so he is careful how much he uses, and he is careful how he uses it because it is on himself. The charitable person is not as careful with his money but still careful, he is careful in how much he spends, but not as careful as he spends that money, because that money is going on someone else, and he does not know somone else's preferences as well as he knows his own. The thief is even less careful. The thief is not careful in how much he spends because it is after all not his own money. However, the thief is careful in how he spends the money because he is spending it on himself. And finally there is the politician. The politician is the least responsible out of all these four. The politician is not careful in how much money he takes because it is not his own money, and he is certainly not careful in how that money is being spend because he is spending it on others. The government is both a thief and a politician. It sometimes spends money on itself and sometimes it spends money on others. The money the government spends on itself is used a little more responsibly than when it spends it on others. But the result is that government, for this reason alone, cannot be responsible in how much money it spends and how it spends it. The government is even more irresponsible in its spending habits than a thief. Which is why the government is inefficient in how it takes and spends money.

Private Property Ownership: No one every looks out after property as well as the owner. The owner feels a need for his property to stay in good shape, it is his after all. Property in a way is the extension of the body, people care for their bodies, and likewise care for their property. Government property has no real owners, it is for the public with an agency that "takes care" of the property. It is not a surprise, then, why private bathrooms are almost always better looking than public bathrooms. The owner of private bathrooms feels bothered when they are in bad shape, just like he would feel bothered if his own clothes were not ironed. The government is not a person and it cannot feel this desire to look out after property. Compare a social security office or the DMV to a Casino in Atlantic City or Las Vegas. Casinos are private property and they look awesome, the government buildings are rather boring in their appearance. Which is why the government has no desire to efficiently look out after their property.

Profit Motive: Private companies run on the profit motive. I know that the word "profit" is a dirty word for a lot of people, and some consider profit as a form of exploitation, but we cannot deny the fact that it is the profit motive that drives innovation and entrepreneurship. Companies want to make as much profit as they can. They can satisfy their profit hunger in two ways. One is by lying, cheating, and stealing. The other is by making their consumers happy. The first method is illegal and it is not sustainable well in the market because the consumers are unhappy. So most companies just have essentially only one way to satisfy their profit hunger, and that is by making their consumers happier. This is precisely way the line moves so fast in Casinos and so slow in the DMV or the post office or the social security office. Casinos do not want to make people angrier because otherwise they get less tourism. Less tourism means less money on gambling, less gambling means less profit. So Casinos, without even giving much care for their consumers, are guided by the invisible hand to make the Casino experience more enjoyable to their consumers. This includes making the lines move fast for hotel registration. The DMV or the social security center is not working for profit, they receive money from taxes, so they have no incentive to improve or innovate. Which is why the government have no incentive to improve efficiency.

Lack of Accountability: I know most people switch it around and say that business is not accountable while government is. But they got the whole thing backwards! Businesses are most certainly accountable. They are accountable to two forces, they are accountable to the government and mainly to the people. A car company that produces garbage cars may get sued by the people for its terrible product. If a car company sells you a car and forgets to put in there the engine you can sue them and win the money back. The company is accountable to the law. Mainly this car company is accountable to the people. The car company is only in existence because the money they get come from the people. If people do not like it, it will not live. The government has a lack of accountable. I will not say it has no accountability, but it has a lack of it, to some degree it is not responsible. Because if the government messes up who is it accountable to? Who will judge the judge? Who will watch the watchers? Throughout history governments have demonstrated that they are willing to violate its own laws when it becomes convenient to them. Furthermore, the government has lack of accountability to the people. If people are not satisfied with the government they cannot stop paying taxes. They must continue to pay. So the government still stays in place. The government does not have the same fear as a car company would have in the market. Which is why the government can be a lot more inefficient without as much worry as a business in the market.

Competition: We all know from basic economics that monopolies (legal) do not operate as efficiently as a competitive market. Competition is a violent destructive process that drives out the less efficient companies from the market, it rewards the ones who are more efficient. But even monopolies are still controlled by basic economics such as supply and demand. They are accountable and they have a profit motive. They are just protected from competition. Government is a monopoly. No one else is allowed to compete for what they do, because if you do, they will kill or imprison you. Government is actually worse than a monopoly, it is a coercive monopoly. And it is therefore protected from competition. It does not have the fear that competition will kill it. It does not have the fear that the people might go somewhere else. Which is why the government can be inefficient without being destroyed by the competitive process in the market.

Stupidity Beyond Stupidity: Let us suppose that there is a government program which is actually efficient. I have no idea how but let us suppose that there is such a program. Take for example public "education". There are various public schools. And let us suppose that one public school is actually a great school to send your kids. If this school is doing very well what will happen is that the government will cut their spending on this school. The government will think that this school is doing well so we can cut the spending. And they will redirect that spending in some failing school. The reasoning process that the government takes is that the good schools can receive less money and the failing schools should receive more money so they stop failing. This is stupidity even beyond those people who brought themselves a ShamWow. In the free market businesses that do well grow in size and businesses that fall back die out from the market. The government does everything backwards. Which is why government can be inefficient by sustaining its inefficiency over efficiency.

The point of all of this is that it is not the Democrats to blame or the Republicans, or even the president. It is the way the system operates as a whole where the problem is. We should stop looking for scapegoats and notice that the problems emerge from the nature of this beast. I can guarantee you that if a private company was able to spend money without any worry, have no profit motive, be protected from competition, have lack of accountability, then this company would be just as inefficient as government programs. It is not that government is bad and business is good. Rather it is that the methods the government operates by are innately inefficient which is why it is so inefficient. Private entities do not operate by these methods which is why they are for the most part much more efficient than government programs. The point is that Republicans or Democrats are not going to make anything better as long as this beast operates the way it does. We need to change our fundamental notions of how government operates if we want to improve efficiency.

Wednesday, June 23, 2010

I am an Extremist

People accuse me of taking extreme or radical views. I agree, I am an extremist. And? So? So what? I do not understand what the problem is. I call this fallacy the fallacy of extremism. The fallacy says that extremism is always bad therefore one who is an extremist is committing some error. There are two major problems with this fallacy. One is that it is self-defeating. One who has the view that extremism is always bad has established an extreme position. Second the fallacy never explains why extremism is bad. There are plenty of subjects which are quite extremist but people never complain about for their extremism. Mathematics, for example, is an extremist subject. The standard of proof needs to be complete with all the important steps filled in. No mathematical statement will ever be accepted if this cannot be accomplished. The standard in science is also very extreme, it is fair to say that scientists are extremists. But so what? Scientists need to carefully review all of their experiments numerous of times. They cannot once moderately say "well, perhaps this time we should just call it a theory". There is nothing wrong with extremism in and of itself. The problem is when the extremists try to push their own views onto everyone else in a coercive manner. When it comes to skepticism I am an extremist as well. But again, I ask, what is the problem? I know it is very popular in college, among teenagers, and online discussions to take the more moderate position and say that all forms of extremism are bad. However, I still do not see why I should take moderate positions simply because they are moderate?

Monday, June 21, 2010

Social Darwinism and Capitalism

I have once been accused, at least in an implicit way, of being a social Darwinist because I happen be a laissez-faire free market capitalist. Now I am not ashamed of being called a laissez-faire capitalist. I know this word is often used as a way to demonize capitalists. In the same way referring to skeptics as "non-believers" or "godless" is a way to demonize them. When we call someone "godless", for instance, it makes religious people think that the skeptics are people without any moral values or that they do evil if they can get away with it. This has been part of the reason why skeptics and atheists started to refer to themselves by different terms, like "humanists", in order to get rid of these negative connotations. In a similar manner the word "laissez-faire" is filled with a lot of negative connotations. Many think of laissez-faire capitalists as people with no moral values, who only care for money, who are greedy, who hate paying taxes because they want the poor to die, and so forth. All of these accusations are false, just like all accusations against skepticism are false. One more accusation that carries a lot of negative connotation to it is calling laissez-faire capitalists to be social Darwinists.

Now what is social Darwinism? I am actually not sure. It is one of those terms that is never really so well-defined (like "racism"), perhaps, because the term is used for emotional reasons rather than intellectual reasons. It seems to me that social Darwinism is the idea that some people are inferior to other people because of their nature. To improve the human population we need to get rid of the inferior people and this will lead to an improved species. Many people have accused laissez-faire capitalists of being social Darwinists because we believe that the unsuccessful businesses should fail and the prosperous ones should grow. The weak businesses will be driven out of the market and be replaced with the strong businesses. Competition is the mechanism, like natural selection, that destroys the weak and rewards the strong.

It is true that laissez-faire capitalists believe in the last two sentences in the above paragraph. However, I fail to see the connection to social Darwinism. There are certainly people who are more talented than other people. And it is true that if we massacre the untalented we will have more talented people. That is the theory of evolution after all. However, where do capitalists advocate getting rid of the untalented? Disabled people are much weaker when compared to normal people, normal people are much weaker when compared to intelligent people, however, where exactly do capitalists support the idea of getting rid of these people? This is the part I do not understand. If capitalists supported such an idea then it would be fair to call them social Darwinists but since they do not such a name calling is unjustified.

Besides the "strong" businesses and people in a capitalist society are not necessarily superior in their talents to the "weak" businesses and people. Consider Lady Gaga (the only reason why I know who she is, is because of South Park) and Albert Einstein. It is unreasonable to compare these together. Einstein was the greatest scientist of the 20th century who was an extremely intelligent human being while Lady Gaga is simply a musician. However, as a capitalist, Lady Gaga is "stronger" than Albert Einstein. Because she has a lot more wealth than Einstein. Wealth is not the measure of ones superiority. Einstein is clearly superior to Lady Gaga but he is not wealthier. People often object that this is the inherent problem with capitalism, that the wealthy people do not deserve it, the wealthy are not necessarily the superior people. This common fallacy follows because one confuses wealth with superiority. And this is why the very same people confuse capitalism with social Darwinism. Lady Gaga is certainly not comparable to Albert Einstein. But there is something that Lady Gaga can definitely do much much better than Einstein did. Namely, to be able to satisfy the needs and tastes of the masses. Lady Gaga is so wealthy precisely because she is able to make so many people happier as a result of her music. One can object that her music sucks or that she has no talent, but that is all irrelevant when it comes to wealth. Wealth is accumulated when one is able to satisfy the needs of others. Now it makes sense why Einstein can be so much smarter and superior to Lady Gaga but why Lady Gaga is wealthier, because when it comes to satisfying the masses she is superior to Einstein. Capitalists support the weak businesses "dying out" to the strong ones because it improves the economy. It has nothing to do with who is superior. It all has to do with who is able to satisfy the needs of the people more. Bill Gates may "kill" a lot of his competitors, but this is good for the economy, and as a result better for us all. However, I make no statement about whether or not Bill Gates is superior to his competitors, that would be a non-sequitor.

There is also one more very serious problem with people who call capitalists to be social Darwinists. The common accusation says that laissez-faire capitalism was influenced by the ideas of Darwinism. But this is false. You may be surprised to learn that it was capitalism that influenced Charles Darwin, not the other way around! The "Wealth of Nations" was written by Adam Smith in 1776, the "Origin of Species" was written by Charles Darwin in 1851, that is quite a big time gap. Adam Smith introduced to the world the ideas of laissez-faire capitalism. Nowhere in his entire book did he ever advocate a form of social Darwinism. Charles Darwin was not even born yet, how can he influence Smith? Adam Smith introduced the beautiful concept of the "invisible hand", the idea that people driving for self-interest, indirectly, produce economic growth. Adam Smith was concerned for promoting for the public good and realized that the mechanism of the free market is, almost paradoxically, the best means to achieve such a goal. Smith's idea was that people striving for profits through the competitive process is what produces a strong economy. What is interesting is that Charles Darwin was influenced by this idea. Darwin realized that the similar process is at work with evolution. There is no central designer (or central governing body as Adam Smith saw) in life. Rather life has to struggle by natural selection, similar to the competitive process in the market. Life and death is a form of creative destruction where more complex life emerges, as with laissez-faire capitalism, where life and death of business is a form of creative destruction where more complex economies grow. Go here to see a nice explanation by Stephen Gould (was an evolutionary scientist) which compares Adam Smith to Charles Darwin.

I can also play the same game with social Darwinism. I can say that socialism is a form of social Darwinism. Because Adolf Hitler practiced extermination of the untermensch for the ubermensch. Of course, I will never imply that socialists are social Darwinists because that would be a ridiculous argument to make. And I hope that people who are critical of laissez-faire capitalism stop making an almost as ridiculous argument against capitalism.

Modern Art and Sugarless Tea

We all know people who love to show off that they are better than other people. Some might argue that I am such a person myself. Okay, fine, I accept your criticism. But here is the difference between me and most other kinds of people who want to show off, I am arrogant about something which one can be proud of. If I happen to have an intelligence far beyond an average person that is something I can brag about. If I happen to be overly-generously by giving away large amounts of money to charity that is again something I can brag about. If I came up with some great ideas in science that is something I can brag about. If I can beat 999/1000 people in chess that is something I can brag about. Because all of these traits require a skill to them or an improved personality. But there are people who want to show off that they are better than other people for really pathetic and meaningless traits, and those include modern art, sugarless tea and novels.

Modern art (and abstract expressionism) is ridiculous. There is nothing to it. To really see why modern art is garbage just find some really expensive piece of garbage ... I mean, piece of art, and then draw your own piece similar to it using MS Paint. Then walk up to someone who claims they understand modern art and ask them which one is authentic and which one is not. You will see that exactly 1/2 of the time they will be correct, which is exactly what we expect statistically, in other words, modern art is non-sense. The only reason why people pretend, yes they really pretend, or self-delude themselves, to like modern art is so that they can tell other people that they either like or understand modern art? Why? Very simple. It is all about domination. People are creatures who want to dominate. The modern art lovers are such pathetic people that they have nothing to dominate at, they have no trait that can genuinely be used as a device for their arrogance, so they need to falsely invent a kind of art that only they supposedly understand. They create art which makes no sense so that no one can understand it, because there is nothing to understand, and then pretend they understand it so that they can feel superior to other people.

Tea is disgusting. I almost never drink tea. But when I am to drink tea I make sure to put a lot of sugar because otherwise it is disgusting. I might use six teaspoons to mask the disgusting taste of tea. Once I do that only then does tea become drinkable and in rarer cases even pleasant. I understand that people have different preferences and some might like tea. I do not complain against the tea drinkers. What I am complaining about at the sugarless tea drinkers. And not really the sugarless tea drinkers but the sugarless tea drinkers that need to go out of their way to make the entire world know that they drink tea with no sugar. I do not care what tastes and preferences you have, there is no person who enjoys sugarless tea (or honeyless). Tea by itself is disgusting. Did you ever try the medical powder found in capsule tablets? I have. It is the most disgusting thing I ever tried in the world. I can safely say that there is no person alive that would find antibiotics pleasant, which is why they are in capsules in the first place. Same with sugarless tea. It is disgusting. I can understand if someone has diabetes and cannot use tea, that is not what I am talking about. I am talking about a person who can have sugar, purposely refuses to in order so that he can make everyone aware that he drinks tea with no sugar. I have met many of these people in my life. They ask me, "how much sugar you want", and I often respond "five or six spoons". They act surprised "six spoons?!, I drink tea with no sugar". Notice that they have to add the fact that they drink tea with no sugar. All for the reason of implicitly trying to show you that they are better than you because they can handle the tea as it is. Sugarless tea is not one of those traits that people should proudly show off. There is nothing to be proud of if you are willing to drink a disgusting drink on purpose. I do not think to myself, "wow that guy is so strong, he can drinks tea with no sugar", I rather think to myself, "wow that guy is an idiot he is willfully making himself drink something disgusting".

That is all I wanted to say as it was on my mind. These are two good examples of people who have nothing to brag about because their lives are just so empty and pathetic.

Sunday, June 20, 2010

On the State of Being Realistic and Unrealistic

The language that we everyday use to communicate with has no definitions behind it. More complex words can be defined using simpler words. But the fundamental words that we use everyday have no definitions for them. Even if we were to introduce a definition for them we would then have to define our newly defined words. This leads to an infinite regression. Language is never defined. Instead we learn words by experience. The words "black" and "happy" were never defined to us when we were kids, rather we learned by experience to what experience/perception do these words apply to. Thus, when we think of "black" and "happy" we do not think of some more fundamental definition which can explain those words but rather an experience associated with those words. What is language then? Language is the communication of our experiences between ourselves. We never communicate with rigorously defined concepts between ourselves but rather experiences that we have; we understand each other by empathy.

One word that we communicate by empathy and learned by experience but causes much confusion is "truth". Many people try to define what truth means. But they run into the same infinite regression problem. So if we cannot define exactly what we mean by truth then how can we know exactly what we mean by it? Experience of what "truth" meant is what we know exactly what we mean by "truth". When we learned the word "truth" we realized that what is true is part of the world (or "reality" if one wishes to say). Thus, when we say that a certain natural law of physics is "true" we mean to say that it is part of reality, that this is what the world around us follows. Now some people might object to me and say that I am not defining truth and that I may sound as if I am circular, but that is all irrelevant. Because all we care about is the experience that is associated with the word truth. What is important is to know what this experience is in order to understand how we learned what truth means. (There are additional problems with what I said. Truth can have different contexts. For example, in mathematics truth follows from the mathematical system that we have, but it need not be true in the way described above. But again this is all irrelevant because what I care about is the experience associated with truth). Therefore, the word "truth", what it means to us, is having correspondence to reality.

With that introduction now I want to get to exactly the point I wanted to make. One of the most abused expressions that I hear is, "I am realistic and you are not", or similarly, "you are being unrealistic". Truth is correspondence to reality, anyone who says, "I am realistic" can equivalently make the statement "I am truthful". When one says, "you are being unrealistic" it is equivalent to saying "you are wrong". When one says, "I am a realist but you are not" is equivalent to saying "I am right and you are wrong". I refer to this as one of the most abused expressions because this phrase, "I am realistic" or "you are being unrealistic", is often used within an argument. In certain cases it is used as an entire substitute for an argument.

If I present my own point of view and I can develop it but my opponent responds to me saying "you are unrealistic", then what he basically did is responded to my position by saying "you are wrong". If someone makes an argument and you respond "you are wrong", that is not a refutation. Such a response is not worthy or any respect whatsoever. It is a response that anyone can make. This is exactly why I have no respect for the argument "you are unrealistic", it is a non-response just like saying "you are wrong". One who says "I am a realist" should deserve no respect just like a person who says "I speak truth", that is an absurd self-statement for a person to make.

In fact, it often turns out that people who claim that "I am a realist" turn out being wrong on so many issues. What the realists claim is that they derive truth by observation. But if the observation is incorrect or if the explanation given to the observation is incorrect then the realist will most likely be wrong himself. The phenomenon I describe is extremely common with the self-identified realists who tell me that humans are evil murderous rapists. I wrote my position concerning human nature here, even if I am wrong, I think it is quite obvious by thinking it through that people cannot be demons. If that was the case our species would have been so inefficient that it would have died out a long time ago, we survived mainly because of cooperation. But the self-identified realists usually tell me how evil people are. They see wars and murders so they jump to the conclusion that people are so evil. These realists have the correct observations but they explain their observations in a terrible manner, for instance they never consider to compare the evil people to the good people on a grand scale level. The truth also sometimes turns out being counter-intuitive, which will lead the self-identified realists to error. The planet being round, evolution, or the invisible hand, sound so ridiculous at first, and so counter-intuitive that the self-identified realists will never derive these statements, unless it was explained to them why these ideas are true. This brings up another problem that I have with the self-identified realists. They almost always seem to think that the truth must pessimistic. But why? Sometimes the truth can be positive. I agree that in most instances pessimism is the correct way to proceed, I am a nihilist myself after all (which can be considered as the extreme form of pessimism), so I have no problem with denying our meaning in life, but there are a few occasions where the truth is positive. These self-identified realists love to preach pessimism and mask it under the name of being "realistic".

My entire point of all of this is that people who call themselves "realistic" or people who tell you "you are unrealistic" or people who say "we need to be realistic" are making a non-argument. It is redundant to say in a discussion "we need to be realistic" because that is equivalent to saying "we need to find the truth", obviously that is redundant and has no point of being mentioned in a discussion. All what being realistic means is simply saying "I am right and you are wrong", a response to which no respect should be given at all.

Wednesday, June 16, 2010

Is Religion Evil?

When it comes to skeptic's opinion about religion it often consists of two differing ideas. One of them is that religion is evil, the cause of most of the world's problems and if we get rid of it the world would be a much better place. The second one is that religion is a poison. I will refer to these as the Richard Dawkins' approach and the Christopher Hitchen's approach, respectively.

I do not think that religion is inherently evil. It is true that most of our history is the result of religious conflict between different groups of people. But it is not that religion is inherently evil, however. I plan to write in the future what I think is the major source of all our conflict in the world but for now I just want to say that religion has created very strong differences between different groups of people. It were these differences that lead to the conflict and wars that most our history is soaked with blood with.

Now if you look at the 20th century you realize something interesting. All the major wars were not the result of religion whatsoever. You even had some atheistic countries which were responsible for mass genocide, such as the Soviet Union. However, the Soviet Union did not kill for religious reasons. Nor did Nazi Germany kill for religious reasons (they were Christian). Nazi Germany and Soviet Union killed for different reasons. Because the nations were able to identity themselves, not with religion, but with something else. It were these differences that developed into the conflicts, religion had nothing to do with this. Approximately 200 million people were murdered by states and wars in the 20th century, little of that had to do with religion.

Thus, if you are the supporter of the Richard Dawkins approach you need to answer this problem. How can you claim that religion is the majority cause of the problems in the world and ignore the 20th century? Richard Dawkins would have us believe that if we get rid of religion everything would be nice and peaceful. Of course, I know I just strawmaned his position, however, it is not that much off from what Dawkins is saying, his position is similar to how I described it. And it is here that I lose a lot of respect for Dawkins (I never once liked Dawkins). When Dawkins was asked about Stalin his response was that Stalin was "like a religious person". Wow, Dawkins committing the no-true Scottsman fallacy, I would expect more from him. The problem with the Dawkins' approach to religion is that it does not address the problem I set up.

The approach that I much strongly prefer is the Hitchen's approach. It does not say that religion is inherently evil. It does not say that if religion is gone the world would be so much better. It says that religion is a poison. It is not necessary for morals. It does not add nearly as much to morals as it takes away from morals. You can see this among very fundamentalist religious followers. If they are very strict with their religion they often do very immoral things. Mainly the religious people that are good people are the liberal or moderate theists.

This is the approach that I hold. Religion is simply not necessary for our morals, it is not inherently evil however, furthermore it is a poison. It makes good people do bad things in many instances. If religion is magically gone tomorrow then the world will be better, but not so much better, there would be a lot of conflict nonetheless.

Tuesday, June 15, 2010

A Group Theory Exercise

Here is nice exercise that uses all three isomorphism theorem (see here) at once. Let f be a group homomorphism from a finite group G and let H be a normal subgroup (we can extend this to non-finite groups but let us rather stay with finite group so that everything we deal with is are natural numbers). Prove that the relationship between (G:H) and (f(G):f(H)) is given by, $$(f(G):f(H))\cdot |\ker f| = (G:H)\cdot |\ker f \cap H|$$.

Solution: Define the function $$\hat f : G\to f(G)/f(H)$$ by $$g\equiv f(g) (\bmod f(H))$$. Clearly this function is a group homomorphism. We claim that its kernel is the product $$H\cdot \ker f$$. To see this let $$x\in \ker \hat f$$. Then $$f(x) \in f(H)$$ so f(x) = f(h) for some h in H. Thus, $$f(h^{-1}x)=1$$ which means x=hk where h is in H and k is in the kernel of f. Conversely, if x=hk where h is in H and k is some element of the kernel of f then it is clear that f(x) = f(h) which is in f(H). Thus, by the first isomorphism theorem we have $$f(G)/f(H) \simeq G/(H\cdot \ker f)$$. Now by the third isomorphism theorem we have $$f(G)/f(H)\simeq (G/H)/(H\cdot \ker f/H)$$. However, using the second isomorphism theorem we quickly see that $$f(G)/f(H)\simeq (G/H)/(\ker f / (\ker f\cap H))$$. From here the equation that we were supposed to prove easily follows.

What is the lesson of all of this? That the kernel measures in some way the wrapping of the morphism around itself. If the kernel is trivial then the morphism is injective and so there is no wrapping. The larger the kernel is the more the morphism wraps around itself. It is obvious that (f(G):f(H)) = (G:H) if the f is injective, we do not even need the proof above. However, in the case when f is not injective we have a certain wrapping factor, this is why we expect to find the kernel in the solution to the more general problem.

Saturday, June 12, 2010

Bisexual Gender Theory

I had this idea for quite a while and I was very certain of myself but the more I discussed it with other people online it seems that I am way off from the truth. My idea was that almost every person is a bisexual. Very very few people are either exclusively straight or exclusively gay. Most are somewhere in between. When a guy says he is straight what he really means to say is that he leans very much to the straight side but there is a part of him that can still be aroused by guys. Thus, he is uninterested in having boyfriends but he can sometimes, on few occasions, be sexually aroused by other guys. So he is not dominantly straight, there is a small part of him that is gay. The same with gay guys. A gay guy wants to have a boyfriend but it does not mean he cannot be sexually attracted to another girl on a few occasions. Likewise, a gay guy is not dominantly gay, there is still a small part of him that can be attracted to a girl. Most people are therefore bisexuals. But they just pick a sex which they happen to be more attracted to and identify their gender based on that sex. This was my theory about gender, I also believed that the reason why more people do not say what I say is because it is socially unacceptable, still to some degree, to admit you are attracted to the same sex.

Now I happen to be a bisexual. I am a guy but I can find some guys to be really sexy, and I find lots of girls to be sexy. I masturbate to both straight and gay porn. Sometimes I feel to just watch gay porn and other days I feel to just watch straight porn. In general though I find girls sexier than guys but that is only because girls, by their nature, are more into taking care of how they look. But the percentage of my attraction drastically changes when I concentrate only on gay guys, because they are, by stereotype, the ones who are more into their appearance. I am also very open to having a boyfriend, but I never had one. In fact, it would be nice to both have boyfriends and girlfriends, I think of myself as a bisexual polygamist, but I am getting off topic.

But I have not always called myself a bisexual, that is a recent label I put on myself. When I was a little younger I thought of myself as straight. I definitely knew I was not gay because I really really liked women. But at the same time I liked some guys out there as well. So I simply imagined that my fantasies involving other men were just a normal phase all teenage boys go through. But then one day I finally realized that perhaps I should better just describe myself as a bisexual and my gender made a lot more sense to me after that label.

Why am I telling this? Well, obviously one reason is that I get to have a chance to repulse some of my viewers with my gay and straight sexual fantasies (I do want to also mention that transsexuals can be hot too but I do not really watch tranny porn). Though what I say also is relevant to my theory. I probably came up with the bisexual gender theory by projecting my gender onto others. This is similar to what many heterosexuals do. These heterosexuals look at their own sexuality and assume that every person out there must have the same sexuality, so it is hard for them to accept that homosexuality is something in people's personality, hence they believe that homosexuality is a choice. It seems to me now that I am probably making the same error. That I look at my own gender and project it onto other people. I used to be very sure of my theory but with conversing with more people on this issue I realized that I am wrong in many cases. Some people are exclusively straight. Of course, it is possible for them to be denying their same sex attraction because they are uncomfortable with such an admission. That would make sense in some cases, however, I found the same phenomenon in gay men. I know this one gay guy (Oh my Science, he is so hot) who when I discussed this idea with him told me that he never once had a fantasy involving a girl even though he may hug them and kiss them he never feels a sexual attraction to them. It may make sense to say that some straight people deny their gay side because they are uncomfortable around it, however, it would not make sense to say that involving gay men are uncomfortable around their straight side. My theory begins to look weak after inspection with other people on this topic.

I know there is a tendency among people to deny that bisexuals exist. A lot of people think that bisexuals are just semi-closeted homos, including gay people themselves. I can understand why that attitude is often taken because it is true in certain cases. It is easier for a gay guy to first come out as a bisexual and work himself out to be a gay. So often people see bisexuals coming out as gay. So this attitude is certainly understandable, but there are genuine bisexuals out there. There are existent. I seem to have taken the antipodal position and suggested that there are nothing but bisexuals in existence, and there are no genuine gay or straight people out there, sexuality is a spectrum and people identify their gender simply based on various degrees of homo and heterosexuality.

I was curious to hear responses to my theory from other people by introspecting yourselves. Do you think I am way off in my classification of sexuality? Does anything I say have any merit to it? Which parts do I have to refine?

You know what is great about being a bisexual? You get to double your chances of finding someone.

Friday, June 11, 2010

World Cup Predictions

I am not sure how many of you who read these posts are interested in the World Cup. Just by stereotyping I would guess not many because Americans do not enjoy soccer. They have their own SuperBowl (which I never seen once in my life) but have no interest when it comes to the World Cup. Anyway, these are my predictions. Just note I am not some crazy soccer expert, this is just what I know from observing other championships.

Let us start with Italy, the champions of 2006. They have Buffon on their team who is a great goalkeeper, that is definitely a positive for them. But they are missing Toni, who was one of the main players on their team and in EURO 2008. I think Italy is weaker than it was in the past, but it should be a very strong team to beat. Remember that Italy almost beat Spain in the EURO 2008 matches. Italy should arrive in the semi-finals.

England. Well I do not know much about England. They always seemed to me like an average playing team, not the best, but they do not suck. They never rose to the top except back in the 60's. I doubt this year will prove an exception. They will likely get into the quarter-finals.

America. SUCKS! No way. America is going to go embarrass itself just like it did in all the past events. I am excited for the Shabbos match tomorrow between England and America. The commercial for this event was great! The commentator read a passage from Thomas Paine's the "Crisis", haha, how funny, a humorous way to present a match between England and America. But America will embarrass itself tomorrow and for the entire tournament.

Brazil is the standard response from someone who does not follow soccer to say they will be the champions. However, I really do not see Brazil doing well this World Cup event. Sorry. They do not have Ronaldinho anymore and they no longer have Ronaldo as the goal scorer. They are missing two powerful players. They have Kaka but Kaka is not impressive to me. I seen him play in the 2006 World Cup, he only scored one goal, and never seemed to strengthen the team. Brazil is much weaker than it always was. I will be surprised to see it in the semi-finals. They will likely get to the quarter-finals.

France will never be the same without Zidane. Zidane is a lengend, together with Baukenbauer, Muller, Pele and Maradona. Zidane was who made it possible for France to be such a strong team. With him gone France has no chance to win anymore. France however retains Henry and Ribery, two very good players, that is a positive. But with Zidane missing I would be surprised to see them in the semi-finals. The best for France are the quarter-finals, even if that.

I know that Netherlands is a very strong orange team. But sadly I do not know anything about them. I wish I can say more. But the only thing I know is that every one's name ends with "van".

Germany is my favorite team. I love Germany. The way they pass the ball around is beautiful. Germany is a very strong team and it always was a strong team. Germany is also a very consistent team. It ended up in the semi-finals more than any other team. And this is counting the two times when Germany was banned from participating in the World Cup following the end of World War 2. Germany has a lot of new players on their team. In 2006 Germany had the oldest team. But this year they have a very young team. Having young players is great but sadly a lot of experience is gone. Michael Ballack, the team captain, is no longer playing. However, Germany still retains Bastian Schweinsteitger, Philiph Lahm, and Lucas Podolski. This is great. In fact, Lahm recently said that this is the best German assembled team. It all comes down to Miroslav Klose. Klose was the best player of the 2006 World Cup, scoring more goals than anyone else, and it was Klose who spared Germany from facing defeat to Argentina in the quater-finals. Klose is a great player but he is much older now. If Klose can keep his great soccer skill that we seen from 2006 I am positive that Germany will end up in the semi-finals and hopefully in the final match. They do have a new goalkeeper, but I guess that is good, Lehmann was never that great.

Spain are the champions from the 2008 EURO and for good reason when they defeated Germany in the final match 1-0. Spain has nearly and impenetrable defense. Back in 2008 Spain was undefeated in approximately 20 straight games. Spain has two fantastic players. Fernando Torres (who scored the goal against Germany) and Cesc Fabregas. Spain has its first ever chance to win the World Cup. I am certain Spain would end up in the semi-finals, and it should defeat their opponents into the finals. I am guessing that we will most likely see Spain in the final event.

Australia. Will not get far, though they had a great performance in 2006. I just mention them because they have such awesome uniforms. I love their uniforms. Even if they lose, their uniforms are full of win.

Thursday, June 10, 2010

The Birth of Religion

A way to expose an idea for its absurdity is by looking at the origin behind an idea. Instead of arguing against the idea itself we can look at its origin. If the birth of an idea is absurd, a deformed hideous birth, an abomination against reason, born out of marriage between passion and evil, then its life in general shall be deformed itself, hideous to anyone who sees with reason, an abomination to those who are moral. Deformity gives birth to deformity.

Consider the origin of law on prostitution and the origin of prohibition. Instead of arguing against the ideas that support laws against prostitution or alcohol let us only concentrate on their birth. Is the birth of anti-prostitution laws and prohibition hideous? Prostitution was opposed by religious groups who did not like it. They are offended by people having sex outside marriage. They thought it was immoral. A hideous birth. Prohibition was supported by women who did not like alcohol, they managed to pass legislation because the men were out in the war. Another hideous birth. It is not a surprise then why the arguments in favor of anti-prostitution or prohibition are weak, absurd, pathetic and why these laws are failed laws. The deformed child grew into an ugly beast.

Now let us concentrate on the birth of religion. What kind of birth is it? It is a birth between the ignorant mother and the authoritarian father. Ignorance came first which developed into authority.

It is in human nature to seek answers to any questions that we has. But this great virtue that separated us from all the species and made us interesting comes with a vice. If no answer is provided man will substitute an imaginary answer for no answer, a contrived answer that he invented by his own madness. The will to truth rather will false answers than no answers. In our primitive state when life was brutish and short, filled with misery and ignorance, we needed a way to invent answers. Because we are too weak-minded to say that we do not know. Thus, we needed a way to satisfy our ignorance so that she would not haunt us. This is the birth of religion that we inherited from our mother, our ignorance.

We did not know chemistry, physics, astronomy, geology, or geography. So we invented answers to all of these questions. We invented Zeus to satisfy our ignorance of thunder, we invented Helios to satisfy our ignorance of the Sun, we invented other superstitions and myths to explain how the world operated around us. These myths were taught between friends and eventually passed down to their children, the children grew up to believe in these myths. Each tribe had its own story, each civilization had a separate myth conflicting with another civilization, because these myths were invented, not discovered. Though among this great diversity of satisfied ignorance things were quite peaceful, this is when religion was disorganized. But things eventually get violent when the father of the deformed child teaches him authority.

During our period of ignorance there was no authority, there was no state. Civilization preceded the state. The state had no method to secure its authority. Even if the state was more powerful than the ruled class the state would be in a perpetual war with the people, which will lead to its ultimate destruction. A state needed legitimacy to exist. A way to justify its own existence to the people. An excuse to convince the people why it can dominate them with its power structure. It did this with religion. Once religion had developed the masters could rule the people by establishing certain morals. These "morals" were morals derived from religion. The masters set codes and obligations for all the people to follow. It came up with excuses that this is what the gods demand. The gods are beyond human and immortal which made the ruled class both fearful and praiseworthy of these gods in religions. The state is now born from religion. And now religion becomes organized. It has morals and obligations that the members must follow. Failure to be obedient results in punishment from the father. Now that authority is established different civilizations have their own religion which leads to larger war and violence.

These skeptics who think that the only good side to religion was in the distant past when it kept people in line are wrong. Religion was never used to keep people in line, religion was used to secure authority. To keep people in line, for authority, means to make people obedient, to keep people in line, what it really means, to make sure people behave well. We must not confuse these two distinctions, these skeptics commit this confusion. Religion was never used to make people behave, it was really used to secure authority, and authority called itself as a way to keep people in line. Religion did not succeed in promoting behavior among people, it succeeded in promoting obedience to the father which resulted in the illusion that religion was used to keep people in line by authority.

This is the birth of religion. It is not a surprise now why what religion says and does is so absurd to any rational person. This absurdity is the consequence of its absurd birth. Religious birth was never concerned with promoting truth or morality but with ignorance and authority. This is why it is entirely unsurprising why there is so many truthful errors in religion and so many immoral propositions to its followers.

Free your mind from religion. Not only will you free your mind from ignorance but also from tyranny.

Wednesday, June 9, 2010

Conservative White Nationalists

I am a conservative. All what conservative means is someone who wants to "conserve" the state. Someone who wants to decentralize power and authority, or in some cases even outright abolish it. This is all what the word "conservative" means. I know it has very different meanings today. I know that when I say I am an extreme right-wing conservative people have to assume that I am some religious freak who loves George Bush. But that is the modern formulation of what conservative means. What it really means is so different from how the word should be applied. Thomas Jefferson was a conservative. Very hardcore conservative. In fact, I draw a lot of inspiration from Jefferson himself. But the modern usage of conservative has changed, this is perhaps why there is now a "neo-conservative" term for mainstream "conservatives" who want to increase military power. I wanted to explain what I think about conservative white nationalist members of the KKK.

It is true, there is no denying it whatsoever, that the conservative movement has white nationalists. All the people from the KKK are probably strong conservatives. I wanted to explain how I feel about klansmen and white nationalists who turn out being my allies. It does not bother me in the slightest. I even sometimes joke and mention that my allies include KKK members and white supremacists, because the irony is very funny.

The KKK happens to be right-wingers. But Nazis and Soviets happen to be left-wingers. I know that the left managed to convince almost everybody that Nazis are right-wingers but their arguments make no sense. Why are Nazis right-wingers? What does "right-winger" even mean? All what it means is someone who is a conservative. Someone who is a right-winger is someone who wants to diminish the state. Someone who is a left-winger is someone who wants to increase the state. The further one moves to the right the further one wants to diminish state power. At the right extreme is an anarchist. The further one moves to the left the further someone wants to increase state power. At the left extreme is a communist or a totalitarian (though there are people who call themselves "anarcho-communists" but I do not want to get into that). That is the basic understanding of the distinction between left and right winger. Now I ask why are Nazis left-wingers? Nazi stands for "National Socialist". We agree that socialists are left-wingers so why are Nazis exempt? The left somehow managed to convince lots of people, including conservatives, that Nazis are right-wingers, but the left never gives a justification for their label. So I do not care how the left calls Nazis, Nazis are left-wingers and I will continue to call them that until someone manages to explain to me why I am mistaken.

If you want to understand how I feel about conservative white supremacists then you should understand how you feel about left-wing Nazis and Soviets if you happen to be a liberal. Many of the policies that Nazis and Soviets support are supported by left-wingers. I have read an excerpt from the Nazi Party and compared to what the left says today. If you hide the date and where this excerpt came from a lot of people will guess it comes from the left-wingers today. The similarities between the Nazi Party, Soviets, and the liberal left in the US today is strong.

But should the liberals worry or be concerned by their similarities to the Nazi Party? No! Because the liberals and the Nazis often come to the same conclusions but for different reasons. The major distinction between liberals and Nazis are not their conclusions, but their reasoning process. The liberals want to promote more state programs to help people, and hence want to increase the state. The Nazis were racists whose plan included extermination of non-German subhumans and so they supported an increase in state power. The fact that there is a strong overlap between liberals and Nazis, or Soviets, is completely irrelevant. What is important are not the conclusions but the manner in which those conclusions are arrived. Nazis are bad people because their plans included (includes) human extermination and world domination, but liberals do not share any of these fantasies. And so it is unfair and ridiculous to compare liberals to Nazis.

Now let us get to my relationship between conservatives and white supremacists. White supremacists, nationalists, and klansmen have one main goal, and that is white dominance. They do not have the same fantasy to exterminate the non-white people but they want white dominance. Some of them would love to own themselves some black slaves. The reason why white supremacists oppose the state is simply because they see the state as getting in their way. Klansmen do not like to pay taxes, they love guns (to be fair I love guns too), and they want the state to leave them alone to their racist ways. That is why Klansmen oppose the state, all because of convenience. I am positive that if the state was on their side they would not oppose it, they would like it; this is why KKK and Neo-Nazis are on friendly terms with one another even though they are different. The real reason why white supremacists oppose the federal government is because the government overturned the state decisions of segregation and slavery. Segregation and slavery were protected institutions by the state governments. White nationalists had no problem using the state governments to keep their own self-interests. But they do have a problem with the federal government because the federal government, for once, actually made the correct decision. The federal government is what prevents them from having slaves or imposing segregation policies. This is why white nationalists are conservatives.

Now I am a conservative because I am opposed to human-ownership in all its forms. People own themselves, but no one owns anyone else. I am a conservative because I am influenced by the ideas of the Enlightenment and John Locke. Also because I am against the idea of ordering society around with violence. In addition I see the state as the last great obstacle for mankind to overcome. It is the institution of misery and evil. I also have an economic point of view. I am a supporter of the free market and so I see state control as damaging to the economic system. All of these are my reasons for being a conservative. I support guns and militias because people need a way to fight tyranny. I seriously doubt that klansmen share my reasons that I have. They have their own reasons, as I explained, which makes them conservatives. But I have my own reasons, entirely different, opposed to what white nationalists are in fact. The only similarity between myself and white nationalists are just our conclusions. However, as I explained the conclusions are irrelevant. It is the manner in which we come to our conclusions that make all the difference between us. Thus, it would be unfair and ridiculous for a liberal to compare me to a KKK member. This is why I am entirely unbothered by my correlation with white supremacists in the conservative movement.

Defending the President

It is quite obvious that I am not the biggest supporter of the president from my posts. However, I do want to defend him. The BP oil spill is not his fault nor can he be made responsible for it. The president is not some Deity that can take blame or praise for anything that goes good or bad. He is just another pathetic human being like us. He has a certain job as a president. Environmental disasters is not his problem. He cannot be made accountable for any problem that we have. He has his own stuff to worry about. And he should worry about what he needs to worry about. He should stay out of the whole oil spill situation and let others deal with the situation. If you want to condemn him you can condemn him for his poor performance on the economy, or his bad health reform policy, because in those he had influence. And even in those policies he can only take a little part of the blame because he is not the only one behind the policy. Just like the left cannot blame Bush for his performance with Hurricane Katrina we cannot blame Barack for his performance with the oil spill. Not what he was elected for. Conservatives just need to pull whatever excuse they can to go after the president. There are plenty of problems with the president, stick with them, stop making up excuses. The BP oil spill is only the fault of BP, no one else, if you want to condemn someone then condemn them, stop going after the president.

Tuesday, June 8, 2010

Jordan Holder Theorem

Back here I wrote about the Schreier theorem and how it implies the Jordan Holder theorem. There happens to be a completely different proof of this theorem which does not use the Schreier theorem. This proof is another good illustration of how to apply the isomorphism theorems, in particular the second one, which I wrote back here.

We need a few remarks before we jump into the proof. The first one is that if H and K are maximal normal subgroups of a group G which are distinct then HK = G. This is very easy to show. By definition H and K are proper normal subgroups of G which is not contained in some other proper normal subgroup of G. By construction HK is the smallest group containing both H and K. Since both H and K are normal it follows that HK is also normal. Thus, HK is a normal subgroup of G containing both H and K. In addition if H and K are distinct then HK would contain both H and K properly. This forces HK = G because the only normal subgroup which can contain H and K properly must be the full group G. The second one is that every finite group has a composition series, go back here if you would like to see the definition of this term. Thus far all groups we dealt with we have assumed they have a composition series. In the case of finite group we can prove it must have a composition series. The proof of this is also very simple. Recall our observation that H is a maximal normal subgroup of G if and only if G/H is a (non-trivial) simple group. For a given finite group G consider all of its normal subgroups, there are finitely many, so we can choose a maximal one. Now look at this maximal one and find its maximal one. Keep on going until you reach no more, this would be a composition series.

Theorem: Any two composition series for a finite group must be isomorphic.

Proof: We need to prove two statements. First, if $$\{H_i\}_{i=0}^n$$ and $$\{K_i\}_{i=0}^m$$ are composition series then $$n=m$$ and furthermore there is a one-to-one correspondence between the factor groups $$H_{i+1}/H_i$$ and $$K_{i+1}/K_i$$ which give an isomorphism. We prove this by induction on |G|. Notice that if the order of G was 1,2,3,4,5, the few basic cases, then we can easily see that the theorem is true. We would like to prove this theorem for larger orders. So we will assume it is true for all smaller orders than |G| and prove it for |G|. We will change our notation slightly. Instead, of $$H_0\subset ... \subset H_n$$ being a composition series with $$H_0$$ being the trivial group and $$H_n=G$$ we will write the indices in reverse, $$H_n\subset ... \subset H_0$$. Likewise, we will also write $$K_m \subset ... \subset K_0$$ where $$K_m$$ is trivial and $$K_0=G$$. Consider $$H_1$$ and $$K_1$$, by our new notation those are our maximal normal subgroups of G. There are two possibilities, either they are both equal or they are distinct. If they are both equal then the proof is finished by induction. Because $$\{H_i\}_{i=n}^1$$ is a composition series for $$H_1$$ and $$\{K_i\}_{i=m}^1$$ is a compsotition series for $$K_1$$. Since $$H_1=K_1$$ these are two composition series for a group or order less than |G|. Thus, it follows that $$n=m$$ and the factor groups can be arranged to give rise to isomorphisms. The harder case is when these two groups are distinct. Construct $$N_1=H_1\cap K_1$$. It follows that $$N_1$$ is a normal subgroup of G. Let $$\{N_i\}_{i=r}^1$$ be a composition series for $$N_1$$. Now consider the following subnormal series $$N_r\subset ... \subset N_1 \subset H_1$$. We claim this is a composition series for $$H_1$$. To prove this we only need to show that $$H_1/N_1$$ is a simple group. By the second isomorphism theorem $$H_1K_1/K_1 \simeq H_1/(H_1\cap K_1)$$. Thus, $$G/K_1$$ is isomorphism to $$H_1/N_1$$, but $$G/K_1$$ is simple, so we do indeed have a composition series. But $$H_n \subset ... \subset H_1$$ is also a composition series for $$H_1$$. By induction it follows that r+1=n. Furthermore, the two factor groups can be rearranged to have an isomorphism. By repeating the similar argument with $$K_1$$ we see that $$N_r\subset ... \subset N_1 \subset K_1$$ is a composition series and $$K_m\subset ... \subset K_1$$ is a composition series. Thus, r+1=m also, and the factor groups can be rearranged to give rise to isomorphisms. It follows from all of this that n=m. Now we will prove that the two composition series for G have an isomorphic pairing of their factor groups. For this consider $$N_r\subset ... \subset N_1 \subset H_1$$ and $$H_n\subset ... \subset H_1$$. As we explained the factor groups must pair isomorphically. Thus, there is an isomorphic correspondence betweeen $$N_i/N_{i+1}$$ and $$H_i/H_{i+1}$$ except for one factor group which happens to be isomorphic to $$H_1/N_1$$. Likewise, by considering $$N_r \subset ... \subset N_1 \subset K_1$$ and $$K_n \subset ... \subset K_1$$ we again see there is an isomorphic correspondence between $$N_i/N_{i+1}$$ and $$K_i/K_{i+1}$$ except for one factor group which happens to be isomorphic to $$K_1/N_1$$. Putting this together we see that in the composition series $$H_n \subset ... \subset H_1 \subset G$$ and $$K_n \subset ... \subset K_1 \subset G$$ we see there is a one-to-one isomorphic correspondence between all groups $$H_i/H_{i+1}$$ but one which happens to be isomorphic to $$H_1/N_1$$ and the groups $$K_i/K_{i+1}$$ but one which happens to be isomorphic to $$K_1/N_1$$. Now take the group which happens to be isomorphic to $$H_1/N_1$$ and pair it with $$G/K_1$$ which is isomorphic by the second isomorphism theorem. Likewise take the group which happens to be isomorphic to $$K_1/N_1$$ and pair it with $$G/H_1$$ which is isomorphic by the second isomorphism theorem. Thus, we have obtained a one-to-one isomorphic correspondence between $$\{ H_i\}_{i=n}^0$$ and $$\{ K_i\}_{i=n}^0$$. Q.E.D.

The Jordan Holder theorem has a lot of interesting applications. One of which is the concept of a "solvable group" (or as English mathematicians in contrast to American mathematicians like to write "soluble groups"). Solvable groups comes up when we wish to determine if a polynomial is solvable in radicals (over some field). The famous result from Galois that there are degree five polynomials not solvable in radicals is based on the idea that $$S_n$$ is not a solvable for $$n\geq 5$$. We will state a definition.

Definition: A (finite) group G is solvable iff we can write a subnormal series $$\{N_i\}_{i=0}^n$$ such that $$N_{i+1}/N_i$$ is abelian.

There is an equivalent definition. We can insist for $$N_{i+1}/N_i$$ to be prime cyclic groups (and hence simple). That is easy to show. If $$N_0\subseteq ... \subseteq N_n$$ is a solvable series then we can start inserting factors in between adjacent groups. If $$N_{i+1}/N_i$$ is not simple then we can find a group $$N_i \subset K \subset N_{i+1}$$ (by taking inverse images under the natural projection map). Since the group is finite (well we are assuming that for simplicity sake, pun intended) it follows that eventually we reach a point when we cannot insert any other groups in between. Thus, we would have refined a solvable series into one where all factor groups are simple. Since all the factor groups stay abelian it follows that the factor groups must be prime cyclic groups, because those are the only non-trivial abelian groups which are simple. Thus, we can define a (finite) group G to be solvable iff we can write a subnormal series $$\{N_i\}_{i=0}^n$$ such that $$N_{i+1}/N_i$$ are prime cyclic groups.

By this useful equivalent definition we can formulate another equivalent definition. A (finite) group G is solvable if and only if it has a composition series with abelian factor groups. Here is the important point. By the Jordan Holder theorem it follows that if one composition series of G has abelian factor groups then it follows that all composition series of G have abelian factor groups. Thus, if there is a composition series that has a factor group which is not abelian then the group cannot be solvable. This simple (pun intended) test can be used to show that a group is not solvable. The standard example is the next theorem.

Theorem: For $$n\geq 5$$ the symmetric group $$S_n$$ is not solvable.

Proof: Recall that $$A_n$$ is simple for $$n\geq 5$$. Thus, $$\{1\}\subset A_n \subset S_n$$ is a composition series where $$A_n/\{1\} \simeq A_n$$ is not abelian. Thus, by the previous comments $$S_n$$ cannot be solvable.

As an excerise try proving that $$A_n$$ is the only proper normal non-trivial subgroup of $$S_n$$ for $$n\geq 5$$. This proof would be much more difficult if we did not have the group theoretic machinery of the Jordan Holder theorem.

Sunday, June 6, 2010

A Whale is a Fish

I really hate people who have to correct you and say "a whale is actually a mammal". Who are the idiots who classified a whale as a mammal? Yes, I know, it were biologists. And yes I know their reasoning. A whale is warm-blooded, it has a similar composition to a mammal, it reproduces like a mammal, not like a fish, and it evolved from a land animal that went into the sea. I know all of that. But, it has fins! And it looks like a fish. People fish for it. No one says "I am going to go hunting for whales", everyone says, "I am going to go whale fishing". Do not misunderstand me. I am not charging my complain towards biologists, they are just doing their jobs when it comes to classifying life, I cannot blame them. I am complaining about people who have to correct you. You know, I took fifth grade biology. I know that a whale is really a mammal. But I call it a fish because it looks like a fish and it acts like a fish, I do not care that I call it a fish. When you correct people and tell them that a whale is a really a mammal do you realize you make yourself look so stupid? It is basic level science to know that in actuality a whale is a mammal and not like a fish. Obviously people who say that whales are fish must be joking or do not care to be so precise. Correcting people who call whales fish is unintelligent. It is a completely unintelligent remark, there is nothing deep to it. I can understand if knowing that a whale is not a fish was not common knowledge and you corrected people, fine. But since it is such basic common knowledge that a whale is not a fish stop correcting people! All you are trying to show is how smart you are because you happen to know that simple little fact that nearly every person knows. I have no problem with people being arrogant, I am arrogant myself. If you want to show off how smart you are, go ahead. But at least do it when it comes to real intelligible things not basic knowledge. I do not care. Whales are fish, and I will call them that.

Friday, June 4, 2010

Liberal Lunacy 3: Tea Party Racism

The left calls the tea party racists because it mostly consists of white people. What kind of an argument is that? That itself is a racist argument. We need a good definition for racism which I provided here. Judging the people in the tea parties by their race to determine if they are racist or not is self-defeating, it is racist itself.

Besides the left commits the correlation-causation fallacy. The tea parties mostly consist of white people, therefore there is a corellation between white people and being a tea party member. Now does this imply that there is racism? No. Of course not. That is a ridiculous argument to make. I can make a similar argument with regard to black people. I can say that the real reason why more black people do not join the tea party movements is because the president is black and they do not want to oppose him. That is another correlation-causation fallacy, see how ridiculous it is?

If you want to call the tea party racists then you need to provide evidence of their racism not simply correlate between the white members in the tea parties. I am sure you can kind find racists in the tea parties, but that is in the minority, most people in the tea parties do not show themselves to be racists. If you cannot provide evidence here that all what the tea party is about is being opposed to the president since he is black then you have a ridiculous argument not worthy or any respect.

I want to again bring to attention the strategy of the liberal left. I have written about this before on my other posts. Racism is a tool used by the left to silence opposition. Whenever someone is opposed to some law or their party they will try to find a way to claim him to be a racist. The left does not like the tea parties so now they invent excuses to why they must be a racist party. The fact that most of them are white is a good place to start for the left. And this is precisely why I never listen to the news. I cannot listen to the news. Every single day you can know with certainty that one issue regarding racism will be discussed. Even if there is no sign of racism these people are masters of inventing it and then discussing it to silence their opponents. The left wants to create an imagine of themselves that they are the progressive enlightened party and any opposition to their party must come from greedy racists who only think about themselves. Which is precisely why I have no respect for the liberal party for the tactics that they use.

Thursday, June 3, 2010

Schreier Theorem

Here is a good way the fourth isomorphism theorem can be used. Click here to look at the theorem. The Schreier theorem is a result about group series. First we need to make a definition.

Definition: Let G be a group, let $$H_i$$ be subgroups for $$0\leq i \leq n$$ (for some integer n). So that $$H_0\subseteq H_1\subseteq ... \subseteq H_n$$ with $$H_0$$ being the trivial subgroup and $$H_n=G$$. We call this group series a "subnormal series" iff $$H_i$$ is a normal subgroup of $$H_{i+1}$$. If in addition we have proper containment $$\subset$$ rather than just containment $$\subseteq$$ we will refer to such a subnormal series as "reduced".

Definition: Let G be a group with $$\{H_i\}_{i=0}^n$$ as a subnormal series and let $$\{K_i\}_{i=0}^m$$ be another subnormal series. We say that $$K_i$$ is "finer" (or a "refinement" of $$H_i$$) than $$H_i$$ if the all $$H_i$$ are contained in the sequence of the $$K_i$$.

Non-reduced series do not add any new information, we can cancel out all extra groups on the list. We can therefore say in our terminology that any subnormal series is always a refinement of some reduced subnormal series. Here is an example. Notice that $$ 0\mathbb{Z} \subset 4\mathbb{Z} \subset \mathbb{Z}$$ can be refined to $$ 0\mathbb{Z} \subset 4\mathbb{Z} \subset 2\mathbb{Z} \subset \mathbb{Z}$$. A way to think of a refinement is by adding intermediate groups in between the already existing ones. Of course, sometimes it is not possible to add any (distinct) intermediate groups in between. Suppose we have $$0\mathbb{Z} \subset p^2 \mathbb{Z} \subset p\mathbb{Z} \subset \mathbb{Z}$$ then it is not possible to add any distinct subgroup in between those two if p is a prime. The series definitely has a refinement we can add $$p^3\mathbb{Z}$$ in between $$0\mathbb{Z}$$ and $$p^2\mathbb{Z}$$. But we cannot add a subgroup in between $$p$$ and $$p^2$$.

What we are going to be going is considering the factor group $$H_{i+1}/H_i$$. Sometimes two different looking series can turn out to the same by considering their factor groups. For that we will give a definition.

Definition: Two subnormal series $$\{H_i\}_{i=0}^n$$ and $$\{K_i\}_{i=0}^n$$ are said to be "isomorphic" iff there is a one-to-one correspondence between the factor groups $$H_{i+1}/H_i$$ and $$K_{i+1}/K_i$$ so that the correspondence is an isomorphism of groups.

For example, consider $$0\mathbb{Z}_{10} \subset 2\mathbb{Z}_{10} \subset \mathbb{Z}_{10}$$ and $$0\mathbb{Z}_{10}\subset 5\mathbb{Z}_{10}\subset \mathbb{Z}_{10}$$. Notice that $$2\mathbb{Z}_{10}/0\mathbb{Z}_{10}\simeq \mathbb{Z}_5$$ and $$\mathbb{Z}_{10}/2\mathbb{Z}_{10} \simeq \mathbb{Z}_2$$. But $$5\mathbb{Z}_{10}/ 0\mathbb{Z}_{10}\simeq \mathbb{Z}_2$$ and $$\mathbb{Z}_{10}/ 5\mathbb{Z}_{10} \simeq \mathbb{Z}_5$$. So we clearly have an isomorphism between these two subnormal series.

Now we will get to the theorem.

Theorem: Every two subnormal series of groups have isomorphic refinements. That is to say if $$ \{ H_i\}_{i=0}^n $$ and $$ \{K_i\}_{i=0}^m $$ are a subnormal series of G then we can find series $$\{ \hat H_i\}_{i=0}^N $$ and $$ \{\hat K_i\}_{i=0}^N$$ so that $$\hat H_i$$ is a refinement of $$H_i$$ and $$\hat K_i$$ is a refinement of $$K_i$$, while the additional property that $$\{\hat H_i\} \simeq \{ \hat K_i\}$$.

Proof: The proof is very nice. For every i notice that we have $$H_i = H_i(H_{i+1}\cap K_0)$$ and $$H_{i+1}=H_i(H_{i+1}\cap K_m)$$. Notice that we also have the following inclusions:
$$H_i(H_{i+1}\cap K_0)\subseteq H_i(H_{i+1}\cap K_1)\subseteq ... \subseteq H_i(H_{i+1} \cap K_m)$$
Let us define $$H_{ij} = H_i(H_{i+1}\cap K_j)$$ for $$0\leq i\leq n-1$$ and $$0\leq j \leq m$$. By the above remarks we have $$H_{i,0}=H_i$$ and $$H_{i,m}=H_{i+1,0}=H_{i+1}$$.
Now consider, the following inclusions:
$$H_{00}\subseteq H_{01}\subseteq H_{02}\subseteq ... \subseteq H_{0,m-1}\subseteq H_{0m}=H_{10}\subseteq$$
$$\subseteq ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ H_{11}\subseteq H_{12}\subseteq ... \subseteq H_{1,m-1}\subseteq H_{1m} = H_{20}\subseteq$$
$$\subseteq ~ H_{n-1,1}\subseteq H_{n-1,2}\subseteq ... \subseteq H_{n-1,m-1}\subseteq H_{n-1,m} = G$$
This long inclusion sequence definitely contains out original $$H_i$$ so it is a refinement. Now we will define a similar one for the $$K_i$$ subnormal series by defining $$K_{ij} = K_i(K_{i+1}\cap H_j)$$ for $$0\leq i\leq m-1$$ and $$0\leq j \leq n$$. And now we can define a similar long inclusion sequence for the $$K_{ij}$$. I will not bother writing out because I think it is clear. From the diagrams it is also clear that once we take factor group $$H_{i,j+1}/H_{i,j}$$ then we are left with a rectangle having m coloumns and n rows. While the $$K_{i,j+1}/K_{i,j}$$ is a rectangle having n columns and m rows. Furthermore, we see most importantly that $$H_{i+1,j}/H_{i,j}\simeq K_{j+1,i}/K_{j,i}$$. Because $$H_{i}$$ is normal in $$H_{i+1}$$ and $$K_{j}$$ is normal in $$K_{j+1}$$ so it follows by the fourth isomorphism theorem that:
$$_{H_i(H_{i+1}\cap K_{j+1})/H_i(H_{i+1}\cap K_j)\simeq K_j(H_{i+1}\cap K_{j+1})/K_j(H_i\cap K_{j+1})}$$. This is what we wanted, we have established that the factor groups are isomorphic. Q.E.D.

The Schreier theorem gives rise to an important corollary in group theory known as the Jordan-Holder theorem. Before we state the theorem we need an additional definition.

Definition: A reduced subnormal series $$H_i$$ is said to be a "composition series" when $$H_{i+1}/H_i$$ is a simple group.

Here is a useful remark. Let G be a group with normal subgroup N. There is a one-to-one correspondence between the subgroups of G which contain N and the subgroups of G/N. Furthermore, this correspondence is still preserved when we limit our selves to normal subgroups of G which contain N and normal subgroup of G/N. The proof is very simple. Notice that the natural homomorphism $$\pi:G\to G/N$$ provides all the correspondence we need. If K is a (normal) subgroup then $$\pi (K) = K/N$$ is a (normal) subgroup of G/N. Therefore, it follows N is a maximal normal subgroup of G if and only if G/N is simple. This means that an equivalent way to formulate a composition series is by saying that $$H_i$$ is a maximal normal subgroup of $$H_{i+1}$$.

Lemma: If $$\{K_i\}$$ and $$\{K_i^|\}$$ are isomorphic series which are refinements of the reduced series $$\{ H_i\}$$ and $$\{H_i^|\}$$ respectively then it follows that $$\{H_i\}\simeq \{H_i^|\}$$ also.

Proof: Instead of writing out a full formal proof here is an easy way to see why this must be true. On the left side of paper draw a coloumn of factor groups $$K_{i+1}/K_i$$. On the right side of paper draw a coloumn of factor groups $$K^|_{i+1}/K^|_i$$. Now draw lines connecting isomorphic factor groups. (This will look similar to be bipartite graph, but not quite). The zero groups on the left are precisely the ones where the $$K_i=K_{i+1}$$, likewise on the right. Because of the isomorphism the number of zero groups on the left will equal the number of zero groups on the right. Erase the zero lines which connect those groups. The groups we are left with now form a reduced series and furthermore the remaining lines provide the isomorphism that we desired. Q.E.D.

Here is the very surprising result. One of my favorite theorems. Totally unexpected. This is the Jordan-Holder theorem.

Theorem: Any two composition series for a group must be isomorphic.

Proof: The proof is incredibly simple once with have the Schreier theorem avaliable. By the Schreier theorem any two composition series have isomorphic refinements. However, by the lemma, the reduced series will themselves be isomorphic. But the reduced series are the composition series themselves! This is because a composition series cannot be refined into a proper reduced series by our remarks above. Thus, it follows that the composition series must be isomorphic.

This is a surprising result and an important result from group theory. We will give another additional proof of this theorem using the second isomorphism theorem rather than the fourth. We will also prove it directly without invoking the use of the Schreier theorem.

Cooperation vs Coercion

I am sure most people would agree that cooperation is better than coercion. But what I think is an interesting question is to ask "why"? I suspect if I was to ask this question the most common objection to coercion that people would say is that coercion, unlike cooperation, happens against the will of the other party, so we are doing harm to someone else if the other party does not comply and this is immoral. Coercion is also often done with violence or the threat of doing violence against an innocent party, which, hopefully, people will agree is immoral. Cooperation does not have this problem with it. Coercion has a moral objection to it.

Besides for this problem coercion has another problem with it. When two parties cooperate they are both better off. They come together and work towards some goal because each benefits from the mutual cooperation. This is the nice feature behind cooperation, both people are better off. Coercion is different. Coercion benefits one party at the expense of another. Suppose Adolf is a dictator of Germany and he hates Poland. If he threatens Poland to do as he says then he is benefiting himself at the expense of Poland. This is another inherent problem with coercive methods. One can perhaps call this a second moral objection. Namely, one party benefits itself by doing damage to another.

These two objections taken together form a good refutation against coercive methods. Most nice loving people who want the world to be a better place would immediately realize these inherent problems that are present with coercion. They would object to this method because they see it as immoral. What is very interesting is that we can ignore these two moral objections to coercion and come up with completely different objections that are from the point of view of Adolf. Adolf, the dictator, is clearly not a nice guy, so does not care that what he is doing is evil, he wants more for himself. Thus, the two above objections would not concern Adolf. The above arguments we can refer to "objections from morality", but there is also "objections from efficiency". Coercion is just so highly inefficient in attaining its goals that Adolf, even though is not a nice guy, should seek to strive to a cooperative system to improve his own efficiency.

Cooperation induces trust and dependency between two parties who trade with one another. Two businessmen can work together their entire lives. They come together because each one is unable to do the other's work, so they depend upon each other. It is also unlikely that these two businessmen think about how he is benefiting his partner. Rather each businessman thinks about himself first, his primary motive is his self-interest which he best satisfies through his partner. Likewise his partner feels the same way about his business partner. There will probably be a certain level of benevolence between them after working together, that is part of human nature, but their benevolence will not be sufficient to satisfy each other. It is rather their self-interest that keeps their business going. Coercion is not so. With coercion there is no trust and there can be no dependency. A thief who steals money must always find new people to steal from. While an entrepreneur can have a stable career his entire life. The reason is very simple. If one party steals from another through the use of coercion then the other party has no incentive to produce. If Adolf requires all citizens from Poland to hand over their cars then Poland will stop producing cars. Poland will have no desire to produce what it cannot keep. Thus, Adolf will not be able to depend on cars from Poland because of his coercive methods. It is not a surprise, therefore, why the richest and most successful people in history were all cooperative. Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Andrew Carnegie, Julius Vanderbilt, John Rockefeller did not get wealthy by stealing, but by producing for the masses, they attained their wealth with cooperation methods. (Bernie Madoff is an exception to this rule but we must remember that he got caught eventually). The thieves simply have no dependency to make their coercive methods efficient.

Cooperation also generally induces peace with those who trade for a very simple reason. If two businessman work together they are unlikely to kill one another. Even if they hate each other. Because each businessman realizes that his own wealth is promoted by the existence of his partner businessman. If he kills his partner then he will ruin his wealth. Thus, motivated by their own self-interest, the businessmen have an incentive not to kill one another even if they can get away with it entirely. By the same manner two countries that trade with one another are unlikely to go to war with each other. If the US trades fast food to Canada for maple syrup then both have an incentive not to fight one another. If US attacks Canada they fail to get their maple syrup. If Canada attacks US they fail to get their fast food. Thus, both parties are worse off. Trade between countries is what makes them a lot more peaceful with one another. Perhaps, this is the idea behind Thomas Jefferson's statement, "Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none.". Friedrich Bastiat, the philosopher and economist of France, is well-known for stating his famous principle, "if trade does not pass between borders then armies will". It seems that the inverse of this statement, which does not logically follow, but in this case it happens to be true, "if trade passes between borders then armies will not". Put simply cooperation helps maintain peace. Coercion is not so. Coercion makes the violated party angry at those who violated them. Coercion leads to war and conflict.

Therefore, Adolf, entirely for his own self-interest, should seek to move to a more cooperative system. Because coercion is just so highly inefficient for the reasons just explained. Coercive methods vs cooperative methods apply on all sorts of levels. Individuals between individuals, groups between individuals, and groups between groups. In all of these instances coercive methods ultimately fail on all of the accounts just explained. This is the other side of why we need to avoid coercive methods. Coercion is not a way to solve problems but to create new ones.

Constitutional Scholars

This is the one group of people I really despise. What a "constitutional scholar" really means is "the master of cherry picking". There is no difference in method between a constitutional scholar and a Biblical scholar of moderate Christianity. Just name an interpretation you want and these constitutional scholars will make it up for you. The Constitution will say "a well-regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". A constitutional scholar will come along and say that the comma that separates the two clauses is just a pause, the people are referring to the people of the militia. It would be a constitutional scholars who try to find limitations on free speech. Even though the Constitution cannot be clearer "congress shall make no laws abridging free speech". Despite this clear language they will find a way to find excuses and put limitations on speech. Constitutional scholars are paid to be master cherry pickers.

I equally as much hate the phrase "the supreme court decided that ...". The supreme court can sit on my middle finger. I do not care what the supreme court decided, especially when it negates what is written clearly in the Constitution. These guys can make up excuses that are not anywhere spelled out. If the government is using members in government to decide if it constitutional or not you should start getting suspicious. Having a government interpret itself is like having a business decide itself whether it is ethical or not. It makes no sense.

I want to make it very clear that I do not care what the Constitution says. The Constitution is just a piece of paper. The fact that something is written in the Constitution does not make it morally correct nor does it give the government legitamcy to do it. If it said in the Constitution that the government can walk into your house to make sure you do not have anything illegal does this automatically justify what the government does? No, of course not. What the Constitution says is irrelevent if we care about our morals or legitamcy. There are plentyful of people who use the Constitution as if it was some Bible. They have a point of view and immediately try to explain why it is constitutional. A Christian who uses the Bible to justify whatever his point of view is must first demonstrate that the Bible is correct and moral. Likewise any person who uses the Constitution to justify whatever his point of view is must first demonstrate that the Constitution is moral and legitamte. If this cannot be demonstrated then I will immediately reject whatever someone expounds from the Constitution just like I will immediately reject whatever some Christian tells me from the Bible. So stop telling me how constitutional you are. First of all, you are probably cherry picking like most people do to suite your own views. Second of all, even if you are entirely correct, I do not care, you need to explain why your position is moral and legitamte.

I want to make it clear that I am not trying to give disrespect to the Constitution. I consider it to be the most important document ever written. It symbolizes the great intellect from the Age of Enlightenment. I respect the Constitution for the ideas that was set in it. The idea that there are certain natural and inalienable rights inherent to all people, that among them, are life, libery, property, and the pursuit of happiness. Yes, I realize that this phrase is really in the Declaration of Independence, but this is irrelevant, the Constitution is nonetheless based on these ideas, and I also realized that "property" was used by John Locke, again, irrelevant, what is relevant here is the idea behind it. That is why I respect the Constitution. Not because it is part of the United States, I could not care less about that.

The way the Constitution is used today is similar to how "God" is used today. It is used to gain elections. If you show yourself to be a God-fearing person you are more likely to win than a skeptical candidate. The Constitution is similar. Candidates who claim they support the Constitution are more likely to win elections. They might not really care for what it says. And they might outright violate its principles. But they are willing to do so if they can get more election votes. The phrase "in God we trust" is just a nationalistic line to make people support the nation. The phrase "it is constitutional" performs a similar function by making the citizens think what the government does is legitamte.

If you think I am exaggerting then you are an unobservant person. Consider the following situations. The government regulates drugs by the use of the commerce clause. The government mandated conscription during the Vietnam war. The government has put into place the income tax even though it was never part of the Constitution, in fact, it had to put it into the Constitution only to make it constitutional. The government mandated people to buy health insurance and if they refuse they would be sent to jail (I wrote more about it here). The government interned its own citizens during the second war and skipped all of the procedures under the Bill of Rights. People have argued for "right to a job" and claim it is constitutional. Constitutional scholars argued that "right to healthcare" is constitutional. Need I say more?

Just become more observant, become more philosophical and desiring to ask questions. Do not be afraid of your conclusions. If you conclude, like I do, and many others, that the US government is an immoral, unjust, illegitamte entity that murders, steals, and enslaves from its own citizens and from innocent people around the world, then do not be afraid of that conclusion, only of its consequences to the US government. Because if you justify your own positions in a rational manner then it is a good sign that you are correct.

"For here we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it." - Thomas Jefferson