Thursday, March 31, 2011
People usually say that copyright protects the incentive of businesses to innovate more and since their innovation is important their needs to be intellectual property laws that prohibit other people from using the works of someone else.
However, as with almost everything, this goal (a benefit) to protect innovation comes at a cost. There is a cost imposed upon us with intellectual property in place. Not just the cost of having to pay more, rather than just downloading stuff, but a much more fundamental cost, a non-monetary cost. The internet is at the risk of more control whenever there is an intellectual monopoly created. Because now it means that websites can be shut down for copyright violations.
If a website is illegally posting content which is copyrighted then it can be shut down by the state. And I understand that this is not a free speech violation, because the website is not being shut down for what it said but for completely different violations. However, it is still problematic. Consider a website which features an open discussion for ideas, but it ran into copyright issues as some of the members posted copyrighted material there. This website is now at risk of being shut down or at least controlled.
And this is a problem, as such a law does inadvertently destroy the speech of the internet. What is more important? A free internet where people can post ideas without fear of being shut down, or an internet where people are constantly second guessing themselves if whether or not they crossed over the copyright line?
Over the years these copyright laws are getting worse and the internet is at most risk of being censored for potential copyright violations. I would imagine that most people would agree with me. I am sure people would say that some of these laws are getting out of place. However, they would mostly likely tell you that these laws need to be reformed. I do not buy this. As with almost every law put into place it has grown to exponential sizes of pages of regulations. Convince me that these internet copyright laws are not going to grow like a disease and seriously damage the internet? It is foolish not to assume this will happen. So I would say that the internet needs to be protected against copyright laws even though technically such laws are not violations of free speech.
If you want to support copyright laws then at least support copyright with regard for profit. Leave non-profit, as most places on the internet, alone. That way websites are not at risk of being shut down just because of some trivial copyright violations.
How do people look inside? You should watch (or perform if you ever get this chance) an autopsy. Autopsy is such a humbling experience. It is a revelation for any person of how we really look on the inside. Our outside bodies which is only a covering of what we look on the inside. If we remove this cover then we really see how we look like.
We are pathetic meatbags on the inside. Every single one of us. Among the most beautiful people to the most ugly people we are all equally hideous on the inside. Our organs are a horror sight. Blood pouring all around us bones shattering within us. We are all the same.
Civilizations worship the human body for its amazing beauty. But they never consider what the human body really looks like. An ultimate form of repulsion and disgust. And that is how we all end. This is how we die. We can be the most beautiful people in the world but in the end we are blood and worms. In the end we are all a horror sight. We focus on the outside beauty to ignore the repulsion that lies within ourselves. An ultimate reminder of how worthless we are and how terribly unimportant we are in comparison to the universe.
Why the fuck not? How stupid can you possibly be? Okay, maybe not money, maybe something else. How about immortality? Or how about a perfect healthy life? Or a perfect happy life? Whatever, some sort of reward for sucking on a dick.
Why the fuck would you not suck on a dick if you have a chance to make yourself so much better off now than you been before? It makes no sense at all. Think about this. If I offered you 100,000 dollars to suck on a cucumber you would do it. You have no sexual attraction to the cucumber but you would still do it. You just stick it in your mouth, suck, and done, finished. Now you are 100,000 dollars richer. That was it. Big deal. For such a trivial action you had an amazing amount of compensation.
You know what I think of you if you tell me, "I will not do it". I think you are retarded. You seriously need to be stupid not to accept such a deal like that. Think about it, a dick in your mouth feels almost like a cucumber in your mouth. All you got to do is shut your eyes and pretend you got a cucumber in your mouth. Finished. It is over. You need to have a terrible intelligence not to accept this.
I call this the "dick sucking morality". So many guys think it is moral to not suck dicks. They think there is something virtuous or profound about refusing to suck a dick for a reward. Virtuous? It is dumb. There is nothing moral in it. I can understand you refusing to kill someone for money because in that case you can at least come up with some sort of argument to why you should not do it. But a dick? Come on. What is wrong with you? What is holding you back?
I will tell you what is holding you back. Morality. The invented concept of morality whose function is to control people. Any amoral rational person will realize that a dick suck is the most efficient means to maximize his utility. You are being controlled by an external force. And for that you are weak. But you do not think of yourself as weak. You think you are strong as you refuse a reward. But this is not true. You are weak, as you cannot overcome your fabricated morals against homosexual practices, you cannot overcome the social fabrication that homosexuality is repulsive. The fact that you cannot overcome that means you are the weak one.
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
I live in an Orthodox Jewish community. So many of these Jews have achieved great things in their lives. Many of them are enterpreneurs, capitalists, work in business, or make a lot of money, and just in general know how to navigate around in the world. I personally know several millionaires some of whom I am friends with. I have respect for these people, as they achieved something in their lives. But every single one of these Juden fit into the description of being im Derech Eretz.
In my graduating class there were some yeshivish boys. Who did not go to college, who did not get a job, but instead are still learning in Israel or where ever it is where they are learning. It has been years already and they achieved absolutely nothing in their lives. When they get married they will not need a way to support themselves. Their rich parents, who have achieved success, will simply support them. I have no respect for these kinds of Jews. They have wasted their lives entirely. They consume and do not produce anything of value. They are a waste of a species and any human talent.
Maybe I am wrong on this but it seems as if the idea of Torah im Derech Eretz is losing popularity in Judaism. As the current generation can live off their parents and then move to Lakewood (Israel). This was not something that was possible 50 years ago and hence the popularity of being yeshivish is growing in the Orthodox world. Yeshivishness is a disease that will retard the Orthodox Jewish world back to the bronze-age (at least Hirsch was open-minded enough to consider the theory of evolution as a possibly true theory and he was alive right at the time of Charles Darwin).
However, there are good news. Orthodox kids are leaving Orthodox Judaism at the faster rate than ever before. So maybe the fact that Orthodox Jews are moving back to yeshivish is not a big deal as it is much more likely they will simply leave Orthodoxy.
Saturday, March 26, 2011
The first point, and perhaps the most important point, with regard to morality is the confusion of morality with empathy. This is a scientific error of thinking. The purely scientific way to discuss questions of morality is to ask how did they evolve? And when one asks such questions one is stuck discussing questions of empathy, altruism, compassion, and kindness. This is not equivalent to morality. There have been a myriad of civilizations with their own moral codes. Many of these moral codes did not corellate with these feel-good feelings. There were civilizations that were against helping the weak as they believed the weak are weak as punishment from their past lives so helping them is evil. This kind of moral code went entirely against any evolved sense of empathy. Most of the morals that people have believed in have extremely little to do with any evolved feeling within people. Indeed, most morals are against human natures, and as such if morality was evolved then it would not contradict people's natures. Therefore, the question of morality cannot be studied scientifically. At least not with natural selection.
I myself separate feelings of altruism and compassion from morality. So that I can tell people, "I have no morals". If they were to ask me why I would help another, I will simply say that I do not consider the desire to help others as a "moral". Morals have always meant something more than just empathy. And since I do not hold any higher interpretation of morals I reject all of morality and live without morals. I would encourage all people to take the same approach. Rejecting morals is in a way rejecting God. When one rejects God one loses his belief that reaffirms his life, so one needs to learn to live himself without being able to reaffirm himself. I view morals in a same way. When one rejects morals one has the challenge of not having any reaffirmation of ones actions, so the challenge is to be strong enough to be able to live without needing to reaffirm your actions.
Besides what kind of moral code is, "be nice to those people who deserve it" (which is essentially all I do, it is nice to be nice, and that is it, I need no greater reason than that)? Moral codes are very complex. They involve honor, sanctity, discipline, loyality, holiness, pureness, so on and so forth. The desire to just act nice is not something which I even consider to be a moral.
Then JewishAtheist talks about morality as being used for our selfishness. The truth is that morality, for its history, has always meant the complete opposite. Wanting to do something to yourself, such as pleasuring yourself, is wicked and people must move away from that. Morality has been a rebellion to people's natures. I strongly disagree with that. People acting in their self-interests is a very recent concept. One of the influences Adam Smith brought to the world was the idea that there is nothing wrong about wanting to act for your self-interest - his book Theory of Moral Sentiments was in a way a prelude to his economic theory as a moral defense.
The selfish aspect to morality is extremely recent and through out past history it has meant something entirely different.
So if morality cannot be explained through natural selection, and if morality is a rejection to people's own desires then from whence did it originate from? I have had my own idea to where morality came from. I believe that the function of morality was used as a tool to control the masses. Indeed, morality is authoratarian, it commands people to act in a particular manner. Its original goal was to control masses of people. Today the morals that are present are really mostly remants of dead moral systems that are not used anymore for domination, but that was their original function. If you are interested to the history behind how morals first developed you can read this - which is entirely my own guess, but it does sound reasonable.
I do not think I will end up being correct about everything. I have noticed a lot of mistakes that I have made in regard to many questions. The overwhelming chances is that I will very soon discover another mistake that I made and have to change accordingly. However, in the time being I do not see any mistakes in anything that I belief, and so because of that do think I am correct about everything. I am not very certain about that position, very little certainty, but as far as what I think, yes, I do think I am correct.
And this kind of attitude is perfectly okay. Each one of us who thinks rationally argues with others as we think we are correct and others are wrong. We are convinced of what we belief, so that is all okay. As long as we are willing to change our beliefs when they start to fall apart then it is completely acceptable to insist that we are correct about everything.
What is interesting to realize is that what the masses believe is delusional as it is entirely separate from how this world really is. Most of the world is still religious, one big delusion right there. Almost everyone in the world believes that you should vote for a politician as they really care for you and will act to make you better, another huge delusion right there. How many people believe that they have a goal to their lives? How many people believe that a relationship is based entirely on altruism and the spouse really loves the partner more than themselves? How many people believe that family is more important than anything in the world?
All of these are insanities, as they are false with the world around us. I will not bother to explain why these are insanities as I have explained every one of these points somewhere elsewhere on this blog.
Keep in mind that the masses believed in ridiculous stupid things about in the 1500's. They believed that the planet was flat. They believed that dragons existed. They believed the king cared for them. Today we recognize all of these ideas to be ridiculous and so by today's standard these people would be insane. But in their current time, if you lived in the 1500's, these ideas that they shared were called "sane".
This trend of the masses believing in insanity has existed with humanity since the beginning. Why should we think that these days are different? We have less insane people today as we have gotten smarter, but we are still very much insane.
However, the masses are the majority. They are the common rule. And as such they will always declare themselves to be the "sane". Remember that winners usually write the history books.
Then there are individuals who reject the interpretation of the masses and they rebel against their ways. However, these individuals are called "insane" for being different and believing in something else. Do you not think that as an individual beings to understand the problems with the world around him that he will eventually separate himself from the world? That he will disconnect with almost everything that the masses believe? In doing so he will become the "insane" one. Not because he is necessarily wrong, no, but rather because he is different. And it is the majority that decides how he shall be treated. They declare him to be insane as they see themselves as the sane ones. Insanity in individuals is rare, but in groups, parties, nations, and epochs, it is the rule.
Just as the Church and the man of God has called himself to be moral, and called the atheist the immoral one, while in actuality being the immoral one. Just as the state and the statist has called himself to be peaceful one, and the anti-statist as the dangerous one, while in actuality being the violent one. So too do the sane declare themselves the sane and all others who disagree with them to be the insane.
I may be insane. I have never said nor claimed to say that the insane are the sane as they themselves may be entirely wrong also. I rather said that the sane are the insane themselves.
Thursday, March 24, 2011
There is no way out of the problems that will face us in the future. Looking for politicians that you think will help you is just another utopian fantasy. To hope that some guy has the magical power to solve the problems that are waiting to happen. So stop looking for people who tell you false promises. Have fun at at least. Get someone as dumb as they can be. Imagine how much more the news would be interesting if Sarah Palin is president? Do you not think it is worth it for the entertainment?
In a strange way Sarah Palin might be good for the US. She would be so incompetent that nothing will get done. That is fiscal responsibility by default. If she is president for 8 years then nothing will get done. Which is actually a good thing. It is the US going into hibernation mode for 8 years, a little break, before everything breaks down.
So you can form your own little groupthink sessions talking about how terrible Sarah Palin is as you are too intellectually weak to discuss new unpopular ideas among yourselves so you stick to your comfort zone where each of your congratulate another for Palin bashing. But I will be having fun. I will sit back and watch the country fall apart. I think it be pretty funny to watch your try to fix it. I just want more entertainment, so get Sarah Palin in there, she entertains me.
Saturday, March 19, 2011
The question is "what is at the end of the universe?". Of course, to ask such a question one must assume to begin with that the universe is finite in size. All the current knowledge that science has learned about the universe points to the conclusion that it is finite in size and there are even estimates to just how large it is. Furthermore, the universe is expanding, it is getting larger and larger, but at every moment it is finitely large.
There is an obvious question that every person must ask, "if the universe is finite in size, then what lies beyond it?", or to put it another way, "what can lie beyond empty space?". Is there some sort of magic barrier that if we are to reach the edge of the universe we will crash into? Because saying that the universe is finite in size sounds as if there is an edge that we cannot walk over for if we were able to walk over then we will still be in a universe.
I believe that the explanation is very simple. This question of "what is at the end of the universe", or "what is beyond the universe", or "where is the edge of the universe?" sounds so surprisingly similar to the question of "what is at the end of the world?". This question was once asked, 500 years ago. People used to insist, 500 years ago, that the world was flat as it is finite and so that if we reach its edge we will fall off the world.
Intuitively such a primitive answer makes sense. But we know what the answer to that question is. The world is a sphere, there is no edge to it, when we move on the world we are simply moving along an arc of a circle. If we keep on moving in the same direction long enough, we will not fall off, but return to the same place where we were standing!
I believe the same answer can be generalized to the universe. The world that we know of is the surface of a two-sphere (two dimensional sphere) living in (embedded) a three-dimensional space. We can so too say that the universe is a surface of a three-sphere (three dimensional sphere) embedded in higher dimensional space.
The consequences of such a way of looking at the world immediately leads to an interesting conclusion. It means that if we are to move straight (relative to ourselves, but really curved with relative to higher dimensional space) long enough we will eventually return to were we started in the universe! However, this cannot happen. For the reason that the universe is expanding, and as we travel, the universe expands as well, thereby increasing our total travel and making it impossible to return back again.
There is a problem however. The version of geometry used in cosmology is hyperbolic geometry, and I am thinking of the universe in terms of elliptical geometry (as I am thinking of us living on a surface of a higher dimensional sphere). This is inconsistent with cosmology, so I am not sure how to resolve this contradiction.
Is this because Orthodox Jews are racist? Well they are, to an extent. They do very strongly believe in Jewish superiority over the non-Jews. And of the blacks they think they are a cursed group of people by Noach destined to live lives of slavery. These kind of ideas already make them racists.
However, to be fair, Orthodox Jews are not as racist as many of the bloggers make them out to be. There are many different forms of racism in the world. There are racists who want to rid the entire world of opposing races and only have their own kind. These are usually white nationalists or the Nazis. This is worst kind of racism.
There is a kind of racism where you hate the different races among you but you have no plans to dominate them, or oppress them. You just feel hatred towards a group of people. This is the kind of racism you do sometimes find in the US with regard to Mexicans. Because Mexicans are "stealing our jobs" so some people hate them for job stealing. Note that this kind of racism is not like the nationalists kind above. The Americans who hate these Mexicans for job stealing only hate them as they now see themselves as victims of undercutting, not because they are nationalists.
The least lenient kind of racism is to judge the virtues of others by using their race as a factor. This is the kind of racism that is all over the world, you see it on TV all the time. There are policies that use this kind of racism - like Affirmative Action. This is the best kind of racism as it does not have any kind of hate associated to any group of people, it just fails to look at people individualistically, but rather collectively. But this kind of racism does not carry any messages of superiority or hatred that the others ones do.
The kind of racism that Orthodox Jews have is a superiority complex. They think of their own kind as better than the world around them. Orthodox Judaism is a religion, yes, and so their superiority is partial religious superiority. But Jews are also in a way a kind of ethnic group. One can determine if one has any "Juden blutig" (Jew blood) in him by DNA tests. And Orthodox Jews, as an ethnic group, still insist that the Judenblutig makes Juden superior to the people of the world. Thus, Orthodox Judaism is racist in that it carries with them the message of superiority.
However, this kind of racial superiority does not carry with it a message of hatred. I know the Orthodox Juden quite well. I do not really sense a feeling of hatred among them to black people. They do believe they are superior to blacks, and they do often make jokes about blacks. But they do believe in their jokes. So when they say the theory of evolution is true, for blacks, as they descended from monkeys, they do mean it seriously in that they think they are superior to blacks. But there is no hatred. They hire black janitors to work for them in shuls. And they treat them with respect. They might have black neighbors with whom they are very friendly. They even can speak positively of these people at the Shabbos table.
So I think it is fair to say that Orthodox Jews do not have the hateful kind of racism towards other people, but rather they have the superiority complex kind of racism towards themselves. It is like having a dog. You have a dog as a pet, you can love your dog, be friendly with it, but you will always see it as inferior to you. This is essentially the kind of racism that Jews have.
Let me return back to what I started talking about - an all white shul phenomenon. The reason why Orthodox Jewish shuls are white (or almost all purely white) is not because they ban black people (or other kind of people) from entering. If you are a black person and you enter into their shul they will not say anything. They will not stop you in any way. Even though you would be black they will recognize you as a Juden before a black. So they will ignore your blackness and just accept your Jewishness. As I said since the Juden are not the hateful kind of racists they will not be bothered with black people coming to their shul. I have seen black people in shul, and asian people in shul, it is not very common, but it does happen. And when it happens nobody cares and nobody talks about it at the Shabbos table.
The most basic, and the best, explanation to why shuls are an almost all white phenomenon is simply because Orthodox Jews marry other Orthodox Jews, and hence most of the Jewish people will be white. The only way to have a black person in shul is if he converted to Judaism, which is not too common because Orthodox Judaism is so crazy that essentially only those born and indoctrinated into it will remain Jews.
So yes there is Jewish racism but it is not as bad as many other kinds of racism.
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
You often hear old conservatives talk about this. Especially when it comes to the "moral decline of our society", and the "perversion of our times", also the "promiscuity of our generation", and its "extreme stupidity". They remind us of their good old days, days which they claim did not decline in morals, and were superior to our modern values in every way.
Here is the problem. Every generation was perverted and promiscuous. You know why? Because for the necessity of survival people fucked all the time. This is not some new recent phenomenon, the cavemen were doing it 100,000 years ago. Boys masturbated just as much 100 years ago as they did today. Because masturbation is a way to satisfy the necessity for promiscuity. There was no evil conspiracy to make the boys masturbate, they did it on their own. Blame nature for making us promiscuous. And there was just as much adultery and cheating going on back then than as it is now.
Except one thing has changed. People are much more comfortable being open sexually. That is all that changed. Back in the "good old days" if you came out as homosexual people would hate you. Back in the "good old days" if you told people you like porn or sex people will think you are perverted and evil.
What changed between the "good old days" and the modern days is that in the modern days people are more honest about themselves. It was in the good old days when people were ashamed of their own desires, it was in the good old days when the people were mentality weak and had to confine themselves to the mentality of slaves to be disgusted with themselves. But the people are still the same.
And it gets worse and worse with age. The older someone is the more they miss the good old days. Just to remind you that people owned slaves, and when there were world wars, and when women were on a sub-human level to men. How is that exactly looking up to the past? The past sucks. And yes the present sucks. But at least the future is unwritten. Instead of deluding ourselves for the past, we can try to make the future more enjoyable. And you know why you miss the "good old days", because you were young once, and you miss that portion of your life when you were young. Young people have the freest minds, they have lowest control from authority, and that is what you really miss. It is only when you become an adult do you accept the bullshit around you that your life becomes miserably pathetic, so you miss your teenage years.
Monday, March 14, 2011
I am amazed and astounded by how many people take this test seriously. This test is complete garbage. When I took this test some time ago, and no, I am not taking it now, it is too much of a waste of time, I ended up in the middle! That is right, according to this test I am some sort of moderate. Me, a moderate, that is funny. I am extreme in my views, I am crazy, I am a nut-case and I am madly insane. There is no way I can be in the middle. But according to this test I am in the middle.
I have taken tests before that have given the correct results. This test is complete garbage. It would be excusable if this was a bad test since a lot of stuff on the internet are stupid, but it is not excusable because so many people take this test seriously. People have told me I should check out where I stand politically and gave me this test.
But this test gets even more ridiculous. You can look at this chart:
Look at where they put Hitler. According to them Hitler was on the right-wing. Since when? Since when has Hitler been on the right-wing? Since never. Hitler ran for the National Socialist Labor Party of the Workers. That is as left-wing as you can possibly be. Hitler should way over to the left wing right next to Joseph Stalin. In truth there was not a big difference between Stalin and Hitler. If you are on the right-wing you are in favor of capitalism. Ayn Rand was on the right-wing. Milton Friedman was on the right-wing. Because they are capitalists. I am on the right-wing for I am also a capitalist retard myself. If you are on the left-wing then you are in favor of social programs by the government, rather than those programs being done privately. Nowhere in Hitler's platform did he stand for such an idea, he was in favor of heavy government programs. To say that Hitler was a right-winger is to be completely ignorant of what left-winger and right-winger means.
Then look at where they put Milton Friedman. According to them if Milton was to take that test he would end up all the way on the right and near the authoritarian division. I took the test, I am influenced by him, I think it is fair to say that what I score on it would be similar to what he scored on it. But I ended up nowhere close to where he is. This test is garbage.
What troubles me even more is that they put Friedman near the authoritarian dividing line. Let us consider Friedman's social positions. Friedman would be in favor of gay marriage. Okay, he would probably want to abolish all state marriage, but in the time being I am sure he would support gay marriage. He was in favor of getting rid of all the drug laws. In that way he is even more liberal than the liberals who only want to cut the drug laws for marijuana. I have actually never heard Friedman talk about guns but I am pretty sure he was in favor of them too. He would oppose any kind of FCC control of content. So how can he possibly be put near the authoratian division line? Milton should be all the way in the bottom right corner.
This test is clearly biased. I would guess that it was probably made by liberals. I have no idea, it is hard to imagine conservatives coming up with such a test. It is biased against anyone on the right-wing. Their implicit message is that anyone who is on the right-wing shares a similar economic position as Hitler - which is not true, and that they are close to being authoritarian as Friedman. They want to discourage people from being on the right-wing. Furthermore, I cannot get to the right-wing when I take the test. If it is hard to score right on this test then perhaps the message is that you are a liberal so you should vote as one.
And let me make this clear. I have no problem with bias. I am biased as fuck. I have no problem with anyone being biased about anything, bias is good. The big problem here is that the test is not fair. The test seems to be rigged in a way to be anti-right and move you to the left. I am biased but I am fair. I may make fun of people who disagree with me but I do honestly listen to their position. If this test had fair results then its bias can be excused. But it does not. It is both biased and unfair.
I have taken political compass tests that were fair and accurate. They put me exactly where I belonged. Take those tests. But whatever you do, ignore this test like a plague, its unfairness is equivalent to dividing by zero.
Saturday, March 12, 2011
If you do not believe me here are some sources that say this point-of-view:
One of the people in those links is Larry Summers, strangely I just mentioned him in one of my recent posts. Somehow I am mentioning him again. That is right, Larry said that this earthquake is good for the Japanese economy because it increases spending.
Here is the really funny part. If you go to Wikipedia and search for Larry Summers, Wikipedia already linked to the economic error he mentioned in his article (and people say Wikipedia is slow):
In March 2011, in relation to the earthquake disaster in Japan, Summers made
himself supposedly guilty of what is known in Economics as "the broken window
fallacy" by stating in an interview on CNBC that the earthquake could
temporarily boost the economy of Japan.
Paul Krugman did not seem to say anything about this earthquake positively affecting the Japanese economy, though he did say, "the catastrophe will, of course, require large public spending to aid recovery". Is that an allusion to the broken window fallacy again? Could be, I am not sure.
Why is this a fallacy? The answer is very simple. There is an entire good book written on this called, Economics in One Lesson, by Henry Hazlitt. The general argument of the book is that the single common mistake in economics is to look at the seen and overlook the unseen.
Consider this story. Suppose I break the windows of your car. You catch me and ask me what I am doing. I respond to you, "I am stimulating an economy". You would ask, "how?". And I will respond, "because now you need to go to a car shop which will fix your window, and so my destruction is creating jobs". This argument is actually appealing to a degree. Most people would fall into it. Most people would probably say, "I guess you are right, it is just wrong to break people's windows". But this argument in favor of stimulating the economy is wrong. For the following simple reason. If you pay attention to what is being done (the seen) then it is clear that a lot of work is being done and the economy is being stimulated. However, it makes much more imagination to realize the unseen forces. In other words, if the window of the car was not broken, then you would be richer, and so you would spend that money elsewhere. If it costs 500 dollars to fix a window, and I did not break the window, then you would spend that money on something else. You would probably buy yourself some books or whatever on that extra money. And so you are still stimulating the economy in a different way. However, people do not realize this because it is unseen. In the end of breaking the window there is no actual stimulation, and you lost a window, so there is a total economic loss as a result of that. The exact same argument is applicable to war and to earthquakes. It is sad that these economic "experts" cannot realize such a basic common sense notion.
Now consider public schools. They have been in place for a long time already. And they are only declining in their value. For the past ten, twenty, maybe even thirty years the public schools have been doing downhill. Their results are embarrassingly bad, test results are getting worse. And what is the solution that most people propose to this problem? More money needs to spend! Somehow not enough money is being spend on public education. That is what has been going on already, more money was being spend - and there were no positive changes. By what madness and insanity can people propose to spend even more and more money? If this behemoth is falling apart then it is time to fire it. The whole public education system needs to end, or at least changed in very radical ways.
And of course when you say that public education needs to be fired. People think of you as some sort of manic, "what you do not want children to be educated?", they will tell you. Look, you had decades to do something about this education problem and nothing been done, stop telling me how you contribute to the education of children. I actually care about proper education, this is why I oppose this behemoth. I can guarantee you if there was no public education and we only had private schools here in the US that were in such a bad condition as public schools people would be screaming and furious for the state to take over education. However, this kind of outrage is passive when it comes to the already existing model.
Then there are the teacher unions. Who are not happy with their current salary. These public teachers have benefits to them that most other people do not have. They do not have to work in the summer time. They also get to retire earlier. I believe they also get their retirement deals without any of the risks attached that other people do. These teachers are protected from competition, it is really hard to fire them, if you get a position as a public teacher you can be sure you will have the job till the end of your life. And finally they have much higher salaries when compared to the national average, more than private school teachers.
Somehow these people are not happy with their current salaries. They want more and more for themselves. You know what that is called: greed. But of course, it will never be called "greed" because these are public teachers who are selfless servants for the education of poor children. And even if their benefits get cut they are still better off than the national average.
But why are benefits being cut for these holy selfless servants who have no self-interest whatsoever? Because there is no money available to sustain all of these benefits. And why not? Because government is a big giant ponzi-scheme. You take money from one group and give it to another. You promise the current citizens all the good benefits and they get supported by the working generation, and when the working generation retires their benefits get supported by the next working generation. So forth and so forth. That is how much we suck as a species. We take from the unborn to pay off the people now. And we never stop to think that perhaps ponzi-schemes are not sustainable. If ponzi-schemes are not sustainable then what would happen in 50 years from now when all of those good fortune promises turn out being empty? We never stop to think about the generations below us, as long we are are doing fine, fuck them, we are all that matter. So all of these cuts that are being done now you are going to see more of them in the future, that is what happens with these schemes, some people are going to be fucked over.
Do not misunderstand me though. I am not blaming the public teacher unions. It is really not their fault. One of my messages that I try to communicate is not to look for scapegoats. Do not search for people to point to and say "they are the fault of all our problems". Not only it is a wrong thing to do, it is entirely counter-productive as it stops you from looking for real answers that explain the problems we are facing. The problem is not the president, the problem is not teachers, it is not the rich bankers, it is not the homosexuals in California, and it is not the Jews. The problem are ideas. The problem is the irrationality on what the whole system is based on. That is what we need to be fighting against, ideas, not people. Let me give you an analogy to clear this up. Consider religion - one of the great evils perpetuated against mankind. It is okay to hate religion, but not to hate religious people. Religious people are simply the result of indoctrination that was put into them as children. They are not the problem. The problem is the idea that was put into their head. So we should look at ideas within our existing system to understand where the problems are coming from and not put that blame on groups of people within this system. Yes, it is true, public teachers suck, they want to get as much as possible for as little risk and work as possible, but guess what, we all do, we all want that, we all suck.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
The first is that I cannot possibly care any more or any less about the discussion of unions. It is such a boring topic for me. It is like Israel. Israel is so unbelievably boring to me that I just cannot possibly care for it. If tomorrow I hear on the news how Israel got bombed out of existence I would probably not care. Israel is like ballet for me, something I have absolutely no interest it. So if I found out that all ballet dancers mysteriously died of AIDS tomorrow it would cause no interest for me. But I do not mean this in a bad way. That is, I am not saying I hate Israel. I just do not care about it. Nowhere do I hope for a destruction of Israel, for that would mean I have an interest in it, a negative interest, but an interest nonetheless. I genuinely have no interest in Israel. And maybe I am ignorant. That is possible, maybe Israel really is an important topic to know, but it was just so boring to me that I cannot make myself find any interest in reading about it. Same thing with unions. I genuinely have no interest in them. I am not anti-unions, I am not pro-unions, I have no interest. Boring topic that I never enjoy discussing. And again, maybe I am being really stupid right now, maybe I should care and take a position because it is so important. So I struggle to force myself to write this post because I a lot of people are talking about unions at this moment so I figured I should say what I think about them - since we all know I am the God the ideas, anything I say is 100% absolutely true forever until the end of time.
The second thing is that I am not anti-unions. If you are a proud hardcore Marxist I should be the least of your worries. Because I will not in any way try to stop you and the workers of the world uniting against the evil greedy Jewish capitalist factory owners. If the proletariat wants to unite, go ahead, have fun and enjoy yourself. I believe in the freedom of association and assemblies. Workers certainly have the right to form their own associations together. And I am fine with that if they think they can increase their wages that way. So if you want to live in your collectively operated world, go ahead, have a commune, also have the worst economy in the entire history of the world, but you get to at least enjoy yourselves. It is in this way that I am not your enemy as that I will not use any means to stop you. I will only tell you that you are being stupid in that you believe in central economic calculation. However, the ultimate decision is yours. What I am against are union legal monopolies that prevent labor through state intervention. That is a separate kind of a union. That is a legal monopoly enacted through the state. And that I would oppose as I oppose the state itself. Thus, it is not really my opposition to unions, as I am neutral about them, but rather my opposition of state monopolies.
There is only one thing that I want to say about unions. I think this is extremely important to keep in mind, and at the same time common sense. This is an idea that is very often overlooked in conversations about unions.
Let us assume that I propose a law to stop airplane accidents by suggesting to pass a law against gravity? People will find it really dumb of me to push for such a law. The law of gravity is a natural law of the universe, while any bill that is written is just a human made law that cannot override natural laws. Suppose for a moment that market forces in the economy are just as real natural laws as the law of gravity? I know most people do not believe in this, and if you are reading this you probably do not accept this, but for a moment accept it to see what that would imply. This would imply that any human made law, no matter how well intentioned, or thoughtful, or virtuous, can ever override the natural laws of the market. Such made laws will be doomed for failure.
Now I will resume my discussion about what I think is the single most important idea concerning the necessity of unions. Wages. Wages are determined not by the desire of the capitalist but by market forces. And so any laws trying to override such forces will be doomed to fail - hence showing that unions have very little importance. I will be more specific.
There are many factors that go into determining wages. The capitalist wants to give as little as possible for maximum work. The workers want to get as much as possible for the least amount of work (hence showing that workers are also "greedy", yes the capitalist is greedy, but so is the worker as well, of course, this obvious statement is hardly ever mentioned because workers are assumed to be immediately innocent). If there are more workers than usual then competition among them will drive wages down. If there are more capitalists than usual then competition among them will drive wages up. Some capitalists can be good people (yes, that can happen) and give their workers a "decent wage" (whatever that even means) out of his compassion - though this is more rare.
All of those are just some of the factors in determining the wages of labor. However, I purposely left out the most fundamental component to the wage of labor. And that is productivity. Productivity is the fundamental law that determines the wages of labor. Even if you are someone who is the biggest socialist in the entire world, and someone who rejects all the ideas of the market economy, and someone who thinks anyone in favor of free trade must be working for corporations, you must accept the proposition that productivity determines wages (as the main factor) for purely mathematical reasons. There is no economics at all in the statement that wages are determined by productivity. This is a purely mathematical statement.
Consider the following situation. Say that a worker produces 10 dollars per hour of value to the capitalist. The capitalist "exploits" the worker by "stealing" his labor when he earns profit on his labor. For illustrative purposes let us say that the capitalist earns 1 dollar for ever hour on the worker. This would mean that the wage of the worker would be 9 dollars per hour. Simple, right?
There is no way that the capitalist will pay a worker beyond 10 dollars an hour. As that would make the capitalist run on a loss. Why would a capitalist employ a person to loss money on him? The capitalist will not operate for any wage above 10 dollars. Even if the capitalist was the nicest, sweetest, and altruistic capitalist in the world, he will not pay a wage of anything above 10 dollars per hour. It is mathematically impossible. This is not even any kind of economics. As I said, this is nothing but common sense.
Therefore, it means that as the levels of productivity decreases then the wages of labor must decline. This is, as I said, essentially a law of nature. It would be foolish then to propose a law to change this wage decline from happening.
Now let us put all of this into perspective. Humans have for the most part lived terrible lives. They had to do a lot more work in the past than they had to do in the present. And so the workers of the past were much much poorer than today's workers. The reason why they were so poor was precisely because labor was unproductive. If you plow in a farm for 12 hours a day and only produce 10 dollars of wages in 1800 your wage must be lower that 10. However, if you want to earn 60 an hour it means you must be living in a world for which your labor is productive enough. Otherwise, it is purely impossible to be payed a higher wage.
This is precisely why I say that unions have little necessity to them. If workers are earning very little money then it does not mean that it is the fault of the capitalists, it simply means that their labor is incredibly unproductive. A law cannot change that from happening. If workers are earning only 2 dollars a day because they product 2.50 per hour then the maximum they can earn is only 2.50 per hour. Anything beyond that will make the capitalist shut down the work and these workers will lose jobs - which is even worse.
So why have wages raised? They raised because the productivity of workers has increased. This transitional period happened during the industrial revolution when the productivity of workers increased more than any time in history. As capital accumulation continued to take place the productivity of workers rose which in turned made it possible for them to have higher wages.
This is true not just for wages but for working hours and working conditions and benefits. Working conditions and benefits are added costs to the capitalist. If the security the capitalist must pay and the benefits he gives exceeds the productivity of working he will simply shut down the job as he is running on a loss. Working hours were determined by low wages. If people are earning extremely low wages (as it naturally happened with little productivity) then they must naturally work extremely long hours and days to maintain their own substinence.
When people talk about the important impact of unions they forget this simple point. They give an exaggerated story about how workers were exploited in low wages and terrible conditions, it was only the state and unions that stepped in to rescue them. The way way more accurate and honest story is that one hundred years ago capital was so weak that worker productivity was low - which must, for common sense reasons, lead to low wages, no benefits, bad working conditions, and long hours.
If you are someone who truly supports unions the only kind of argument you can say in favor of them is that they make the life of workers easier. But you cannot say how it was the unions that lead to increase in wages and conditions - because that simply rejects the fundamental connection between worker productivity and wages. You may argue that unions had a positive effect in increasing wages or conditions. That would be a completely separate argument from what I am saying. But you cannot say that it were unions alone that are accountable for the vast increases in wages. The increase for the repayment for workers was only possible as capital improved. Indeed, if it was really true that unions alone account for everything positive in work then it would mean that 200 years ago the unions were able to achieve this great standard of living through collective bargaining. Though that never happened, and for a simple reason, it was purely impossible for these changes to take place pre-industrial revolution as it is impossible to stop plane crashes by passing laws on gravity.
Monday, March 7, 2011
You know how studies are collected? I have no idea. They can be collected in any way. They can be collected by fifty years of the highest quality of testing. Or they can be collected by a bunch of graduate schools who who were busy fucking eachother more than paying attention to their actual experiments. They carelessly preformed those experiments submitted it as part of their research project as they were on a week trip in Paris.
Unless you can tell me exactly how those numbers were collected and who did the collecting I am not interested in what any study said. Just say what you want to say without claiming what you are saying is irrefutable true because some study shows it.
But the basic reason why I do not pay attention to studies is that they contradict themselves more than the Bible. One week I see a headline which says, "new study shows that drinking coffee causes cancer". In a week I see a new headline which says, "a study says that drinking coffee helps reduce risks for cancer". Next week later it is the other way around.
It amazes me, I just cannot comprehend, how these poeple who read these studies take them seriously. Do these people not realize that every week there is a new contradiction to their previous study? Some people actually take this kind of stuff seriously. If they do, how can they deal with the never ending contradiction to what they do in response to these studies?
Just relax. Stop being so worried and concerned. Ignore these studies and enjoy yourself with what you enjoy eating or drinking. If you die a few years younger then you lived a happier life with less worries.
I made my own study, if you are interested. My study shown that all studies are non-sense and are always wrong.
Life is eating bullshit. From the moment you are born your brainwashed indoctrinated parents feed the bullshit they were fed when they were children. It is not their fault. They are feeding you much of the same bullshit they ate when they were children. And this process continues. Parents feeing their children bullshit. Their kids grow up and then feed their children the bullshit they were fed. And so on.
It is not just our life it is the entire history of people. For nearly every part of history people were eating bullshit. Eating so much bullshit that it was coming out of their mouth, nose and ears. Then people had wars with one another, because they ate different bullshit. They would tell one another, "my bullshit is better than your bullshit". Then they went to war and died over bullshit.
The most abundant element is not hydrogen but bullshit. And I know there is going to be some chemist who will tell me that bullshit contains hydrogen. Well, do you know what hydrogen contains? Not quarks, deeper than that. No, not strings, deeper than that. What is at the bottom of the rabbit hole, Alice? Bullshit, that is what. This world is entirely bullshit.
It were only a few select individuals who were able to see past through this bullshit. All the slight improvements people have went through in history was the result of an inspiration of some person who was able to influence the world to see the bullshit, or at least question their bullshit. But largerly the world was unchanged otherwise, still running on the very same bullshit.
That is life for you, eating on bullshit. Children are helpless victims of having bullshit stuffed down their mouths as they are growing up. Adults are even worse. Adults been eating their bullshit for their entire lives. For fifty years, for sixty years, the bullshit that they ate no longer fits into them anymore.
Teenagers are the only age group that I look up to more than others. Sure they are dumb and stupid, but so is mostly everybody. Adults are also extremely dumb, they just have experience how to live life (or to put it another way, how to live with this bullshit and be used to it). But teenagers have something special.
Teenagers still have a chance to escape from the bullshit that is being fed to them. Teenagers have the mind to question the bullshit they were taught as children. While at the same time not yet in the world of bullshit. It gives them a little of hope to try to live their lives to avoid bullshit whenever possible.
Saturday, March 5, 2011
It is sad enough that a lot of people do not know what free speech even is. How many people believe in restrictions to what people can say, especially if it is towards race or sex? What is just as bad, or perhaps worse, is that these people cannot explain to you why free speech is important.
The general response to why free speech is important that you would most likely hear is that free speech allows for all ideas to express themselves. So that people would be able to decide for themselves what they want to believe and what not. In a free society people should be able to decide for themselves what they want to believe, and free speech is what allows for that.
And that is true. I am not disputing the above answer. However, I have a question on that answer. If the importance of free speech is that it allows for people to spread their ideas freely amongst themselves then why not have the state set standards?
I think we can all agree that anyone spreading the ideas to kill the Juden is not really spreading any idea, but spreading hatred around. And hatred is harmful for society. Hatred is not any kind of idea that has any kind of value at all, instead it is extremely negative. So the state should set standards to what people can say? Hatred should be made illegal. No one can publish a book that puts hatred towards a particular group of people, that is not an idea anymore, and so it have no value to it. Offensive remarks made about individuals have no purpose either other than to offend. Offensive speech directed toward an individual in a book or on TV, or any other place that spreads information, should be illegal. This kind of speech does not add anything to the marketplace of ideas, we can agree to that. Rather it just makes people fight amongst themselves, it is counter-productive.
The sad thing is that a lot of people do agree with what I just said. If I expressed that above position with respect to free speech a lot of people would agree. They will say "yes, I agree, there needs to be standards set for a better society".
So what makes free speech important? The answer is very simple. Free speech is important because no one has the power to decide what can be said.
If a group of armed people has the power to what can be said and cannot be said do not be surprised that they will use that kind of power to their own advantage. You cannot trust power, you cannot trust the state that it will "set standards", as people claim, but rather it will gain an enormous amount of power over the content of what can be said.
The First Amendment was put there not for porn, but for speech against the state. If the state is doing something terrible it cannot have the power to silence the opposition and attempt to prevent those ideas from being spread. It is true that porn, just like anything else, falls into the category of free speech. But the true intent of free speech, its real intention, is to oppose tyranny.
Now I take it one step further and I call it the Zero Amendment, which was never part of the Constitution, which says " ... the state shall pass no law with regard to anything ... ". And this is a radical idea, I agree, but it is based on the same concept. You cannot trust the state with anything. A lot of people say the state should set standards for the economy. But just like with my position with free speech I simply do not buy into that premise. I do not accept that they are on your side and that they care about you, rather they are a power structure which will grow in its power over time (as they clearly have, by enormous amounts). So when people say that the state needs to "set standards for the economy", I simply think to myself, "do I want them to set standards for free speech?". Just like the fear with speech is that they will silence opposition, so to the fear with economics. That is, they will use their control over the economy to benefit themselves and gain more power. You simply cannot trust this kind of a power. Their monopoly on power must be broken.
Friday, March 4, 2011
There is a double standard between how women are treated and how men are treated. There is also the double standard between how races are treated, in particular blacks and whites. The double standards is anti-male and anti-white, it is a message that only the male can be a sexist, and it is only the white that can be a racist. Of course, liberals for the most part will always deny this, but I am amazed at what kind of world they are living in to not realize that this is going on around them.
You hear in a news story about two white kids beating on a black kid. The reaction of the news is that this is automatically a hate crime. The white kids must have done this because they were racist and were motivated by the KKK. You will start seeing the Al Sharpton's and the Jesse Jackson's of the world appearing the news and talking about what a racist act this was and how terrible this was. We have seen it thousands of times.
Now reserve this story. Say a news story mentions two black kids beating on a white kid. A liberal would never admit that this was motivated by racism. Rather it was just a conflict. It was just a conflict between two people that turned out being black and white.
And I agree. I agree that this story was probably just a conflict where race was just a coincidence. Racism is mostly dead. I know liberals love to repeat that racism is big and alive, but there is no reason to believe in that. There is a black president, there many other blacks that held over high positions recently, so there is no need to assume this anymore. It is just not consistent with what we know of the world. Racism only really exists in old people. But who even cares what old people think anyway, they are old and stupid who are going to die soon. Therefore, if two teens fight with one another and they happened to be opposite colors, it is much more likely that it was just a teenage conflict that they often have amongst themselves.
But what I do not agree with is the double standard. When a black teen beats on a white teen that is a just a conflict (which is probably true as I said). But when a white teen beats on a black teen that must be racism and hatred. For many liberals racism is a one way street.
Want another example of a double standard? When people carried signs of George Bush comparing him to a monkey there was no outrage. When a newspaper referenced a bill by Barak as being written by monkeys (which is even less lenient than comparing George to a monkey) it was a bit controversy.
The same exact double standard exists with regard to women and men.
I have no problem at all when anyone saying "women are better than men". It is probably true if measured as a statistical average. I am not sure why that is something to be proud of. Men are dumb pathetic selfish meatbags, but women are too, just a bit morally better. How is that a compliment to be better than a man? It is like finding out you have syphilis instead of AIDS, sure syphilis is not as bad, but it still sucks. Anyway, let me get back on topic.
But my problem is the double standard. So when I say that women on the average suck at math because mathematical abilities require a high end on the intelligence distribution and women have a lower standard deviation than men, that this statement would not be interpreted as a sexist statement. If a woman says something about a man, that is acceptable. When a man says something about a woman, it must be because he is sexist. Sexism is a one way street.
That is my problem. I want this double standard to end. I want both men and women putting down each other without being concerned about whether they are sexist or not.
This book by Abrams illustrates the problem. A book on Man Down is perfectly acceptable and nobody will ever think of Abrams as a sexist. But if such a book was called Woman Down then Abrams would probably be fired from his job for being a sexist.
If Larry Summers was Louis Summers and Louis was a female professor that said something about men, even if it was nasty, nothing would have happened to her. But Larry, being a man, and making an honest observation about women in science, must have been a sexist because he is, oh my Science, a man.
There are female professors whose entire careers are putting down men. They are called feminists. Again, I got no problem with them putting down men. My problem is that a man says something that they start crying their own eyes and want to silence him. This is a double standard.
There is a double standard that exists between normal people and retarded people. If a retard called a normal person "retarded" then nobody would ever object or get offended. But if a normal person called a retard a "retard", then people would get all offended and say that is an inappropriate thing to say (I myself am not sure why that would be inappropriate, the retard does not understand the insult anyway, he is retarded, so why should it matter?). There the double standard is obvious. But why should women be a protected species? If they are equal to men then they need to be treated the same way men are treated, not like little children. It is much more acceptable for women to say bad things about men, and not at all acceptable for a man to say even reasonable things about women. Women are not retards and they are not children. It is about time they get treated the same way as everybody else, stop giving them this special treatment.